(no subject)
For the past couple of days, I've been pondering whether or not activism is futile without both radical and peaceful influences. The NAWSA and the National Womens' Party played on each other's weaknesses during the women's suffrage movement. The former stayed very neutral, never proposing that a federal female suffrage law be made. The NWP had much less political influence than the NAWSA, but they used extremist strategies and held all-or-nothing goals. If the NAWSA had been the only women's suffrage organization around, a Constitutional amendment for womens' suffrage would have been delayed by decades or more. If the NWP had fought alone, Washington could have easily ignored them.
Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr., in my humble opinion, needed each others' views for more than "saftey in numbers". God knows Malcom X would have had an even harder time preaching his militant views if Dr. King hadn't already tested the waters with his then-shocking black rights movement. I think it goes both ways: without Malcom X and similar extremist black leaders, Black Pride and drastic action towards racial equality would be stunted even today.
Would human welfare be as well-supported without the options of neutral charities (Salvation Army), extremist organizations (Amnesty International), and middle-of-the-road options (Direct Relief International)? I'll be damned if every Salvation Army supporter would be comfortable with the amnesty for terrorists that (to put it very, very basically) Amnesty International holds. And here's a personal testimonial for you: if I hadn't felt empathy for Amnesty International's mission, I never would have sought out and become a regular donor to a less-extreme human rights charity (Direct Relief International).
I'm not writing these things to record a fully-formed opinion; I do not yet posess one on the subject. I'm just giving it some thought. What I really want to hear is what you think:
Poll
I'd prefer you comment, but the poll captures the eye. XD
Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr., in my humble opinion, needed each others' views for more than "saftey in numbers". God knows Malcom X would have had an even harder time preaching his militant views if Dr. King hadn't already tested the waters with his then-shocking black rights movement. I think it goes both ways: without Malcom X and similar extremist black leaders, Black Pride and drastic action towards racial equality would be stunted even today.
Would human welfare be as well-supported without the options of neutral charities (Salvation Army), extremist organizations (Amnesty International), and middle-of-the-road options (Direct Relief International)? I'll be damned if every Salvation Army supporter would be comfortable with the amnesty for terrorists that (to put it very, very basically) Amnesty International holds. And here's a personal testimonial for you: if I hadn't felt empathy for Amnesty International's mission, I never would have sought out and become a regular donor to a less-extreme human rights charity (Direct Relief International).
I'm not writing these things to record a fully-formed opinion; I do not yet posess one on the subject. I'm just giving it some thought. What I really want to hear is what you think:
Poll
I'd prefer you comment, but the poll captures the eye. XD