Comments | yellville: (без темы)

yellville

(Untitled)

Jan 27, 2007 18:53

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 ( Read more... )

opinions, polls

Comments 9

xellinamazoku January 28 2007, 00:31:06 UTC

one name: ghandi

yellville January 28 2007, 01:16:14 UTC

But under the analogy I'm drawing, "radical" and "militant" are not synonymous. Ghandi's methods were very radical. Take the first example I gave-- the NWP was not violent or militant, but they used extreme methods such as (you'll get the hint) hunger strikes. ;D

Still, I see how one of the examples I gave-- to wit, MLK and Malcolm X-- would be confusing.

xellinamazoku January 28 2007, 01:23:04 UTC

oh! ok! yes, i misunderstood your post. i would actually have to change my answer to "yes", then

xellinamazoku January 28 2007, 00:31:29 UTC

or even gandhi

yellville January 28 2007, 01:17:22 UTC

Ooh, looks like I made the same mistake with my first comment. XD

yourgfsmells January 28 2007, 17:04:45 UTC

well, I believe that if not for the extremist groups, we would not know the borderline of what exactly is radical. I know that kinda doesn't make sense but just think...if we only had the peaceful groups then it would seem like they were all hardcore when they really aren't, there really isn't a border ( ... )

yellville January 28 2007, 17:35:14 UTC

Actually, everything you said makes perfect sense. It's not confusing at all. : D

You have an excellent point with the first paragraph! Without extremist groups, the peaceful ones would be considered radical, and their causes might suffer as a result. Not to mention (and this is straying from your point a little, but getting back to the entry's main points) without radical activists, relatively neutral organizations would provide the sole extent of change. And that wouldn't get much done at all.

Hahaha! That kid at Dunkin's sounds fairly ace. I have to wonder, though, how many books Malcolm X wrote. I've only come across The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and it couldn't have been more than six dollars. (Great book, by the way.) Hardly enough to break a paycheck. XD ( ... )

spkokay January 29 2007, 21:35:46 UTC

In the WorldPlease meeting I went to today in my school the IR kids had to read something on conservative Democrats... or maybe it was liberal Republicans? Yeah, I think it was liberal Republicans.

Or maybe not... XD

I really can't remember, and I forgot where I was going with this, but... I guess the point was that both exist? Or... something?

I feel so dumb. XD

spkokay January 29 2007, 21:41:20 UTC

Though I'm probably restating what my incredibly intelligent, up-to-date girlfriend said, here it is anyways:

I think that, a little past what Natasha said, the radicals are the people who get attention, and then the peaceful negotiators do... just that. Peacefully negotiate. Though it's doubtful that, what with them being peaceful and all, they would have gotten attention at all without the radicals pushing behind them.

Now excuse me while I think up a way to physically kill that horribly-constructed sentence that precedes this one.