Part of King’s strategy was to provoke the system to use violence, have the media there to record it, then broadcast it and get sympathy from those who could help influence a change. Those places that did not use overt violence against the demonstrators, such as Chicago, effectively stopped the campaigns through bureaucratic means. In Chicago, the problems were every bit as deep as in the South, but the administration knew better than to unleash dogs on kids. They just held press conferences and congratulated King for showing them problems, then never did a thing. To this day many of the issues King wanted to help alleviate are a major problem there (I am from Chicago originally). This also happened in Selma, The police chief actually read Gandhi before the protesters came. Civil Rights in that city took much longer as a result.

Thus in the Birmingham jail, he said that indeed the police had been “rather nonviolent” in handling the protesters, then denounced them for doing it for the cynical reason of upholding Jim Crow: no problem here ladies and gentlemen. Just these rowdy, illegal protesters whom we have to sweep up and keep out of people’s way.

I’d say that if and when any police force does such things they do it for cynical reasons of upholding their unjust system (and all governments are unjust…a la Barth, Epistle to the Romans). I think we might be in the same church Scott…you are Mennonite right? WE got idiotic Mennonites who advocate, help develop, etc. for nonlethal weapons for police and such as a *more effective tool* for the government. They are right about it being more effective probably, but that is the problem. I don’t want a tighter grip! Mennonites irritate me to no end when they do this sort of thing.

Regarding Wink: I have serious doubts about his reading of the Sermon on the Mount. I do not know of any biblical scholar who takes that seriously. But there may be some. I just don’t know of any.

I haven’t read much of anything of Wink, honestly. I’d be interested to read more about Marva Dawn’s criticisms, also. One of my early hear-say exposures to Wink was to his way of reading nonviolent resistance teachings into the Sermon on the Mount – “going the second mile”, “turning the other cheek”, “giving your tunic as well”. Is that also total crap in your opinion?

I really don’t think the issue with the comment is not being able to imagine an alternative to democracy, but rather misusing the phrase to advocate the status quo versus other forms of representation or governance WITHIN democracy (supermajorities, federal vs. state, lack of minority parties representation, etc.) If the phrase is thrown out to say well your just going to have to get the votes in this system perhaps it is a lazy power play. But some sort of patriotic triumphalism, it is not. Generally both parties aren’t contemplating the Zuni council.

Which is something, in my mind, far more harmful than condescension. It is an active consturction of political power that conceals its activity. It wins the game by setting the game up such that any competitors are initially disqualified.

Now I don’t know if you have me in mind in with “vague and angsty” claim, but I would hope that my other comments, and certainly this one, are pretty clear and analytical. My sentiment is not bruised, I just think Churchill’s statement produces bad effects.

I’d be happy for you to address any claims i am clearly making, but “vague and angsty”, if it is indeed aimed at me, seems patronizing itself.