This past week you wrote of the possible necessity for destructive or societally invasive action in a revolutionary age in your column, which was aptly headlined: “Fight for equality pushes limits of legality.”
I make no qualms with this conjecture; rather, destructive and societally invasive behavior is vital to the advancement of views expressed by the relatively voiceless. “Relatively voiceless” can, in this instance, be described as the views of those who do not have an already established platform to stand on in order to further their points.
Hypothetically, while I do not encourage the general public to throw bricks through storefront windows; if one is in the ranks of the relatively voiceless this may be the only way to gain necessary attention. In such a situation I would gladly encourage the throwing of the brick and I may throw one myself.
The days of sit-ins and civil disobedience appear to be over, but it is not for a lack of trying. When peaceful protests are met with teargas and riot squads and our police are armed better than mercenaries, civil disobedience is not exactly an option.
If the riot squads leave the streets, the protests may become more peaceful, and I wholeheartedly hope for such an outcome. I do not, however, believe this will happen.
Illegality is not an issue. Martin Luther King Jr. was jailed for his refusal to cooperate with Jim Crow laws, but can any of us argue that he was on the wrong side of the fight? No. We cannot.
If we cannot condemn King for his actions then we cannot condemn those fighting today. Regardless of race or creed we live in a country founded on the principles of revolution and treason.
Thus, no American person should condemn other Americans for the methods of their protest if their rights have been violated and they are among the relatively voiceless.
Tyler Michael Law
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the writer and are not representative of The Slate or its staff as a whole