It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

"Destruction of Property Makes a Protest Illegitimate"

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 09:34 AM

Destruction of Property Makes a Protest Illegitimate

No, it makes it a RIOT.

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 11:26 AM
a reply to: Aldakoopa

Op. the tea party in boston was a RIOT it wasnt a protest.

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 10:56 PM

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Tardacus
you`re right, destruction of property isn`t a form of protesting it`s a form of revolution. your facebook friend was wrong,the boston tea party wasn`t a protest it was one of the seeds of a revolution.

Yes, but in order to revolt successfully, you need the sympathy of a large enough chunk of the non-revolting populace and the existing established power structure.

This needs to at least be between 30 to 50% of those areas to have a chance of success.

Right now African Americans are themselves about 11 to 13% of the population and not all of them are in sympathy and while they have some prominent voices in government, I am not seeing near that amount of support spread among power structures.

So this is a riot and at the moment doomed to failure.

but do you think they know that? a failed revolution doesnt require anywhere near that amount of support. a protest is a display that conveys the message that the people who are protesting are in disagreement with something.a simple sign saying, I disagree with ( blah blah blah) is sufficient, but when destruction of property and violence against other people rears it`s ugly head that is no longer a protest that is a revolution only time will tell whether that revolution succeeds or fails.
don`t believe that destruction of property or violence against other people is merely a protest, because it isn`t and never has been, it is a attempted revolution and should be dealt with as such. if the brits had dealt with the american colonies "protests" as a revolution maybe they would have kept the american colonies under the queens rule.By the time that the brits figured out that they were dealing with a full on revolution it was too late to subdue it,it had gained too much support and momentum because of the early successes of the "protesters".of course that whole publishing of a declaration of independence was the final validation that the brits needed to convince them that they were involved in a revolution,but by that point they were behind the 8 ball and had no hope of sudueing it.
lets hope that modern americans aren`t that stupid and blind to need something like that to hit them over the head to convince them that an attempted revolution is under way.
if the brits had dealt with it with an iron fist from the start they would have maintain control of the american colonies.
whats that they say?, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.with all the fancy technology we have today we still can`t see the forest for the trees.
even a failed revolution creates massive amounts of chaos and destruction.
make no mistake about it, destruction of property or violence to other people is in no way a protest, it`s an attempted revolution.
edit on 23-9-2016 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

new topics
<< 1   >>

log in