Witness testimony from northern Gaza shows that Israel is using facial recognition technology to organize how it conducts mass arrests and forcible displacement. Some Palestinians say the technology is also being used to carry out field executions.
you aren't going to do jack shit, the system changes you you don't change the system. The "reform from the inside" myth is extremely silly and naive unless you are actively doing sabotage and espionage as a fifth column, that's about the only time it's valid.
A lot of societal progress is done from within. Women's suffrage, MLK or Malcolm X with black rights, Gandhi with Indias independence. These things do happen.
Where did you get the idea that Malcolm X or even MLK were “within” the system of white supremacy? No progress was gained in MLK’s day until he was martyred, and then the subsequent unrest and riots forced concessions from the white supremacists in power. It was violent unrest that earned those rights. MLK was extremely outspoken about "white moderates" who tried to do slow reform, and called them worse than the KKK. He didn't agree with you.
They were a part of American society and worked within the law to improve it and advocate for better rights (for the most part, I don't recall if they broke any laws intentionally).
It was non-violent civilians disobedience. They weren't fighting, they were protesting. Which can be argued as legal, given the rights afforded in the US constitution.
Non-violent civilian disobedience is a euphemism for breaking the law, what do you think it is they are “disobeying”? The constitution does not protect blocking bridges, stopping public transport, etc.
They were breaking the law, and that’s the only reason they were effective. They didn't try to get elected to congress and change the laws, they took direct action themselves outside the structures of the state to force concessions using their leverage.
And as an aside, the "constitution" is a dogshit rag written by slavers and white supremacists and afforded no rights whatsoever to the enslaved chattel. Every one of those "rights afforded by the constitution" was a right explicitly forbidden by the constitution until they were forced at gunpoint to concede. The rights we have earned are in spite of the constitution, not because of it.
It is technically breaking the law but doing so in an effective manner. You're right in that sense. At the end of the day protesting is to yell and scream to make your voice heard and sometimes, not always, you have to make disruptions to have your voice heard. It's very situational and not an easy question to answer.
They got some improvements. They didn't fundamentally change or fix anything. And that still required a massive movement. It also involved global political pressure caused by the US attempting to "compete" with the USSR morally (the US needed to improve its image during the Cold War so they could keep doing what they were doing). But I don't think you can easily compare the civil rights movement with someone hired for a job to "change [their job] from the inside". Usually if you don't do your job, you get fired (or fined, or imprisoned, or worse). And then you're not on the inside.
you aren't going to do jack shit, the system changes you you don't change the system. The "reform from the inside" myth is extremely silly and naive unless you are actively doing sabotage and espionage as a fifth column, that's about the only time it's valid.
A lot of societal progress is done from within. Women's suffrage, MLK or Malcolm X with black rights, Gandhi with Indias independence. These things do happen.
Where did you get the idea that Malcolm X or even MLK were “within” the system of white supremacy? No progress was gained in MLK’s day until he was martyred, and then the subsequent unrest and riots forced concessions from the white supremacists in power. It was violent unrest that earned those rights. MLK was extremely outspoken about "white moderates" who tried to do slow reform, and called them worse than the KKK. He didn't agree with you.
They were a part of American society and worked within the law to improve it and advocate for better rights (for the most part, I don't recall if they broke any laws intentionally).
both of them actively broke laws intentionally constantly, what do you think civil disobedience and bus boycotts were? You think they were legal?
It was non-violent civilians disobedience. They weren't fighting, they were protesting. Which can be argued as legal, given the rights afforded in the US constitution.
Non-violent civilian disobedience is a euphemism for breaking the law, what do you think it is they are “disobeying”? The constitution does not protect blocking bridges, stopping public transport, etc.
They were breaking the law, and that’s the only reason they were effective. They didn't try to get elected to congress and change the laws, they took direct action themselves outside the structures of the state to force concessions using their leverage.
And as an aside, the "constitution" is a dogshit rag written by slavers and white supremacists and afforded no rights whatsoever to the enslaved chattel. Every one of those "rights afforded by the constitution" was a right explicitly forbidden by the constitution until they were forced at gunpoint to concede. The rights we have earned are in spite of the constitution, not because of it.
It is technically breaking the law but doing so in an effective manner. You're right in that sense. At the end of the day protesting is to yell and scream to make your voice heard and sometimes, not always, you have to make disruptions to have your voice heard. It's very situational and not an easy question to answer.
They got some improvements. They didn't fundamentally change or fix anything. And that still required a massive movement. It also involved global political pressure caused by the US attempting to "compete" with the USSR morally (the US needed to improve its image during the Cold War so they could keep doing what they were doing). But I don't think you can easily compare the civil rights movement with someone hired for a job to "change [their job] from the inside". Usually if you don't do your job, you get fired (or fined, or imprisoned, or worse). And then you're not on the inside.