Writing for the Washington Post, Simone Sebastian, an editor for The Post’s Outlook section, believes that violence provoked by “Black Lives Matter” not only exists, but is necessary.
Her article, titled “Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too,” argues that violence is essential for civil rights.
“Martin Luther King Jr. deliberately courted violence,” Sebastian argues. “Violence was critical to the success of the 1960s civil rights movement, as it has been to every step of racial progress in U.S. history.”
According to Ms. Sebastian, Black Lives Matter “needed violent confrontations to attract national media attention.”
She laments, “many have held today’s movement responsible for the burned buildings, broken windows and police and civilian deaths that followed protests during the past year. Yet history shows that this violence is the inevitable consequence of challenging the racial status quo.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. knew violence was necessary, Ms. Sebastian continues: “He learned that, as a tactic, nonviolence was useless without violence.”
Jesse Jackson proves her point, she says, writing, “While the activists’ nonviolent response magnified the brutality, the aggressive reaction of today’s protesters has proved effective as well. “The police overreaction, the tear gas — that’s what made Ferguson,” [Jesse] Jackson says.”
Ms. Sebastian concludes, “Black Lives Matter has more in common with the civil rights movement than we’d like to acknowledge. It fights the same injustices and encounters the same resistance. The truth is, if you oppose Black Lives Matter’s tactics, you would have abhorred King’s.”