Ah yes. Ghandi. White people love to point to him despite knowing diddly squat about him. My great-grandfather was a close friend of his, and travelled with him to Britain when he was petitioning for India's independence.
Firstly, disrupting traffic is not "mayhem", it would absolutely fit in with Ghandi's MO of non-violent protest. Ghandi was not a "sit in the corner, beg the King to give up his power over you, and hope he does despite having no reason to". But status quo bootlickers do try to paint that picture because it suits them.
Secondly, as a South African from a family of civil rights activists, and as someone with decades spent as an activist and advocate of civil rights movements, I can tell you that you know SHIT about the Rodney King riots. Of course, there were a lot of own goals scored, and much of the rioting was self-defeating. But it has been completely re-cast in the decades since and portrayed as a mindless mob achieving nothing. That's not at all true. The violence of '92 was absolutely responsible for moving the civil rights movement forward, as the incumbent old white men were fighting tooth and nail to keep it at bay. Peaceful protests by African Americans had yielded no results. MLK and Malcolm X were mostly peaceful in their MOs but that didn't work out for them. The COINTELPRO program which pretty much proves that attempts at peaceful resistance will be met with military level opposition.
But anyway. I can see we won't agree. Let's part ways here.
