>I find it fascinating when people make the argument that the reason the civil rights movement succeeded was the harm done to society,
I find it fascinating that what Martin Luther King described as the "polite liberal racist" who moaned about blocking a freeway is still alive and well.
>I believe the civil rights movement succeeded in America because it was morally right
No, it worked because of Martin Luther King's nonviolent protest tactics - the ones which you described as terrorism.
Your choice to depict blocking a freeway as "violence" doesnt make it so, it simply puts you in the camp of liberals he criticised for indirectly supporting the racist status quo.
Using force to prevent people going to work, or seeing their family, or getting to hospital, is wrong. Especially if the goal is to coerce people. If I came to your house and physically prevented you from leaving I doubt you’d be making equivocations. Whether you want to call it violence, force, or any other fluffy euphemism, I do not subscribe to your vision for society or your retelling of MLK.
Thats your right of course, although the parallels to MLK's essay about the backlash he faced for holding up traffic are still precisely applicable here no matter how upsetting you may find that.
I find it fascinating that what Martin Luther King described as the "polite liberal racist" who moaned about blocking a freeway is still alive and well.
>I believe the civil rights movement succeeded in America because it was morally right
No, it worked because of Martin Luther King's nonviolent protest tactics - the ones which you described as terrorism.