Non-violent movements and their violent counter-parts

I hear people demonizing Ferguson rioters lately.  Mainly their arguments revolve around some sort of Thoreau/Ghandi/MLK idea of the power of non-violence.  Stokley Carmikel, of course, had the best critique of the non-violent approach in general, and Dr. King's approach in particular.

If individuals are masochistic enough to be non-violent, it can be an effective strategy, but only when coupled with more aggressive tactics.

One of the most invaluable resources dealing with those who would oppose rioting as a tactic is a piece entitled Barack Obama, Ferguson, and the Evidence of Things Unsaid written by Ta-Nehisi Coates for the Atlantic Monthly.  Most notably, he writes:

"Property damage and looting" is a fairly accurate description of the emancipation of black people in 1865, who only five years earlier constituted some $4 billion in property. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 is inseparable from the threat of riots. The housing bill of 1968—the most proactive civil-rights legislation on the books—is a direct response to the riots that swept American cities after King was killed. Violence, lingering on the outside, often backed nonviolence during the civil-rights movement. "We could go into meetings and say, 'Well, either deal with us or you will have Malcolm X coming into here,'" said SNCC organizer Gloria Richardson. "They would get just hysterical. The police chief would say, 'Oh no!'"

Ok, so MLK didn't win Civil Rights alone.  We also know that Nat Turner and John Brown provoked violent slave uprisings that culminated in the Civil War to end slavery.  

What about Ghandi and Indian independence?  Well, there was of course the violent movement of Bhagat Singh. Additionally, Ghandi's form of non-violence was essentially to put people into harm's way and then have them not defend themselves.  Passive resistance courts violence.  That is the basis on which the tactic is founded.

Remember, Obama said nothing about Mike Brown or police violence until Ferguson was in flames.

What about the Arab Spring? The Arab Spring resulted in bloody civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen.  In Egypt, where there was a bloodless coup, the people elected Mohamed Morsi after ousting Mubarak, who turned out to be worse.  Then they elected Mubarak's party back into power.

Surely the labor movement in this country has always been peaceful.  Actually, all the gains made by the labor movement came after bloody altercations.  In fact, there are two, separate Wikipedia entries for union-violence (violence perpetrated by unions) and anti-union violence (violence perpetrated by thugs, cops and union-busters against union workers).

For every successful non-violent movement, there is a violent faction that helps it succeed.  The violent action shows the urgency.  The non-violent shows the legitimacy.  Both tactics are necessary.