When social scientists tell us that violent protests "don't work" or "are ineffective" they seem to forget how effective white political violence has been in history and continues to be. Is it that "violence" doesn't work, or that "black violence" doesn't work? A thread. 1/N
We can start with Reconstruction violence. Whites rebelled in Southern Redemption with unprecedented levels of violence. Whites were effective in attacking black politicians and totally reversing the policy gains made during Reconstruction. 2/N nber.org/papers/w26014
As @drlisadcook shows, racial violence in the form of lynching, race riots, and segregation laws limited black invention and innovation. This depressed black economic output and national economic growth. Again, extremely effective. 3/N link.springer.com/article/10.100…
Whites also ran blacks out of town, pillaged all that they could, and took over. Whitecapping and other forms of racial violence robbed blacks of their property and their political rights. Very effective violence. 4/N basicbooks.com/titles/elliot-…
And @jhacova has shown that historical black lynchings depress African American voter turnout today. This is a violent form of voter suppression which has impact more than 50 years after the fact. That is very effective violence.
5/N epi.org/multimedia/lyn…
5/N epi.org/multimedia/lyn…
So perhaps it is not that "violence doesn't work" after all. We need to pay attention to who is doing the violence. Whites have used violent protest to attack black voters, black officials, and engage in voter intimidation. They have an unbroken record of success. 6/6
