@tinyfaery
The basis of jmah’s position was not one wherein there was any high minded principle at stake but simply the all too human condition to react. Of course in matters of principle or human rights there is a place to make a stand and be boldly confrontational. This is hardly at issue in society. We have many opinions screaming at the top of their lungs “like children in the marketplace”. Yet even in these matters it is the methodology that must be questioned as to what is most effective. Take your example of civil rights:
As the greatest proponent in the 20th century of civil rights you would be hard pressed to say any was more effective than Martin Luther King Jr.. His effectiveness gained through effective methodology that first off accepted that there was deep seated division and hatred of the African American in society by a deeply entrenched ideology in the South. He accepted this and his plan of attack was one in joining in solidarity with others based on the ideology that racism was at its base unjust and upon that principle stood. Through passive resistance he created a groundswell which through threats of violence, actual violence against him, bombs on his family, rocks thrown directly at him and threats of violence stood. HE STOOD because he addressed the violence within himself first and subjugated it.
He neither attacked nor retaliated for violence against him. There is nothing more powerful on earth than this resolve. It is the power of the individual will and imagination. The principle was enough and he was right. He knew that at any given time if his followers would have engaged the racists as “enemy” his mission may have failed and there would be even further polarization. But without a polarizing force in opposition there is nothing left but the blatant aggression of the unjust. And human nature is essentially good and it sees the folly of its ignorance eventually. And I truly believe he would have gladly ceded his position of authority if he felt that there was a better candidate to take the position.
Now contrast this figure with Malcolm X who not only became a polarizing force for the cause of racism because he promoted violence but actually became a dividing force within his own community. He refused to accept others could have such ideologies and hatreds and attempted to attack them with hatred and harsh words. Of course he too eventually realizes that his approach was shortsighted and changed when he acquired the wisdom of years.
One approach elevates the self and one approach stands on the principle which needs no elevation because its truth is self evident. Wisdom and acceptance are not mutually exclusive principles nor are they apathy as the sensual imagination would deem them to be. They are formed in a crucible of fire.