Ferguson vs. Bundy Ranch (vs. Occupy)
This is an interesting article, but I'm not sure I agree with the take-away that non-violence as such is always "good" (i.e., effective). I do think that strategic non-violence is preferable, as in leads to better outcomes, than violence, even if you leave out the argument that "when our guys whack people, it's good." I don't know the leadership on the ground in Ferguson well enough either, but if they're from the Black Misleadership class, outcomes are likely to be meaningless.
"Strategic non-violence" is a balanced phrase, and both words carry weight.
Oh, but what I started to write is: "Protest is legal if you're white AND right," because Occupy, after all, was the target of a 17-city paramilitary crackdown organized by the Obama adminsitration. Except that's clearly way too simplistic, since (a) it's hard to imagine that a black Bundy ranch episode would have been permitted (there were black cowboys, after all, so why not ranchers?), and (b) Occupy Oakland had a strong black component. So, slogans don't work again.