If those dissidents are correct, and Liu Xiaobo truly does praise tyranny, then perhaps it is unfortunate that he is getting attention for his views as a liberator. The Nobel Peace Prize may be an authority, but it’s hardly unimpeachable. They’re primarily in place because the founder felt guilty for inventing TNT(or dynamite), and he needed to make a PR change.

On the other hand, Liu Xiaobo might be contributing to the general conversation of democracy in China that is overall beneficial to the world. I remember that the Civil War was similar, with abolitionists frustrated with those not as fervent as they, Douglas running on for the Republican ticket to spite a President, and, later, Lincoln standing firm in maintaining a bloody war when the rest of the nation just wanted peace. The advancement toward freedom is never easy, never finished, and rarely straightforward.

Either way, the conversation cannot be about just one person. It has to be about everyone.

When I was using the word “extreme,” I was thinking of what MLK called “fighting physical force with soul force,” or the “marvelous new militancy” which would not cease “until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” In any event, I should perhaps stop using the word “extreme” to describe such action, lest I be misunderstood or even misrepresent it.

It is indeed hard to tell, especially with only a one liner to go on, whether Oro Presso is siding with the Chinese government or is a dissident who has an ax to grind with Liu Xiabo for whatever reason. Sadly, sometimes there is a tendency by those who oppose tyranny to, over time, begin to resemble what they hate the most, especially as the struggle thickens. And that is one of the reasons that non-violent revolt is so admirable, and so difficult. It takes quite a lot of self-discipline on the part of the leadership to maintain that path, which is what both Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. stressed- no matter what, to never betray the principle of non-violence.

But at the same time I think their model of revolt was extreme. So they were primarily whom I had in mind when I said that revolt can be both non-violent and extreme, extreme in the sense that non-violent action, such as sit-ins, massive parades, etc, can be both disruptive but also non-violent, so not really “militant” in the strict sense of the word. But strict adherence to such principles can also limit the plurality of the movement, and hence the inclusiveness of it. And “plurality” can be repressed by either the protest leaders or the powers that be, which is certainly an important this to consider. I did not consider the possibly negative aspects of a lack of plurality, and how that might play out in a given context where dissent must be tolerated among the dissenters in order for the movement to gain steam and expand.

So I think that you really don’t understand the import of the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to someone “for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China.” Notice the word “non-violent.” Notice the phrase “human rights.”

Perhaps you would prefer that it go to a despot for his “long and violent supression of human rights in order to maintain a harmonius society.” Perhaps you agree with Mao that, “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.” Or perhaps you would like to clarify what you mean by “peace”?

And such disunity reminds me that those “on the right side of history” are still human after all, and prone to vice (jealousy, stubborness, avarice, etc) just as are tyrants. Also, what may seem like unity to some people, will appear to be despotism to others. Given these obstacles, in addition to the coercive power of tyrants, meaningful social change is something to be celebrated because it really is the triumph of the positive aspects of human nature over the negative, if only temporarily.