How?
Could provide an constructive alternative viewpoint instead of calling plain facts of history "dangerous" or "rhetoric" as if acknowledgement of history is dangerous?
This is a really unfair reading of my stance, and I'm fairly confident you knew what I meant - especially since I spelled it out in my last comment.
Acknowledgement of history is fine. Implications that the way things have always went is the only way it can go is silly at best and dangerous at worst.
I apologize if I was unfair, I'm just trying to have a provocative conversation, no offense intended.
Calling an acknowledgement of history either dangerous, rhetoric, or weighed with the burden of intangible implication seems like a way to shame the observer for observing what is obvious. Just mentioning historical violence is not an endorsement of it or a suggestion that it's the only tool available to the slighted. I find that reaction itself to be the actual danger.
As for my position being dangerous... I don't see how that's the case. Again, as I've clarified, I do not find it dangerous to acknowledge history (of course that would be dangerous itself) just using history to imply dangerous things.
It's probably worth pointing out that this is a common propaganda tactic of the powerful.
It does not state "revolution and violence is the only way forward"
For governments.
> It does seem to be working well in America.
They say ignorance is bliss.
This sort of rhetoric is dangerous.
> Maybe checks and balances would work as a system
It does seem to be working well in America.