Oppression isn't provoked or a backlash. It's cold and calculated for purposeful effect. The banal logic of colonialism is why Reginald Dyer's troops had .303 Enfields [and the used because they were too wide armoured cars] at Jallianwala Bagh. [1]
Jim Crow, the Klan, George Wallace and segregated public schools were long established before events such as those which earned Edmund Pettus Bridge [2] it's National Historic Register status. Though I suppose "conservative backlash" one could mean the Cahaba Boys [3], I'm not really seeing anything that I would qualify as provocative in a neutral sense of the word.
OK. Then use a different set of words. Violent protest in these historical contexts has been demonstrated as causally linked to political changes antithetical to those preferred by said protesters.
Happier? The exact same phenomenon has now been described without using either of the words you object to. What has been gained by this exercise? The phenomenon in question has not changed because a vocabulary some people might consider more neutral has been used.
Do you have something to contribute to this conversation?
Oppression isn't provoked or a backlash. It's cold and calculated for purposeful effect. The banal logic of colonialism is why Reginald Dyer's troops had .303 Enfields [and the used because they were too wide armoured cars] at Jallianwala Bagh. [1]
Jim Crow, the Klan, George Wallace and segregated public schools were long established before events such as those which earned Edmund Pettus Bridge [2] it's National Historic Register status. Though I suppose "conservative backlash" one could mean the Cahaba Boys [3], I'm not really seeing anything that I would qualify as provocative in a neutral sense of the word.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre#The_...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Pettus_Bridge#Civil_rig...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_church_bombing#Pros...