Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
his project as a tragic failure.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
campaign. The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. What
they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
three days.
Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered,
the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
---
I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a
good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I
predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be
the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a
Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with
modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were
fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the
source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the
source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling
counterarguments.
In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
---
The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight
wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us
with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in
this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and
requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited
range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems
flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi’s remedy for
the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass
suicide, because this “would have aroused the world and the people of
Germany to Hitler’s violence.” We might wonder what a world full of
pacifists would have done once it had grown “aroused”—commit suicide
as well? There seems no question that if all the good people in the
world adopted Gandhi’s ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth.
---
I realize how it seems like a cheap shot to cut and paste in response.
But why not? I read, I throw a little out there for you guys, it seems
like a good aid to the thinking process since I actually give a shit
and all. I'm not totally convinced about everything, and I want to
hear what is being offered in terms of actual, bona fide, human
thought when it isn't being retarded. With any luck, you'll find a
semblance of a counterargument written by someone else who hasn't read
the initial argument, and then we'll both be forced to do our own
homework and get to the bottom of this. This is, quite literally,
deadly serious. It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically
correct anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure
out what's right.
Can nonviolence really, truly have been said to have accomplished
anything as anything but a happy face on violence or the threat of
violence? Even Hitler pretended it was all about "love". Shouldn't the
prospect that fighting your enemies is about anything but hate be
sinister and dubious by now?
On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Let's go!
Martin Luther King.
Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
Mahatma Gandhi.
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda
I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
exactly how one explains the other).
But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
"insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
didn't lose.
On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Let's go!
> Martin Luther King.
> Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> Mahatma Gandhi.
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda
> Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count > his project as a tragic failure.
The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing to do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse population.
What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
> but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's > campaign.
Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were led by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the game.
However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom Fighters and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute to the British leaving either.
It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
And direct links can be shown historically.
The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
> degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many, > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British still had a lot to gain by staying.
Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to justify the military and other resources required to suppress and control these movements.
> But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India since their arrival.
What
> they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in > three days.
This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were successful.
It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against their rule in India.
> Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here because the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation contributed hugely to this.
> All things considered, > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.
It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the problem.
Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.
Non-cooperation forced them out.
Gandhi was only one player in the movement of the Indian Freedom Fighters and the one thing they all united on was non-cooperation.
> I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling > counterarguments.
> In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
> ---
> The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight > wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us > with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in > this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and > requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited > range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems > flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi's remedy for > the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass > suicide, because this "would have aroused the world and the people of > Germany to Hitler's violence." We might wonder what a world full of > pacifists would have done once it had grown "aroused"—commit suicide > as well? There seems no question that if all the good people in the > world adopted Gandhi's ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth.
> ---
> I realize how it seems like a cheap shot to cut and paste in response. > But why not? I read, I throw a little out there for you guys, it seems > like a good aid to the thinking process since I actually give a shit > and all. I'm not totally convinced about everything, and I want to > hear what is being offered in terms of actual, bona fide, human > thought when it isn't being retarded. With any luck, you'll find a > semblance of a counterargument written by someone else who hasn't read > the initial argument, and then we'll both be forced to do our own > homework and get to the bottom of this. This is, quite literally, > deadly serious. It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically > correct anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure > out what's right.
> Can nonviolence really, truly have been said to have accomplished > anything as anything but a happy face on violence or the threat of > violence? Even Hitler pretended it was all about "love". Shouldn't the > prospect that fighting your enemies is about anything but hate be > sinister and dubious by now?
> On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ghandi
> > On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7 "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion. Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini, Andromeda
That's not my argument. If Gandhi died and saved India, he was on to
something. But I just get this fucked up feeling that Gandhi dying and
Elvis dying are only margins apart in terms of actual historical
significance.
On Dec 1, 6:30 pm, Saint Onan <gigacy...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count > his project as a tragic failure.
> What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes, > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's > campaign. The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many, > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
> But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it. What > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in > three days.
> Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India > was becoming more trouble than it was worth. All things considered, > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
> ---
> I'll state my intentions outright with you: I think Neumann makes a > good case that nonviolence has never worked in the source material. I > predicted that the three examples he anticipated would, in fact, be > the only ones that initially emerged--which wasn't exactly a > Nostradamus-type prediction, because it does seem we are dealing with > modern mythology along the lines of "the Founding Fathers were > fundies" and "Hitler was an atheist". Maybe the revelation of the > source material will require others to become more creative, maybe the > source material itself will encourage some to provide compelling > counterarguments.
> In terms of Gandhi, I will also quote Sam Harris:
> ---
> The only way to rule out collateral damage would be to refuse to fight > wars under any circumstances. As a foreign policy, this would leave us > with something like the absolute pacifism of Gandhi. While pacifism in > this form can constitute a direct confrontation with injustice (and > requires considerable bravery), it is only applicable to a limited > range of human conflicts. Where it is not applicable, it is seems > flagrantly immoral. We would do well to reflect on Gandhi's remedy for > the Holocaust: he believed that the Jews should have committed mass > suicide, because this "would have aroused the world and the people of > Germany to Hitler's violence." We might wonder what a world full of > pacifists would have done once it had grown "aroused"—commit suicide > as well? There seems no question that if all the good people in the > world adopted Gandhi's ethics, the thugs would inherit the earth.
Just because Gandhi can be legitimately criticized on many things doesn't mean that some of his policies didn't play a constructive and successful role in terms of the British leaving India.
> I realize how it seems like a cheap shot to cut and paste in response. > But why not? I read, I throw a little out there for you guys, it seems > like a good aid to the thinking process since I actually give a shit > and all. I'm not totally convinced about everything, and I want to > hear what is being offered in terms of actual, bona fide, human > thought when it isn't being retarded. With any luck, you'll find a > semblance of a counterargument written by someone else who hasn't read > the initial argument, and then we'll both be forced to do our own > homework and get to the bottom of this. This is, quite literally, > deadly serious. It isn't about who can be more liberal or politically > correct anymore--the status quo is stupid, and we should try to figure > out what's right.
> Can nonviolence really, truly have been said to have accomplished > anything as anything but a happy face on violence or the threat of > violence? Even Hitler pretended it was all about "love". Shouldn't the > prospect that fighting your enemies is about anything but hate be > sinister and dubious by now?
> On Dec 1, 6:00 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ghandi
> > On Dec 1, 7:28 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Let's go!- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7 "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion. Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini, Andromeda
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> exactly how one explains the other).
Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order to
resolve problems.
I would think that was a good thing.
> But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> didn't lose.
There is no such thing as absolutes.
In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
circumstances.
Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
Conquest a success.
It depends on what the goals are.
If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
violence is rarely the right solution.
> On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > Let's go!
> > Martin Luther King.
> > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> > Mahatma Gandhi.
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda
To change public opinion through democratic change which often leads
to cajoling so called 'irrational injustice' out of it's position of
influence. Means at our disposal have been (and are still available)
e.g.
anti war marches & demonstrations
Documentary film making
Internet publications
Broader education
Music
Strikes
Constitutional & legisllative protections for free speech
Political lobbying
> > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was
> > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have
> > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week
> > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But
> > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a
> > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife
> > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and
> > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the
> > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism
> > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost
> > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count
> > his project as a tragic failure.
> The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing to
> do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
I think you're on to kind of the point, although you don't know it.
Now, the whole ideal of pacifism is that things can be accomplished
without violence. So when things are accomplished _with_ violence, it
is not proof that nonviolence works. The point of the author is that
these nonviolent campaigns _did_ work--just not in the pacifistic,
idealistic constraints of "working", because all the results gained
from the use of force or the threat of force. There were nonviolent
elements that were less influential, evidently, than the forceful
elements. But the forceful elements make lousy T-shirts, essentially.
> It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that
> occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
Well, look--the US instigated exacerbated warfare between Sunni and
Shi'ite, and that might just run us off, too.
> The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule
> game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse population.
Of course. But this doesn't have any bearing on the issue: did the
British get their knickers up their bullocks-holes because people were
behavng themselves and playing hacky-sack with Gandhi, or because shit
was going to go down one way or another?
> > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes,
> > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's
> > campaign.
> Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were led
> by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly
> contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to
> maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the
> game.
Trance, you are actually kind of agreeing with the author, but
grudgingly. What you are doing is arguing from ambiguity. I am
requesting an argument for nonviolence. You have rephrased this: "non-
cooperation". But violence is, of course, not cooperation. If all the
citizens did was sit there and starve and burn themselves, what were
the British afraid of?
> However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom Fighters
> and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute to
> the British leaving either.
Didn't?
> It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres
> that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
So what can cause someone to be violent can't be the same thing that
causes them to flee?
So wait--you know more about Indian history than I do, I'm sure. But
what I'm getting from you is "violence made them fight, non-violence
made them flee"? Really? I've been in fights with bigger guys than me,
Trance, and that shit _never_ fucking flies. Being in a fight with the
bigger guy when you have less to lose and you're way, way more pissed
off? That works. Did you ever see the kid who actually _repeated_ "I'm
like rubber, you're like glue" in the playground? Did you ever see him
again? Nonviolence is just a great pretense for force--like an
advertising campaign. The more you put*ahJESUSANDCHRISTIANITYem*
I'm getting a consistent picture from both your account and the
authors: non-violence is a useful motivating tool to make the masses a
considerable threat.
> > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying
> > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi
> > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War
> > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India
> > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles
> > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many,
> > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the
> > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War,
> > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for
> > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
> Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British still
> had a lot to gain by staying.
> Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to justify
> the military and other resources required to suppress and control these
> movements.
Trance, I'm sorry, I love you to death, but you seem to say "not true"
and then basically confirm the author's thesis. You and the author
agree on this: the British abandoned India because it was too hard to
control. The author suggests this was not because of nonviolence. Now,
name a list of things that are violent, and a list of things that are
not violent, and tell me which list of things are _easier to control_.
The author's suggestion is that the _threat_ of "eruption" scared the
British off. Do you dispute this? Don't you think the "non-violence"
contributed to this? Doesn't that bring to mind exactly what the real
purpose of "non-violence" is in a dispute like this?
> > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be
> > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or
> > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed
> > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a
> > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
> Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of
> British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India
> since their arrival.
But Trance. You aren't disputing his point! He's for the Indians and
against the British. He's just saying that they didn't leave because
they were nice people who shed tears over Gandhi being a nice guy. He
agrees they instigated it. He's just saying they didn't leave because
it was hurting their feelings being such meanies and all. They left
because the threat made it expedient.
> What
> > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims
> > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a
> > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great
> > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in
> > three days.
> This has nothing to do with whether the non-cooperation policies were
> successful.
> It has everything to do with the fact that the Colonial authorities
> instigated these situations in order to weaken the resistance against their
> rule in India.
Trance, I hope I clarified--he was not defending the fuggin' British.
He was just saying they left for selfish reasons, and those selfish
reasons were contingent on the threat of India exploding into violence
which would have been a handful. And, y'know, the Mumbai incident
which occurred years after he wrote this seems to further confirm his
thesis.
> > Another factor was the terrorism--and this need not be a term of
> > condemnation--quite regularly employed against the British. It was not
> > enough to do much harm, but more than enough to warn them that India
> > was becoming more trouble than it was worth.
> And yes this was a factor and he actually contradicts himself here because
> the fact was that the British would have stayed if they had been able to
> easily control the population. Gandhis policies of non-cooperation
> contributed hugely to this.
Now I'm certain you're just reading something into this that isn't
there. He isn't defending the British. If he wanted to make the
British look good, he would probably would have said they left because
Gandhi made their hearts bleed.
> > All things considered,
> > the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on
> > British resolve than Gandhi ever did. He may have been a brilliant and
> > creative political thinker, but he was not a victor.
> He contradicts himself again because earlier he correctly states that the
> terrorism at the time was not wide-spread and inconsequential.
I have no idea what you're talking about here. :(
> It was the non-cooperation and the general resistance that was the problem.
Right, and the violent aspect of non-cooperation is what really fucks
with superpowers with no consciences.
> Those who advocated violence in India accomplished nothing.
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > exactly how one explains the other).
> Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order to
> resolve problems.
> I would think that was a good thing.
Okay. But for a truly nonviolent campaign to work, wouldn't that mean
it worked with no threat of violence? The three (and only three,
versus like thousands of major historical examples where violence
works) examples of whether nonviolence works exclusively all have, I
think, substantial arguments that the "non-cooperation" encompassed
riots and threats at the bare minimum, state force sometimes. So.
Three disputable examples of nonviolence versus three-hundred-thousand
of violence works, nonviolence wins?
> > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > didn't lose.
> There is no such thing as absolutes.
:P
> In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> circumstances.
:P
> Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> Conquest a success.
:P
> It depends on what the goals are.
Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
> If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> violence is rarely the right solution.
So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
start being realistic.
> > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Let's go!
> > > Martin Luther King.
> > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > companion.
> > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > Andromeda
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread for
actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere.
On Dec 1, 7:32 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> To change public opinion through democratic change which often leads
> to cajoling so called 'irrational injustice' out of it's position of
> influence. Means at our disposal have been (and are still available)
> e.g.
> anti war marches & demonstrations
> Documentary film making
> Internet publications
> Broader education
> Music
> Strikes
> Constitutional & legisllative protections for free speech
> Political lobbying
I responded to your first post which commenced thus: "Let's
go".......and I wasn't commenting on 'your' discussion with others. I
provided an opinion and you jump on me again and do not address the
issue, merely an immature dismissal of what I've said.
You paternally highlight Trances apparent gaff in this thread, with
accompanying sentments of affection, however, Trance is not charged
with being a retard for contradicting herself. Your prejudice is clear
to see.
Clearly you're still sooking. Also, you posed no question to
understand. The thread's title is a just a statement and your two word
first post is a command. No question Dev. One may then interpret as
they see fit.
Other examples of 'historical precedence for non violence in the face
of irrational injustice (as opposed to rational injustice) may
include;
Poland - Solidarity movement
Romania - Overthrowing Nicololae Ceauscu
Phillipines - Removal of Ferdinand Marcos
Yes, some sporadic violence occurred however it wasn't strategised as
such.
Max
Do you acknowledge that both Rapp & I together disagree on your
debating tactic? (you know the one) Yes or No. If no why not.
On Dec 2, 1:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread for
> actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere.
> On Dec 1, 7:32 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > To change public opinion through democratic change which often leads
> > to cajoling so called 'irrational injustice' out of it's position of
> > influence. Means at our disposal have been (and are still available)
> > e.g.
> > anti war marches & demonstrations
> > Documentary film making
> > Internet publications
> > Broader education
> > Music
> > Strikes
> > Constitutional & legisllative protections for free speech
> > Political lobbying
I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
to vote. Go girls!
There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
violence eh!
There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
Cheers
Max
On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > exactly how one explains the other).
> Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order to
> resolve problems.
> I would think that was a good thing.
> > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > didn't lose.
> There is no such thing as absolutes.
> In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> circumstances.
> Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> Conquest a success.
> It depends on what the goals are.
> If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> violence is rarely the right solution.
> > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > Let's go!
> > > Martin Luther King.
> > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > companion.
> > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > Andromeda
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
Mmmh, I've got the wireless on at the minute and what do you know, the
airport sit in in Thailand (non violent demonstrations) has just
resulted in the current Thai government being dissolved and the PM
being barred for political office for 5 years. Chalk up one for the
people eh!
Oh, while I'm here, a couple more wins for non violence is:
The Velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia
The demise of East Germany (Berlin wall) and the reunification of
Germany
Peace be with you Dev :)
Max
On Dec 2, 1:14 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread for
> actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere.
> On Dec 1, 7:32 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > To change public opinion through democratic change which often leads
> > to cajoling so called 'irrational injustice' out of it's position of
> > influence. Means at our disposal have been (and are still available)
> > e.g.
> > anti war marches & demonstrations
> > Documentary film making
> > Internet publications
> > Broader education
> > Music
> > Strikes
> > Constitutional & legisllative protections for free speech
> > Political lobbying
It'll be easier if I just summarize instead of dealing with specific points but if I've missed something just ask and I'll comment on it. 1. I know that the author is not supporting the British. My comments are directed to the fact that his analysis of the situation is not correct.
2. I use the term non-cooperation instead of pacifism because there were situations for example where the British attacked people physically and in other ways and people fought back physically and in other ways. That's not pacifism but it is non-cooperation. It's also not using violence as a strategy. It's defending oneself in the appropriate way.
3. I'm objecting to the use of violence as an offensive strategy. I'm not saying that if someone physically attacks a person that person shouldn't defend themselves.
4. The violence that occurred during the Independence movement was insignificant compared to the many and creative ways that people simply refused to cooperate with the state.
5. The British were not concerned about the violence which they used to justify the most brutal suppression campaigns and massacres against the people.
6. What little violence occurred, the British were happy about because it gave them the justification to arrest and otherwise suppress masses of people thus Weakening the Independence movement.
7. The reason the Indians became too much trouble was that they simply refused to go along with or cooperate with anything the British were doing.
8. The British also used Religious strife to create a divide and rule situation to also successfully weaken the Independence movement.
Their only problem was that it wasn't weakened enough for them to be able to stay.
So frankly I don't see any contradictions here. Perhaps I got lost in a couple of points and didn't express my opinion clearly and so it got misunderstood.
It was non-cooperation that worked. The violence was insignificant and the British took advantage of it to weaken the movement.
> > > Gandhi's nonviolence can't have been successful, because there was > > > nothing he would have called a success. Gandhi's priorities may have > > > shifted over time: he said, that, if he changed his mind from one week > > > to the next, it was because he had learned something in between. But > > > it seems fair to say that he wanted independence from British rule, a > > > united India, and nonviolence itself, an end to civil or ethnic strife > > > on the Indian subcontinent. What he got was India 1947: partition, and > > > one of the most horrifying outbursts of bloodshed and cruelty in the > > > whole bloody, cruel history of the postwar world. The antagonism > > > between Muslims and Hindus, so painful to Gandhi, still seems almost > > > set in stone. These consequences alone would be sufficient to count > > > his project as a tragic failure.
> > The fact that bloodshed occurred and that antagonism existed has nothing > to > > do with whether the strategy of non-cooperation worked.
> I think you're on to kind of the point, although you don't know it. > Now, the whole ideal of pacifism is that things can be accomplished > without violence. So when things are accomplished _with_ violence, it > is not proof that nonviolence works. The point of the author is that > these nonviolent campaigns _did_ work--just not in the pacifistic, > idealistic constraints of "working", because all the results gained > from the use of force or the threat of force. There were nonviolent > elements that were less influential, evidently, than the forceful > elements. But the forceful elements make lousy T-shirts, essentially.
> > It's quite well known by most Indians that the Religious strife that > > occurred during Partition was instigated by the British before they left.
> Well, look--the US instigated exacerbated warfare between Sunni and > Shi'ite, and that might just run us off, too.
> > The British during their entire time in India played the Divide and Rule > > game in order to maintain control of the very large and diverse > population.
> Of course. But this doesn't have any bearing on the issue: did the > British get their knickers up their bullocks-holes because people were > behavng themselves and playing hacky-sack with Gandhi, or because shit > was going to go down one way or another?
> > > What of independence itself? Historians might argue about its causes, > > > but I doubt any of them would attribute it primarily to Gandhi's > > > campaign.
> > Of course not, but these policies of non-cooperation (some of which were > led > > by Gandhi) amounted to some very strategic fights which certainly > > contributed to the British leaving simply because they were not able to > > maintain control of a country where non-cooperation was the name of the > > game.
> Trance, you are actually kind of agreeing with the author, but > grudgingly. What you are doing is arguing from ambiguity. I am > requesting an argument for nonviolence. You have rephrased this: "non- > cooperation". But violence is, of course, not cooperation. If all the > citizens did was sit there and starve and burn themselves, what were > the British afraid of?
> > However, that wasn't the only strategy used by the Indian Freedom > Fighters > > and the bombing of trains and other terrorist attacks didn't contribute > to > > the British leaving either.
> Didn't?
> > It contributed to and justified the large scale suppression and massacres > > that occurred by the British against the Indians though.
> So what can cause someone to be violent can't be the same thing that > causes them to flee?
> So wait--you know more about Indian history than I do, I'm sure. But > what I'm getting from you is "violence made them fight, non-violence > made them flee"? Really? I've been in fights with bigger guys than me, > Trance, and that shit _never_ fucking flies. Being in a fight with the > bigger guy when you have less to lose and you're way, way more pissed > off? That works. Did you ever see the kid who actually _repeated_ "I'm > like rubber, you're like glue" in the playground? Did you ever see him > again? Nonviolence is just a great pretense for force--like an > advertising campaign. The more you put*ahJESUSANDCHRISTIANITYem*
> I'm getting a consistent picture from both your account and the > authors: non-violence is a useful motivating tool to make the masses a > considerable threat.
> > > The British began contemplating--admittedly with varying > > > degrees of sincerity--some measure of autonomy for India before Gandhi > > > did anything, as early as 1917. A.J.P.Taylor says that after World War > > > I, the British were beginning to find India a liability, because India > > > was once again producing its own cotton, and buying cheap textiles > > > from Japan. Later, India's strategic importance, while valued by many, > > > became questioned by some, who saw the oil of the Middle East and the > > > Suez canal as far more important. By the end of the Second World War, > > > Britain's will to hold onto its empire had pretty well crumbled, for > > > reasons having little or nothing to do with nonviolence.
> > Not true. Had India been easy to control like Canada was, the British > still > > had a lot to gain by staying.
> > Because of all the dissension, the economic benefit was too small to > justify > > the military and other resources required to suppress and control these > > movements.
> Trance, I'm sorry, I love you to death, but you seem to say "not true" > and then basically confirm the author's thesis. You and the author > agree on this: the British abandoned India because it was too hard to > control. The author suggests this was not because of nonviolence. Now, > name a list of things that are violent, and a list of things that are > not violent, and tell me which list of things are _easier to control_. > The author's suggestion is that the _threat_ of "eruption" scared the > British off. Do you dispute this? Don't you think the "non-violence" > contributed to this? Doesn't that bring to mind exactly what the real > purpose of "non-violence" is in a dispute like this?
> > > But this is the least important of the reasons why Gandhi cannot be > > > said to have won independence for India. It was not his saintliness or > > > the disruption he caused that impressed the British. What impressed > > > them was that the country seemed (and was) about to erupt into a > > > slaughter. The colonial authorities could see no way to stop it.
> > Nonsense. The colonial authorities instigated it as I said it was part of > > British Divide and Rule policy which they had used consistently in India > > since their arrival.
> But Trance. You aren't disputing his point! He's for the Indians and > against the British. He's just saying that they didn't leave because > they were nice people who shed tears over Gandhi being a nice guy. He > agrees they instigated it. He's just saying they didn't leave because > it was hurting their feelings being such meanies and all. They left > because the threat made it expedient.
> > What
> > > they could see was the increasingly violent antagonism between Muslims > > > and Hindus, both of whom detected, in the distance, the emergence of a > > > power vacuum they rushed to fill. This violence included the "Great > > > Calcutta Killing" of August 1946, when at least 4000 people died in > > > three days.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:54 PM, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Dear Lady,
> I thought I'd cover off some other "non violence in the face of
> irrational injustice" success stories with you because I'm getting Dev
> is getting violent with me again:) I'll try a non violent 'sit in'
> with him going forward, but it will be difficult nonetheless. I didn't
> realise that this thread was meant to discuss only what he wanted to
> discuss. Silly me, wrong again!
> I think the gay community has had some wins for community acceptance
> particularly over the last 20 years or so (in western democracies
> anyway) The participnats of the early gay pride parades must have had
> the 'balls' to do what they did (pun intended). The 'struggle' still
> ain't over as yet, but it's heading in the right direction
> Going back further, the 'suffragettes' also, through a program of non
> violence, really changed the paradigm that only the men had the right
> to vote. Go girls!
> There are many individual cases such as Rosa Parks, whose non violent
> protest, kick started the media into looking squarely at the
> injustices perpetrated both on her and the wider black community in
> the US. From this 'spark' a fire then raged. Non violent
> though..............and look where we are decades later.......an
> African American US president.....That's one for democracy and non
> violence eh!
Exactly. The fact is that this approach is new but it's one that we know is
working and for that reason it's becoming a favored approach.
> There's more, but I'll leave it at this for the minute
> Cheers
> Max
> On Dec 2, 12:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > exactly how one explains the other).
> > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> to
> > resolve problems.
> > I would think that was a good thing.
> > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > didn't lose.
> > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > circumstances.
> > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > Conquest a success.
> > It depends on what the goals are.
> > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > violence is rarely the right solution.
> > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > Let's go!
> > > > Martin Luther King.
> > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > companion.
> > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > Andromeda
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Dec 1, 7:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > exactly how one explains the other).
> > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> to
> > resolve problems.
> > I would think that was a good thing.
> Okay. But for a truly nonviolent campaign to work, wouldn't that mean
> it worked with no threat of violence?
And many have. That doesn't mean that violence didn't occur but violence was
not the strategy.
For example, the Protest Movement of the 1960s started having sit-ins,
bed-ins (Lennon) and be-ins (Vancouver/Frisco).
These were peaceful protests.
That didn't stop the police from charging in with billy clubs to drag off,
arrest protestors and charge the protesters with "assault".
> The three (and only three,
> versus like thousands of major historical examples where violence
> works) examples of whether nonviolence works exclusively all have, I
> think, substantial arguments that the "non-cooperation" encompassed
> riots and threats at the bare minimum, state force sometimes. So.
> Three disputable examples of nonviolence versus three-hundred-thousand
> of violence works, nonviolence wins?
Numbers aren't the issue.
This is a new strategy. It's one that was developed in the last century as
an alternative to violence and wars. So far, it's effect is being seen.
We have to get better at it and more strategic about it instead of tossing
it out just because it hasn't proven to be perfect yet.
And we need brilliant young minds like yours to work on this problem, not to
dismiss it.
Violence as a strategy doesn't benefit anyone except, as I said before, in
Wars of Conquest.
> > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > didn't lose.
> > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> :P
> > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > circumstances.
> :P
> > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > Conquest a success.
> :P
> > It depends on what the goals are.
> Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
> historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
> they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
> > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > violence is rarely the right solution.
> So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
> accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
> threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
> this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
> I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
> start being realistic.
> > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > Let's go!
> > > > Martin Luther King.
> > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> > > > --
> > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > companion.
> > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > Andromeda
> > --
> > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> companion.
> > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
-- Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
"Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
Andromeda
On 2 Dec, 03:14, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Yeah, pooping on Max isn't violence either. I intended this thread for
> actual people who understood the issue. Drafterman and Trance both
> knew what I was talking about, which is why I'm debating them. You're
> retarded and don't understand the question. Go die somewhere.
Max’s response was entirely relevant to your OP. The fact that you
are too sensitive to come up with anything other than childish insults
for no reason other than he has disagreed with you in the past is
pathetic.
> On Dec 1, 7:32 pm, Max <a...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> > To change public opinion through democratic change which often leads
> > to cajoling so called 'irrational injustice' out of it's position of
> > influence. Means at our disposal have been (and are still available)
> > e.g.
> > anti war marches & demonstrations
> > Documentary film making
> > Internet publications
> > Broader education
> > Music
> > Strikes
> > Constitutional & legisllative protections for free speech
> > Political lobbying
i expect being british we are coming at this from different
perspectives but on the question of Indias divisions caused by the
British.
Believe me, i am no fan of the british colonial goverments but if your
going to point the finger point it at jinnah.
Mountbatten foresaw partition being a whole heap'a'shit and agreed
with neruh (there are even rumours that he agreed with neruh so much
he was prepared to overlook his wife having an afair with him!), but
the Muslim league was demanding the british leave sooner rather than
later and the government at home wanted to wash their hands of the
whole issue.)
so when in the time line below would you draw the line of "british
responsibility"?
1947 - End of British rule and partition of sub-continent into mainly
Hindu India and Muslim-majority state of Pakistan.
1947-48 - Hundreds of thousands die in widespread communal bloodshed
after partition.
1948 - Mahatma Gandhi assassinated by Hindu extremist.
1948 - War with Pakistan over disputed territory of Kashmir.
1965 - Second war with Pakistan over Kashmir.
1971 - Third war with Pakistan over creation of Bangladesh, formerly
East Pakistan.
1984 - Troops storm Golden Temple - Sikhs' most holy shrine - to flush
out Sikh militants pressing for self-rule.
1984 - Indira Gandhi assassinated by Sikh bodyguards, following which
her son, Rajiv, takes over.
1987 - India deploys troops for peacekeeping operation in Sri Lanka's
ethnic conflict.
1990 - Indian troops withdrawn from Sri Lanka.
1990 - Muslim separatist groups begin campaign of violence in Kashmir.
1991 - Rajiv Gandhi assassinated by suicide bomber sympathetic to Sri
Lanka's Tamil Tigers.
1992 - Hindu extremists demolish mosque in Ayodhya, triggering
widespread Hindu-Muslim violence.
1999 May - Tension in Kashmir leads to brief war with Pakistan-backed
forces in the icy heights around Kargil in Indian-held Kashmir.
2001 April - 16 Indian and three Bangladeshi soldiers are killed in
border clashes.
2001 October - India fires on Pakistani military posts in the heaviest
firing along the dividing line of control in Kashmir for almost a
year.
2001 December - Suicide squad attacks parliament in New Delhi, killing
several police. The five gunmen die in the assault.
2001 December - India imposes sanctions against Pakistan, to force it
to take action against two Kashmir militant groups blamed for the
suicide attack on parliament. Pakistan retaliates with similar
sanctions, and bans the groups in January.
2001 December - India, Pakistan mass troops on common border amid
mounting fears of a looming war.
2002 February - Inter-religious bloodshed breaks out after 59 Hindu
pilgrims returning from Ayodhya are killed in a train fire in Godhra,
Gujarat. More than 1,000 people, mainly Muslims, die in subsequent
riots. (Police and officials blamed the fire on a Muslim mob
2003 August - At least 50 people are killed in two simultaneous bomb
blasts in Bombay.
2005 29 October - Bombs kill 62 people in Delhi. A little-known
Kashmiri group says it is behind the attacks.
2006 7 March - 14 people are killed by bomb blasts in the Hindu
pilgrimage city of Varanasi.
2006 May - Suspected Islamic militants kill 35 Hindus in the worst
attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir for several months.
2006 11 July - More than 180 people are killed in bomb attacks on rush-
hour trains in Mumbai. Investigators blame Islamic militants based in
Pakistan.
2006 8 September - Explosions outside a mosque in the western town of
Malegaon kill at least 31 people.
2007 18 February - 68 passengers, most of them Pakistanis, are killed
by bomb blasts and a blaze on a train travelling from New Delhi to the
Pakistani city of Lahore.
2007 March - Maoist rebels in Chhattisgarh state kill more than 50
policemen in a dawn attack.
2007 May - At least nine people are killed in a bomb explosion at the
main mosque in Hyderabad. Several others are killed in subsequent
rioting.
2008 July - Series of explosions kills 49 in Ahmedabad, in Gujarat
state. The little-known group Indian Mujahideen claims
responsibility.
2008 November - Nearly 200 people are killed and hundreds injured in a
series of co-ordinated attacks by gunmen on the main tourist and
business area of India's financial capital Mumbai. India blames
militants from Pakistan for the attacks and demands that Islamabad
take strong action against those responsible.
On 2 Dec, 12:13, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 7:00 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > I already responded to Drafterman--the same article (actually, book,
> > > > but I found part of it in the form of an article online for easy
> > > > linkage) anticipated that there were three potential "examples" that
> > > > would be given. You can see my response to Drafterman for the link,
> > > > but I would like to note one thing--if nonviolence was actually a
> > > > functioning success in human nature, and not a modern myth, why are
> > > > the three examples people predictably give all recent examples? Is
> > > > nonviolence as a response a recent invention of humans? Well, no--
> > > > there's turtles, snails... That clearly has nothing to do with human
> > > > history (or disagree with that, and articulate a case, anyone--explain
> > > > exactly how one explains the other).
> > > Why does it matter if they're recent? All it means that human beings are
> > > learning from experience and coming up alternatives to violence in order
> > to
> > > resolve problems.
> > > I would think that was a good thing.
> > Okay. But for a truly nonviolent campaign to work, wouldn't that mean
> > it worked with no threat of violence?
> And many have. That doesn't mean that violence didn't occur but violence was
> not the strategy.
> For example, the Protest Movement of the 1960s started having sit-ins,
> bed-ins (Lennon) and be-ins (Vancouver/Frisco).
> These were peaceful protests.
> That didn't stop the police from charging in with billy clubs to drag off,
> arrest protestors and charge the protesters with "assault".
> > The three (and only three,
> > versus like thousands of major historical examples where violence
> > works) examples of whether nonviolence works exclusively all have, I
> > think, substantial arguments that the "non-cooperation" encompassed
> > riots and threats at the bare minimum, state force sometimes. So.
> > Three disputable examples of nonviolence versus three-hundred-thousand
> > of violence works, nonviolence wins?
> Numbers aren't the issue.
> This is a new strategy. It's one that was developed in the last century as
> an alternative to violence and wars. So far, it's effect is being seen.
> We have to get better at it and more strategic about it instead of tossing
> it out just because it hasn't proven to be perfect yet.
> And we need brilliant young minds like yours to work on this problem, not to
> dismiss it.
> Violence as a strategy doesn't benefit anyone except, as I said before, in
> Wars of Conquest.
> > > > But here's a serious question: what do you think the proportion is of
> > > > "insufficient violence" to "failure" in proportion to the proportion
> > > > to "absolute nonviolence" to "success"? What really drives history?
> > > > Name a country that exists because those who sucked at violence more
> > > > didn't lose.
> > > There is no such thing as absolutes.
> > :P
> > > In any situation one has to use a mix of strategies based on the existing
> > > circumstances.
> > :P
> > > Violence is the most unsuccessful unless one considers winning a War of
> > > Conquest a success.
> > :P
> > > It depends on what the goals are.
> > Trance, none of the "great nonviolent leaders" achieved anything
> > historically without at least the threat of force behind them, and if
> > they were sincere, then they failed because of it.
> > > If the goals are to accomplish something in terms of resolving a problem,
> > > violence is rarely the right solution.
> > So you would argue that the minority of things in history that were
> > accomplished against adversity were accomplished with violence or the
> > threat of violence? Could you make, I dunno, lists to substantiate
> > this with facts, counterarguments taken into account?
> > I hate being the bad guy with you, but goddamn. I think we have to
> > start being realistic.
> > > > On Dec 1, 6:34 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 7:28 PM, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > > Let's go!
> > > > > Martin Luther King.
> > > > > Most Peace Marches in the 1960s (Canada).
> > > > > Mahatma Gandhi.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > > > companion.
> > > > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > > > Andromeda
> > > --
> > > Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> > > "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant
> > companion.
> > > Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> > > Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
> > > - Show quoted text -
> --
> Witchy Woman, AvC Anti-Spam Brigade. AA Wolf Pack Member #7
> "Change is the only constant in the universe. Fear its' constant companion.
> Overcoming fear is the key to unlocking its' gifts." --Trance Gemini,
> Andromeda- Hide quoted text -
|
