Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ratbastid
You say that as if you're making a point. I'm not sure you read my post--the fact that they died meant NOTHING in terms of what they were out to cause. King's death didn't end the Civil Rights movement. It kept on going--in some ways it's still going to this day--without Dr. King at the helm. All without any violence on King's part. If that's not power, what do you call it?
|
Strategic thinking, violence wouldn't have worked when the money, power, and population as a whole (in the case of segregation) would be against you. Guilt works well, but no amount of protesting would have gotten rid of fascism. Its again, our current structure that allows it, and democracy is not eternal. It could be overthrown by violence here like other places where it has been.
Non-violence only works were the side who has the power is willing to change in the first place. If white America didn't want civil rights, we wouldn't have it period despite what Dr. King did.
Quote:
|
The other thing that Gandhi and King (and others like them) have in common is that they're interested in something bigger than themselves, such that the sacrifice of their physical person is a trivial price to pay.
|
Yes but if you asked them I'd guess both wouldn't have shown up to get shot. The problem with non-violence is that its HARDER to do than violence, plus it only works if the people who control the violence agree to give in. By harder I mean its one thing to die fighting, thats part of human nature to risk your life like that, its part of what we have been doing since before the neolithic. Its another thing to fight for your cause by LETTING them beat the crap out of you/kill you. They call it the fight or flight reflex, not the sit there and take it reflex for a reason.
Quote:
|
Indeed, Gandhi was quite willing to die rather than see India tear itself in half, and the threat of his death was what ultimately unified it. It wasn't "united against a common enemy", Ustwo; your timeline is wrong. Gandhi's hunger strike was years after Indian independence.
|
Gandhi advised the Congress to reject the proposals the British Cabinet Mission offered in 1946, as he was deeply suspicious of the grouping proposed for Muslim-majority states—Gandhi viewed this as a precursor to partition. However, this became one of the few times the Congress broke from Gandhi's advice (though not his leadership), as Nehru and Patel knew that if the Congress did not approve the plan, the control of government would pass to the Muslim League. Between 1946 and 1948 , over 5,000 people were killed in violence. Gandhi was vehemently opposed to any plan that partitioned India into two separate countries. An overwhelming majority of Muslims living in India, side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, were in favour of Partition. Additionally Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and East Bengal. The partition plan was approved by the Congress leadership as the only way to prevent a wide-scale Hindu–Muslim civil war. Congress leaders knew that Gandhi would viscerally oppose partition, and it was impossible for the Congress to go ahead without his agreement, for Gandhi's support in the party and throughout India was strong. Gandhi's closest colleagues had accepted partition as the best way out, and Sardar Patel endeavoured to convince Gandhi that it was the only way to avoid civil war. A devastated Gandhi gave his assent.
Ummmm my timeline is wrong?
Plus even today, ask an Indian Hindu how well they get along with the Muslims.
Interestingly here is another Gandhi quote..
"Gandhi guarded against attracting to his satyagraha movement those who feared to take up arms or felt themselves incapable of resistance. 'I do believe,' he wrote, 'that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.'"
and another...
"At every meeting I repeated the warning that unless they felt that in non-violence they had come into possession of a force infinitely superior to the one they had and in the use of which they were adept, they should have nothing to do with non-violence and resume the arms they possessed before. It must never be said of the Khudai Khidmatgars that once so brave, they had become or been made cowards under Badshah Khan's influence. Their bravery consisted not in being good marksmen but in defying death and being ever ready to bare their breasts to the bullets."
His movement may have been non-violent but he seemed to have no problem with those who employed violence to fight for what they believed in. He used non-violence because it was the best way to fight for independence under the existing power structures. He also had some interesting things to say about the Jews in Germany prior to the Holocaust which are quite interesting but may stray to far from the current topic to matter.