Gandhi meets the Fairness Doctrine

[whyverne]

Since Google is featuring Gandhi today, a bit of Devil's Advocate might be in order. Since everybody likes to remember Gandhi and forget Lala Lajpat Rai, a nonviolent Indian banker who was beaten to death by British police while leading a protest.

Just something to think about.

Nonviolence: Its Histories and Myths: Professor Michael Neumann
http://mohandasgandhi.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/gandhis-influence-upon-the-british-decision-to-quit-india-m-i-n-i-m-a-l-uk-pm-lord-clement-atlee/

“…I have neither the moral standing nor the slightest desire to disparage the courage of those who engage in non-violence…. But, non-violence, so often recommended.. has never ‘worked’ in any politically relevant sense of the word, and there is no reason to suppose it ever will. It has never, largely on its own strength, achieved the political objectives of those who employed it… There are supposedly three major examples of successful nonviolence: Gandhi’s independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and the South African campaign against apartheid. None of them performed as advertised. The notion that a people can free itself literally by allowing their captors to walk all over them is historical fantasy…”

All things considered, the well-founded fear of generalized violence had far more effect on British resolve than Gandhi ever did.

Not that I am not in any way against non-violence and it's proponents. They have their role. The oppressors can bargain with them after the more "active" activists have their turn.

[daedalus_dude]

1. To practice non-violence successfully, one must be in a position to also use violence successfully.

A person who is a potentially a tough adversary can negotiate a non-aggression pact. A person who is nothing more than a potential victim cannot negotiate such a pact. The aggressor will do as they please anyway.


I also like the quote "All armed prophets conquered. All unarmed ones perished."

[Selatius]

2. The previous poster has learned a lesson few seem willing to understand.

When you are dealing with somebody who knows nothing but murder and brutality to get his way, non-violence will simply make you into target practice for his thugs. Sadly, there comes a time when we must fight when confronted with such a situation. Only from a position of strength can we negotiate in a peaceful manner. The Civil Rights Movement was large enough in size that attacking it outright with blatant brutality would surely bring down the regime on itself. No, it had to negotiate with the movement in order to continue to exist as an authority in this land.

If the Civil Rights Movement was weak in nature and shallow in support, its leaders would've been jailed, and the followers would've been beaten, maimed, and murdered.

[Gman2]

3. In the outlaw Jose Wales, he negotiated peace, with the Indians.

He said, he has a peace face, and a war face. Either can be used. Without the threat of otherwise, why wouyld anyone capitulate?

And a short fuse, is laudable. Lightswitch public sentiment, scares the bejebus outta officials.

Destroy a few corps, with bad press, and ridicule, and the others will cringe. HARD CHARGE. Bluff over. Roar in their faces. Pound your chest. If need be, reach out and touch. Why do we hate those that would lead us? The right has us convinced we are chicken shits, that desire only comfort. That we only employ non violence, and nice language. FUCK THAT. Let's Roll.

[redqueen]

4. Interesting... (nt)