“India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947) was shaped by influential leaders who are called Freedom Fighters of India like Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered nonviolent resistance”
Those riots wouldn’t have had any influence whatsoever, along with so much of all the other things done outside of the influence of MLK’s nonviolent influence, if it wasn’t for him sitting down with the president himself, and pressuring him via calm mindedness logic and reason, not to mention organizing the biggest moment in the entire movement by far.
That’s obviously not what I’m saying exactly. If you’re interested check out Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You
I did say I didn’t agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.
Violence didn’t result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn’t just standing by and doing nothing, it’s about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Why does this argument assume violence is always evil?
There are plenty of situations where non-violence is not effective, where an attacker does not want or need co-operation, making non-cooperation merely non-resistance to evil. Sometimes the only realistic way to disobey violence is with targeted counter-violence or the threat of counter-violence, we don’t always have the luxury of non-violent tactics available to us.
Even groups like antifascist orgs emphasize that non-violent tactics are generally preferred, and I agree completely, but ultimately, there are many real-world situations where non-violent methods just aren’t applicable. This is important to realize if we want to stop evil.
“Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation.” That’s the context in which I’m speaking. That’s the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.
cough India’s independence, Jim Crow Laws. cough cough
Neither of which were achieved through purely peaceful means.
Ghandi had violent freedom fighters supporting the same cause, which are never mentioned in today’s history books. And the civil rights movement had Malcom X, the Black Panthers, and riots.
Violent flanks are associated with higher success rates of social movements:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/1/3/pgac110/6633666?login=false
“India’s Freedom Struggle (1857-1947) was shaped by influential leaders who are called Freedom Fighters of India like Mahatma Gandhi, who pioneered nonviolent resistance”
Those riots wouldn’t have had any influence whatsoever, along with so much of all the other things done outside of the influence of MLK’s nonviolent influence, if it wasn’t for him sitting down with the president himself, and pressuring him via calm mindedness logic and reason, not to mention organizing the biggest moment in the entire movement by far.
If only the leader of Poland had sat down at a table and calmly negotiated with Hitler to not invade.
That’s obviously not what I’m saying exactly. If you’re interested check out Leo Tolstoy’s non-fiction: Confession, What I Believe, The Gospel In Brief, and The Kingdom of God Is Within You
You’re so close to getting it.
I hope someday I can say the same for you my friend.
You think it’s was morally unacceptable for allied soldiers to defend their neighbors. You ain’t my friend.
I did say I didn’t agree with it at one point i remember, at that point in the war of course I agree with our response, I was disagreeing more with responding to Hitler and his regime with the opposite that he was advocating from the start, collectively.
There was plenty of violence there, even in the Quit India Movement launched by Mahatma Gandhi.
Violence didn’t result because Gandhi ever advocated for it, it was something that happened as a result of it. Because again non-violence isn’t just standing by and doing nothing, it’s about resisting evil via non-cooperation. Resisting it by not obeying it; not retaliating, but never to submit to evil at the same time.
Why does this argument assume violence is always evil?
There are plenty of situations where non-violence is not effective, where an attacker does not want or need co-operation, making non-cooperation merely non-resistance to evil. Sometimes the only realistic way to disobey violence is with targeted counter-violence or the threat of counter-violence, we don’t always have the luxury of non-violent tactics available to us.
Even groups like antifascist orgs emphasize that non-violent tactics are generally preferred, and I agree completely, but ultimately, there are many real-world situations where non-violent methods just aren’t applicable. This is important to realize if we want to stop evil.
“Where an attacker does not want or need co-operation.” That’s the context in which I’m speaking. That’s the whole point, to not submit to both your inherent need to retaliate and there demand for you of something; to not just sit there and do nothing, but resist—non-violently. To not submit to them taking your land, your children, but to do so non-violently. To resist the aggressor, by never giving them your obedience, which includes allowing them to harm you or your loved ones, but without literally fighting back, but by never backing down at the same time.