Based on what I leaned from the article about his final message, the protest wasn’t for Israel’s sake, it was to draw those living under the rule of a government’s attention (whether Israel’s, the U.S.'s, or wherever else’s) to the situation. To point out that we are indeed living through a genocide perpetuated by our own government. Like I question his method, but realisticly speaking, you and I wouldn’t be talking about it if he hadn’t.
And maybe nothing will ultimately come of it, maybe it was a desperate act against his own powerlessness to stop it.
I would argue self immolation is a pretty powerful statement though, you weigh everything you are, everything you could be; against the hope that a message takes off somewhere.
You can absolutely criticize his conviction. It’s exactly this level of conviction that precipitated this tragic conflict in the first place. Hamas is convinced killing Israelis is the solution to their problems. They did something about it. Israel is convinced killing Palestinians is the solution to their problems. They did something about it. This guy was convinced killing himself is the answer. He did something about it. Cheering on any of these murderous, extremist asshats for having the courage of their convictions is woefully misguided.
There’s no murder here, unless you’re accusing himself of murdering himself, which is a whole can of worms. The other examples are consistent but his is decidedly different.
Agree, this is an extremely brave and selfless act. There have been many cases of self immolation over the years and they stick in the mind. Jan Palach and the many Tibetans spring to mind
Self Immolation is the most severe form of protest. It’s selfless cause you are giving your life to the cause so that maybe others will have a better chance at achieving their goals
The famous photograph of the monk is shocking. It was like nothing people had seen before. Quang Duc sits peacefully in the meditative lotus position as the flames engulf him. The image is so perplexing, so contrary to ideas of self-preservation that the audience has to stop and ask questions about what is happening.
and this
The self-immolation was a powerful act of psychological warfare. By being willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his people, Quang Duc showed the strength and immovable will of the Buddhist community. A foe that isn’t afraid of a painful death cannot be bullied and cajoled into submission.
I read a couple other articles on the history of self immolation. There was a new yorker article that did a good job on being scepitcal of the practice. Was suprised to find out that there are a lot more cases of it that I expected. Then again, the handful of cases where it had the intended effect were so successful that it makes sense that others would do the same hoping to get the same reaction (the Tibetan monks, the Arab Spring, etc)
But it definitely seems fair to say it doesn’t pack the punch it used to. Which might be good reason to choose other actions.
the handful of cases where it had the intended effect were so successful that it makes sense that others would do the same hoping to get the same reaction (the Tibetan monks, the Arab Spring, etc)
There’s no way to objectively determine if self immolation is “effective”. Take Tibet, yes it’s a famous photograph, but did it free Tibet? Was the monks goal to become a famous image, or was it to end the cultural genocide?
What about the Arab spring? Was that man’s goal to kick off a movement that would eventually destabilize the entire region, leading to more autocratic governments securing power?
Is self immolation a powerful act? Yes, but power without direction is meaningless. Real change requires collective action, not independent acts of “psychological warfare”.
Sometimes a young man is just gonna do it instead of wait to see what life brings. Personally, I say wait and see what life brings. But i was his age once and i sort-of-kind-of get it.
Someone with that level of conviction and belief in what they imagine being a better world than this one is exactly the kind of person who should be running for office, not setting themselves on fire.
Like I question his method, but realisticly speaking, you and I wouldn’t be talking about it if he hadn’t.
And that’s just it. We’re talking about his methodology more than what he was trying to say. And for the government supporting a regime that’s commiting genocide, that is already talked about ad nauseum online. There’s already pro-Palestine protests, there’s groups joining the “Uncommitted” movement—like, his act of self-immolation will be lost among every other act of protest going on.
Was it extreme? Yes. Was it effective? I don’t think so.
We’re talking about his methodology more than what he was trying to say.
You are. Because that’s the conversation you wanted to start rather than address his statements. The President of the United States almost certainly read about this event. It’s being covered in newspapers throughout the country. It’s only people like you who is saying it’s meaningless and no one cares.
Where do you think it falls short in the definition of genocide: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”?
1.5% of the population has been killed. That’s a lot but 2% of the US died in the civil war, and far higher numbers. I know the wars are very different but larger numbers have also died in the current Ukraine war.
If they’re trying to eliminate them as a people they need to pick up the pace. Also, my family was displaced from their land in the 1900s and had to seek asylum in the US. Nobody called it a genocide but also everyone was mostly white.
The criteria for genocide is not “kill a percentage of a population larger than the percentage that died in the US Civil War”. There’s no minimum requirement for per-capita death. It’s about intent and action. They are trying to kill or displace everyone in Gaza. How good they are at it isn’t relevant, it is still genocide.
1.5% of the population has been killed. That’s a lot but 2% of the US died in the civil war
The American Civil War ran from Apr 1861 – 9 Apr 1865. Four years
The Gaza genocide hasn’t even been going for 6 months and it’s already racked up 3/4 of the deaths of the entire US Civil War. If it runs for 4 years at the present rate it will kill 12% of the population and half of those are children.
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
So, point for point, the only one Israel hasn’t done in Gaza is “e”. But to be clear, you don’t have to hit all 5 to be a genocide, just one is enough. Russia is hitting all 5 in Ukraine.
Based on what I leaned from the article about his final message, the protest wasn’t for Israel’s sake, it was to draw those living under the rule of a government’s attention (whether Israel’s, the U.S.'s, or wherever else’s) to the situation. To point out that we are indeed living through a genocide perpetuated by our own government. Like I question his method, but realisticly speaking, you and I wouldn’t be talking about it if he hadn’t.
And maybe nothing will ultimately come of it, maybe it was a desperate act against his own powerlessness to stop it.
I would argue self immolation is a pretty powerful statement though, you weigh everything you are, everything you could be; against the hope that a message takes off somewhere.
Amen. This man did something. While we sit on our asses on Lemmy and complain. You can criticize his methods, but not his conviction.
You can absolutely criticize his conviction. It’s exactly this level of conviction that precipitated this tragic conflict in the first place. Hamas is convinced killing Israelis is the solution to their problems. They did something about it. Israel is convinced killing Palestinians is the solution to their problems. They did something about it. This guy was convinced killing himself is the answer. He did something about it. Cheering on any of these murderous, extremist asshats for having the courage of their convictions is woefully misguided.
There’s no murder here, unless you’re accusing himself of murdering himself, which is a whole can of worms. The other examples are consistent but his is decidedly different.
Albert Einstein
Agree, this is an extremely brave and selfless act. There have been many cases of self immolation over the years and they stick in the mind. Jan Palach and the many Tibetans spring to mind
While very brave, I would hesitate to label any act of suicide selfless. You are still breaking a piece inside of everyone you leave behind.
Also, the two examples you sourced weren’t really effective in the end. Czechoslovakia was still invaded, and Tibet is still being occupied by China.
Self Immolation is the most severe form of protest. It’s selfless cause you are giving your life to the cause so that maybe others will have a better chance at achieving their goals
How?
I’ve never heard of a situation that could be improved by someone lighting themselves on fire.
That kind of dedication directed towards acts of mutual aid would be invaluable. I think it’s sad that it was wasted on something so ephemeral.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/180606
There are a few line in this I really like
and this
I read a couple other articles on the history of self immolation. There was a new yorker article that did a good job on being scepitcal of the practice. Was suprised to find out that there are a lot more cases of it that I expected. Then again, the handful of cases where it had the intended effect were so successful that it makes sense that others would do the same hoping to get the same reaction (the Tibetan monks, the Arab Spring, etc)
But it definitely seems fair to say it doesn’t pack the punch it used to. Which might be good reason to choose other actions.
There’s no way to objectively determine if self immolation is “effective”. Take Tibet, yes it’s a famous photograph, but did it free Tibet? Was the monks goal to become a famous image, or was it to end the cultural genocide?
What about the Arab spring? Was that man’s goal to kick off a movement that would eventually destabilize the entire region, leading to more autocratic governments securing power?
Is self immolation a powerful act? Yes, but power without direction is meaningless. Real change requires collective action, not independent acts of “psychological warfare”.
I would call it selfish, because his effort could have been put towards lasting activism.
Sometimes a young man is just gonna do it instead of wait to see what life brings. Personally, I say wait and see what life brings. But i was his age once and i sort-of-kind-of get it.
Someone with that level of conviction and belief in what they imagine being a better world than this one is exactly the kind of person who should be running for office, not setting themselves on fire.
And that’s just it. We’re talking about his methodology more than what he was trying to say. And for the government supporting a regime that’s commiting genocide, that is already talked about ad nauseum online. There’s already pro-Palestine protests, there’s groups joining the “Uncommitted” movement—like, his act of self-immolation will be lost among every other act of protest going on.
Was it extreme? Yes. Was it effective? I don’t think so.
You are. Because that’s the conversation you wanted to start rather than address his statements. The President of the United States almost certainly read about this event. It’s being covered in newspapers throughout the country. It’s only people like you who is saying it’s meaningless and no one cares.
I am almost certain nobody will be talking about this next week.
I do not apologize for accepting cold reality.
More people have died in so many other wars, but this is a genocide? I keep reading it but I don’t see it. Land displacement is not genocide.
Where do you think it falls short in the definition of genocide: “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”?
1.5% of the population has been killed. That’s a lot but 2% of the US died in the civil war, and far higher numbers. I know the wars are very different but larger numbers have also died in the current Ukraine war.
If they’re trying to eliminate them as a people they need to pick up the pace. Also, my family was displaced from their land in the 1900s and had to seek asylum in the US. Nobody called it a genocide but also everyone was mostly white.
The criteria for genocide is not “kill a percentage of a population larger than the percentage that died in the US Civil War”. There’s no minimum requirement for per-capita death. It’s about intent and action. They are trying to kill or displace everyone in Gaza. How good they are at it isn’t relevant, it is still genocide.
@doingless
The American Civil War ran from Apr 1861 – 9 Apr 1865. Four years
The Gaza genocide hasn’t even been going for 6 months and it’s already racked up 3/4 of the deaths of the entire US Civil War. If it runs for 4 years at the present rate it will kill 12% of the population and half of those are children.
The UN Convention on Genocide defines it like this:
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
"a) Killing members of the group;
b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
So, point for point, the only one Israel hasn’t done in Gaza is “e”. But to be clear, you don’t have to hit all 5 to be a genocide, just one is enough. Russia is hitting all 5 in Ukraine.