On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
Jim wrote:
Ghandi. Womens Sufferage (US). Jim Crow Laws (US). Vietnam. Civil Rights in the 60's. The point being, there are plenty of historical precidence where this sort of behaviour has led directly to the change desired by the protestors against a much better armed and entrenched foe.
It depends on which sort of behavior you mean--none of these causes believed in violence at all!
Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such.
Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day. And while
Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi).
Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn. Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it.
As to women sufferage, you need to do some more research there as well, not all women are pascifist. they burned more than bra's...
Guess you totally missed what I was trying to say about the Pankhursts.
You paint with too broad a brush (typical of the indoctrinating education of the day - going all the way back to when I was a kid in the 60's)
Oh come on. Address my points, don't insult me. We can get as specific as you like--there are too many issues here to cover them in adequate detail in a couple of posts.
Back in the day, anarchists used to assasinate people. Every ilk assassinates every other ilk if given the oportunity and the personality.
Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and the vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story.
What came of it?
The Indians are a free country. You and blacks can vote.
Not because of the anarchists decision to espouse violence, which the point of the above question. If you want to talk about tactics of anarchists today, why not draw on examples from other groups who espoused violence, rather than comparing them to groups which largely used peaceful tactics. Apples and oranges.
The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the 'kindly policeman who's there to help you' of their youth.
After Rodney King? the LAPD scandal? Abner Louima? Mumia? Patrick Dorismond? Not anymore. Ever see statistics on the way people perceive racial profiling? Maybe the "kindly cop" stereotype still holds in whitebread middle America, but the rest of the nation is getting a clue.
Want to see the other side? Kent State.
True...
The Sacco and Vanzetti case. Here's an uncomforably familiar bit on that--just fill in new details and it's as contemporary as ever:
One case does not a generalization make.
Who said it did? I thought it was interesting to note how it paralells quite a few different cases today. Anyway, I certainly think it's more relevant to the effects of the tactics of anarchism than bringing up Ghandi.
Ouch. There's a real lesson there! Yeah, you need to study history more.
Who doesn't? Anyway, I wasn't bringing it up to score debate points or some childish thing like that, why counter it that way. Too bad you didnt see anything interesting there-- I really do think it's really worth considering, especially in light of the whole "counterterrorist mania".
You're trying to sit on the fence and at the same time stand on both sides.
Not really, it's a complex set of issues. Why don't you say a little more in detail about why "spirit" is a more central issue than tactics, that ought to be interesting. ~Faustine.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day.
???? Black Panthers exist today... But they did provide a 'extreme viewpoint' and made it easier for the powers that be and more moderate groups to meet and make progress. A sort of implied 'or else'.
Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn.
In your opinion...opining on alternate futures is rife with problems you seem to blithefully to ignore (at your own peril). Claiming omniciance isn't a convincing argument.
Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it.
Actually I'd say it has, as a result of this civil war the chance of Ireland getting their independence sooner rather than later (how long do you figure the Brit's would have sat around if there had been no responce - till hell freezes over I'd suspect). Give a single example where absolute non-violence has worked...(there aren't any) It isn't in the human psyche to say "Well, we've oppressed them long enough, let them go free. We'll make our profits and express our civil authority some other way". -- ____________________________________________________________________ Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light. B.A. Behrend The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Faustine wrote:
Um, you should review the 60's groups like the SDS and such.
Exactly: those weren't the groups that made the real impact when it actually came to getting down to business and changing policy. Blame MKULTRA or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that they fell apart (and had their members killed or put in jail) whereas groups who didn't espouse violence continue to this day.
What? You are really a bit ignorant -- there are plenty of SDS and Black Panthers running around today, the vast majority never went to jail.
And while
Ghandi certainly didn't believe in violence the same can't be said for the rest of the Indian freedom movement (not all hailed to Ghandi).
Without Ghandi, British policy would have taken a far different turn.
Ghandi was also pissed because the Brits had confiscated all the privately owned firearms, and spoke out against this -- and from the sounds of it, would have advocated using those arm to fight the Brits.
Violence hasn't exactly been a stunning success for the IRA, has it.
Who do you think it was that kicked the Brits out of the most of Ireland, with a *lot* of violence? If it weren't for Irish picking up the gun, the whole country would still be a Brit colony. And they will succeed in driving the Brits out of the rest, and hopefully their progeny, the "Protestants" along with them.
Not Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Susan B. Anthony, Bobby Kennedy and and the vast majority of the people who espoused the causes you mentioned above. The ones who made the real difference--the ones who immediately come to mind every time we think of their cause--didn't espouse violence. If you want to talk about Che and Mao and Chairman Gonzalo, that's another story.
God, what bullshit. MLK preached civil disobedience, not just "nonviolence" -- if he were doing this in today's repressive political climate, he would be getting exactly the same treatment as the WTO protesters. What stopped the war was explicity the growing violence (SDS's Bring the War Home campaign) and the fact that returning combat vets were joining the protests in throngs, and new draftees were fragging and shooting their officers and NCOs in Nam. What does Bobby Kennedy have to do with it? He and his brother were just another couple of politrixians who got what they deserved.
The reality is, your example of the 'troops in the street willing to gun 'em down' (a paraphrase) is apt. The only thing stopping them is knowing that the majority of people don't believe it. They still believe in the
The thing stopping them is knowing that they are vastly outnumbered, and if they escalate into using deadly force against the protesters, there are more than enough people who would come back with guns the next day and wipe them out. If Kent State had happened, for instance, at Berkley or Madison, there is no question of what would have happened next, and probably that very same day. Geez, just look at the what those Pakistani kids are doing to the cops in England. And they have no access to guns. -- Harmon Seaver, MLIS CyberShamanix Work 920-203-9633 hseaver@cybershamanix.com Home 920-233-5820 hseaver@ameritech.net
participants (3)
-
Faustine -
Harmon Seaver -
Jim Choate