3 ms·
nonviolent revolution? whuh? there's never been such a thing. Salt Satyagraha produced scant progress toward dominion status or independence for India, and di
by nazgulnarsil 17y ago
nonviolent revolution? whuh? there's never been such a thing.
Salt Satyagraha produced scant progress toward dominion status or independence for India, and did not win any major concessions from the British.
in the ensuing chaos
Communal violence killed an estimated one million Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs
not to be a jerk, I just get sick of the dominant paradigm which holds that action without the threat of force has ever, in any way, significantly shaped the power structures of human civilization. you've been brought up on docility propaganda.
- euroclydon 17y agoHonest question here: So you're saying that Ghandi's movement was just a overemphasized size-show to a more violent revolution? What I am talking about it an idea; perhaps phase two is violent, but without phase one, it's violence without a purpose. P.S. Where are your italicized phrases sourced from?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- nazgulnarsil 17y agosource is wikipedia. yes, that is what I'm saying. I don't view a religious civil war between hindus and muslims over pakistani independence to be violence with a purpose. I see all violence as purposeless. the product of ignorance that could have been avoided. I say this not as a high minded ideal, but as simple rational appraisal. violent action is rarely economical unless the aggressors are able to externalize the costs of their aggression onto some other group. support for war is often drummed up through appeals to ignorance on the part of the populace supporting the aggressors.