4 ms·

Jesus' ideology is one of submission and reward in the "next world". No wonder why it has been embraced by every political power since ancient Rome. I think tha

Jesus' ideology is one of submission and reward in the "next world". No wonder why it has been embraced by every political power since ancient Rome. I think that using such ideology to protest against oppression is a losing proposition. In fact, if we like it or not, it is violence that really makes the difference when people protest against something. For example, the government loves to say that it was the peaceful protest of Dr. King that made the difference in the civil rights movement. In fact, it was the fear they had of the many violent, armed black movements that were developing around the country that made any difference. Dr. King was then viewed as a public, peaceful voice to control these protestors which lead it to the victory of the civil movement. This is how the government likes people to see the history of what happened. Similarly for the struggles of the Indian people that were presented publicly just as the pacific protests lead by their enlightened leader Gandhi.

sounds 9y ago
1. Jesus' ideology was not only about reward in the "next world." NIV Matthew 10:34-36 says: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. 2. Martin Luther King, though flawed, made a difference. He was not just a public, peaceful voice. He put his life on the line and eventually gave his life. This resonated with many, many more people than any violence. (Note that this is the same thing Jesus did.) 3. What's your source that Gandhi was only presented publicly? Who was his puppet-master?
- coliveira 9y ago
  I am not saying that Dr. King or Gandhi were puppets in any way, on the contrary they were very important to galvanize support for their movements. But they were not the full movement. The power of the movement was in the subversion of the existing order, and these figures were the peaceful face of the whole movement. Without a fierce underlying movement they would be just swept aside like any other peaceful protestor has ever been.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Can non-violence not also be fierce in it's execution?
  - sounds 9y ago
    You forgot to include sources.
  - yesenadam 9y ago
    There's a lot to what you say, but your "Only violence does anything" position seems quite vague and shifting, unarguable-against (unfalsifiable), and fortunately not borne out by the facts. I get a feeling of blood-lust masquerading as wisdom, but I think the world's not quite as bad or hopeless as you say. A "fierce underlying movement"...you mean, without violent people in the same movement? No-one's saying "Gandhi was the full movement", whatever that would mean exactly. And sure, peaceful protests, civil disobedience and hunger strikes wouldn't have worked against the Nazis, but it worked against the British. (Although it doesn't sound like you would think that's right) You seem to be sweeping all situations into one basket. And in that basket, only violence works, peace never achieves anything. I don't think that's reality. And I can prove it, I think: Watch the documentary on Gene Sharp, "How To Start A Revolution". I hadn't heard of him, which is pretty damning comment on the modern media (considering some of the people who are mega-famous). It seems he and his methods and writings were (in part) responsible for most of these peaceful revolutions sweeping the world in the last few decades, dozens of them. I'd be surprised if you can watch that (and read the associated literature) and not change your view. I found it super-inspiring. And without it, I might have been more convinced by your arguments. Although I think you in no way recognize Gandhi's actual importance in existing-order-subversion.
    - coliveira 9y ago
      I think you are trying to mix several unrelated things. The amount of violence necessary to change something always depends on the amount of repression imposed. If the repression is light/inexistent, there is no need for any violence. If the enemy is an army that is coming for combat with no opportunity for negotiations, only full scale war will work. In between these extremes, several mixes of diplomacy and violence are necessary. It is just wishful thinking to believe that peaceful protests will always work, in fact in many cases this belief serves only to demonize people who are protesting for their rights.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
Certain parts of the government definitely were glad that MLK was promoting non violence, that is until he extended that call for non violence to the war in Vietnam. Though I think you underestimate the mass effect on millions of americans from watching people peacefully walking down the street get beaten to a pulp by the police and gored by attack dogs while they ate their TV dinners. It was disgusting and iconoclastic to the ethos that the USA stood for freedom. Dr. King deliberately strived to create such a violent ruckus in the hopes that it would be televised so the rest of the nation could vividly experience the reality of racism and the hypocrisy of the government. It was information warfare.
- vkou 9y ago
  > Though I think you underestimate the mass effect on millions of americans from watching people peacefully walking down the street get beaten to a pulp by the police and gored by attack dogs while they ate their TV dinners. It was disgusting and iconoclastic to the ethos that the USA stood for freedom. Half the country looked at that, and all they saw was a mob of _______ getting their just deserts. Why can't they shut up and go to work? What's their problem - it's not like slavery was still around. Half the country supported the Kent state shootings. Today, half the country opposes any protest against police violence. Sitting down? Unacceptable. Standing up? Unacceptable? March in the streets? Unacceptable. Speaking? Unacceptable. Staying silent? Also unacceptable. Perhaps a purely functional form of protest, with no observable side effects would be, but I've never heard of a successful one. You can always find something or someone to condemn in a protest - and once you do, this justifies using violence to put it down. Collective punishment is still popular, especially when its collective punishment against a group speaking out about an uncomfortable topic.
dang 9y ago
This crosses into religious flamewar, which we really don't want on HN. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

sounds 9y ago

1. Jesus' ideology was not only about reward in the "next world." NIV Matthew 10:34-36 says: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. 2. Martin Luther King, though flawed, made a difference. He was not just a public, peaceful voice. He put his life on the line and eventually gave his life. This resonated with many, many more people than any violence. (Note that this is the same thing Jesus did.) 3. What's your source that Gandhi was only presented publicly? Who was his puppet-master?

coliveira 9y ago
I am not saying that Dr. King or Gandhi were puppets in any way, on the contrary they were very important to galvanize support for their movements. But they were not the full movement. The power of the movement was in the subversion of the existing order, and these figures were the peaceful face of the whole movement. Without a fierce underlying movement they would be just swept aside like any other peaceful protestor has ever been.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Can non-violence not also be fierce in it's execution?
- sounds 9y ago
  You forgot to include sources.
- yesenadam 9y ago
  There's a lot to what you say, but your "Only violence does anything" position seems quite vague and shifting, unarguable-against (unfalsifiable), and fortunately not borne out by the facts. I get a feeling of blood-lust masquerading as wisdom, but I think the world's not quite as bad or hopeless as you say. A "fierce underlying movement"...you mean, without violent people in the same movement? No-one's saying "Gandhi was the full movement", whatever that would mean exactly. And sure, peaceful protests, civil disobedience and hunger strikes wouldn't have worked against the Nazis, but it worked against the British. (Although it doesn't sound like you would think that's right) You seem to be sweeping all situations into one basket. And in that basket, only violence works, peace never achieves anything. I don't think that's reality. And I can prove it, I think: Watch the documentary on Gene Sharp, "How To Start A Revolution". I hadn't heard of him, which is pretty damning comment on the modern media (considering some of the people who are mega-famous). It seems he and his methods and writings were (in part) responsible for most of these peaceful revolutions sweeping the world in the last few decades, dozens of them. I'd be surprised if you can watch that (and read the associated literature) and not change your view. I found it super-inspiring. And without it, I might have been more convinced by your arguments. Although I think you in no way recognize Gandhi's actual importance in existing-order-subversion.
  - coliveira 9y ago
    I think you are trying to mix several unrelated things. The amount of violence necessary to change something always depends on the amount of repression imposed. If the repression is light/inexistent, there is no need for any violence. If the enemy is an army that is coming for combat with no opportunity for negotiations, only full scale war will work. In between these extremes, several mixes of diplomacy and violence are necessary. It is just wishful thinking to believe that peaceful protests will always work, in fact in many cases this belief serves only to demonize people who are protesting for their rights.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

Certain parts of the government definitely were glad that MLK was promoting non violence, that is until he extended that call for non violence to the war in Vietnam. Though I think you underestimate the mass effect on millions of americans from watching people peacefully walking down the street get beaten to a pulp by the police and gored by attack dogs while they ate their TV dinners. It was disgusting and iconoclastic to the ethos that the USA stood for freedom. Dr. King deliberately strived to create such a violent ruckus in the hopes that it would be televised so the rest of the nation could vividly experience the reality of racism and the hypocrisy of the government. It was information warfare.

vkou 9y ago
> Though I think you underestimate the mass effect on millions of americans from watching people peacefully walking down the street get beaten to a pulp by the police and gored by attack dogs while they ate their TV dinners. It was disgusting and iconoclastic to the ethos that the USA stood for freedom. Half the country looked at that, and all they saw was a mob of _______ getting their just deserts. Why can't they shut up and go to work? What's their problem - it's not like slavery was still around. Half the country supported the Kent state shootings. Today, half the country opposes any protest against police violence. Sitting down? Unacceptable. Standing up? Unacceptable? March in the streets? Unacceptable. Speaking? Unacceptable. Staying silent? Also unacceptable. Perhaps a purely functional form of protest, with no observable side effects would be, but I've never heard of a successful one. You can always find something or someone to condemn in a protest - and once you do, this justifies using violence to put it down. Collective punishment is still popular, especially when its collective punishment against a group speaking out about an uncomfortable topic.

dang 9y ago

This crosses into religious flamewar, which we really don't want on HN. Please don't do this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html