5 ms·
You bring up a very thought provoking question. Looking at the many social movements in the past century, we have often lionized those who pursued non-violent m
by whack 8y ago
You bring up a very thought provoking question. Looking at the many social movements in the past century, we have often lionized those who pursued non-violent methods, while downplaying those who pursued armed resistance.
But would the former have succeeded without the latter's help? Would MLK have succeeded without Malcolm X? Would Gandhi have succeeded without Subhas Chandra Bose? Would Nelson Mandela have succeeded without his willingness to use violence?
When looking at movements such as the American revolutionary war, the American civil war, and the Allies' resistance against Nazi occupation, the use of violence to achieve political goals, is both accepted and seen as necessary for the greater good. I've yet to meet anyone who deplored armed resistance in the above conflicts.
https://www.independent.co.uk/world/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-a7409066.html https://www.independent.co.uk/world/the-forgotten-violence-t...
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-nelson-mandela-legacy-violence-20131206-story.html http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-nelson-mandel...
- artificial 8y agoIt is a thought provoking question. Take Gandhi, he succeeded because of British sensibilities, the same strategy wouldn’t have been as effective against the Nazis for example. A great deal of it depends on the adversary.
- wz1000 8y agoGandhi didn't "succeed" in a vacuum, and especially not due to "British sensibilities". The British Empire as a whole was an unwieldy and increasing unprofitable venture(not in small part to the threat of revolt and Civil Disobedience from occupied regions) for a country that had been devastated through the damages and effort of fighting the largest war in human history. If colonised countries had not been actively(and violently) trying to get rid of their colonisers, the British Empire could have persisted indefinitely. Violence is much more effective than non-violence in trying to get rid of any oppressor. Consider this: any State can deal with 5-10% of its population not working/paying taxes and "non-violently" resisting(these days even property crime can get you counted as a violent protestor). States would be much more hard pressed to deal with even 1% of their population in active, armed revolt against them.
- loggedinmyphone 8y agoAll of these instances of violence are regrettable. The aims of the American War of Independence and the Civil War almost certainly could have been achieved without firing a shot. The Nazi regime could have been prevented if the victors of the first World War hadn't imposed harsh punitive measures to destroy the German economy.
- maxerickson 8y agoA different resolution to slavery in the US almost certainly would have involved the ongoing deaths of slaves. So just less violence. (even one that somehow rapidly ended slavery without slave owners waging war)
- loggedinmyphone 8y agoYes, less violence is the goal.
- anigbrowl 8y agoIt might be your goal, but it's not everyone else's. You don't get to tell people they can't have freedom because it might involve more violence than leaving them in captivity.
- loggedinmyphone 8y agoNeither the notions of nonviolence nor autonomy are absolutes. We always have to struggle to make good choices.
- SimbaOnSteroids 8y agoThe second world war resulting from the first world war's punitive damages is largely a myth propagated by the Nazi's on their rise to power. In actuallity the second world war was a result of piss-poor monetary and fiscal policy combined with the rise of fascism across Europe. AskHistorians thread that talks about this and cites their sources https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/89u5t9/in_a_prominent_eli5_today_i_read_germanys/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/89u5t9/in_a_...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]