7 ms·

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the vio

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

int_19h 7y ago
One does have to wonder if MLK and Gandhi would have been successful, if they weren't alternatives to something much more violent. Or if their opponents weren't willing to ramp violence up enough. The thing about Gandhi in particular is that he is famous precisely because he won. How many like him were there that didn't win, and we have no idea that they even existed, because their body was dumped into a ditch behind a prison tucked away in the middle of nowhere? And sometimes we do know about them, because they did survive to tell the story - but it's not a very inspiring story when they lose, and so it gets eclipsed. This guy was a Gandhi to his people before Gandhi was even born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji - how many have heard of him?
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Probably not, but there were other leaders within those larger protests who did believe in violence and called for it, but were not followed as much. From the government perspective, those leaders did present a threat of violence. Meaning that at any point Gandhi/MLK could fade into irrelevance and one of those leaders could lead the charge.
harimau777 7y ago
MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" basically says that one reason that the non-violent movement should be supported is because the alternative is violent Black Nationalism. As an aside, if you haven't read it I highly recommend it. I think it's an excellent example of arguing that a position is consistent with people's existing worldview instead of trying to force them to adopt a different worldview.
guerrilla 7y ago
It's a gambit that can be used as leverage. I think they were expecting those in power to cave to their demands when those in power realized that people realized that peacefully protesting wasn't going to work, which is ironically what made it work. Furthermore, in other cases, people don't have to realize the purpose of the strategy that they're applying in order to apply it. Intention isn't function.
buzzkillington 7y ago
How well would have Ghandi fared if he were not in the British Empire? If he was in the USSR or Nazi Germany he would have been quietly murdered one night.
- eklavya 7y ago
  Let's not pretend British Empire was any bit less evil than the other ones. This seems to be a common theme everywhere including in India. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-milli...
  - buzzkillington 7y ago
    If the British empire was as evil as the Nazis there would be no Indians left.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - harimau777 7y ago
      I don't think that's necessarily accurate. The Nazi's conquered many countries without exterminating their population. As I understand it they only attempted to exterminate Jewish people, homosexuals, and the disabled. Granted even that is deeply evil, but it doesn't mean that they would wipe out any given people group that they conquered.
      - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
        They also planned on wiping out 100% of Latgallians, 85% of Poles, 85% of Lithuanians, 75% of Belarusians and large portions of most of the rest of Eastern Europe[1]. The groups you listed were some of their top priorities, but by no means where they intended to stop. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
      - 7y ago

That seems like an odd thing to believe is a truism. Sure, it’s occasionally correct, but always? You believe that MLK and Gandhi were really in it for the violence?

int_19h 7y ago

One does have to wonder if MLK and Gandhi would have been successful, if they weren't alternatives to something much more violent. Or if their opponents weren't willing to ramp violence up enough. The thing about Gandhi in particular is that he is famous precisely because he won. How many like him were there that didn't win, and we have no idea that they even existed, because their body was dumped into a ditch behind a prison tucked away in the middle of nowhere? And sometimes we do know about them, because they did survive to tell the story - but it's not a very inspiring story when they lose, and so it gets eclipsed. This guy was a Gandhi to his people before Gandhi was even born: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunta-haji - how many have heard of him?

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

Probably not, but there were other leaders within those larger protests who did believe in violence and called for it, but were not followed as much. From the government perspective, those leaders did present a threat of violence. Meaning that at any point Gandhi/MLK could fade into irrelevance and one of those leaders could lead the charge.

harimau777 7y ago

MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" basically says that one reason that the non-violent movement should be supported is because the alternative is violent Black Nationalism. As an aside, if you haven't read it I highly recommend it. I think it's an excellent example of arguing that a position is consistent with people's existing worldview instead of trying to force them to adopt a different worldview.

guerrilla 7y ago

It's a gambit that can be used as leverage. I think they were expecting those in power to cave to their demands when those in power realized that people realized that peacefully protesting wasn't going to work, which is ironically what made it work. Furthermore, in other cases, people don't have to realize the purpose of the strategy that they're applying in order to apply it. Intention isn't function.

buzzkillington 7y ago

How well would have Ghandi fared if he were not in the British Empire? If he was in the USSR or Nazi Germany he would have been quietly murdered one night.

eklavya 7y ago
Let's not pretend British Empire was any bit less evil than the other ones. This seems to be a common theme everywhere including in India. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-million-deaths-britain-shashi-tharoor-british-empire-a7627041.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/india-35-milli...
- buzzkillington 7y ago
  If the British empire was as evil as the Nazis there would be no Indians left.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - harimau777 7y ago
    I don't think that's necessarily accurate. The Nazi's conquered many countries without exterminating their population. As I understand it they only attempted to exterminate Jewish people, homosexuals, and the disabled. Granted even that is deeply evil, but it doesn't mean that they would wipe out any given people group that they conquered.
    - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      They also planned on wiping out 100% of Latgallians, 85% of Poles, 85% of Lithuanians, 75% of Belarusians and large portions of most of the rest of Eastern Europe[1]. The groups you listed were some of their top priorities, but by no means where they intended to stop. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
    - 7y ago