3 ms·

Let’s not whitewash Ghandi and the Indian independence movement either, by implying there also were violent sticks in the background vs Ghandi’s carrot https:/

by lovich 10mo ago

Let’s not whitewash Ghandi and the Indian independence movement either, by implying there also were violent sticks in the background vs Ghandi’s carrot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_movement_for_Indian_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_movement_for_Ind...

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
> there also were violent sticks in the background vs Ghandi’s carrot There are always agitators. Britain, however, did not withdraw because of them. As with King, if they’d taken the driver’s seat, British public opinion probably wouldn’t have turned towards India the way it did in our timeline. Now consider that the principle anti-colonial pusher in the wake of WWII was America. The timelines are too far apart for serious commingling. But consider how much worse the world would be if India fought a bloody revolution, and then America saw domestic terrorism at home. Instead of two forces amplifying each other we’d see strong incentives for the majorities in each power to err on the side of caution and security.
- stefan_ 10mo ago
  The "principal anti-colonial pusher"? The first thing America did coming out of WW2 was support France, a nation just resoundingly beaten, in an utter colonial fumble on the other side of the planet.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > The "principal anti-colonial pusher"? Yes. It was a major foreign policy issue for us. > first thing America did coming out of WW2 was support France Principal doesn't mean uncompromising. Just a main thrust. Britain was constrained in India, in part, by America.
- notahacker 10mo ago
  A key part was that the PM of the UK at the time of independence had been supportive of the notion of Indian self rule for two decades. England had other priorities in the 1947 that administering India didn't help with too. But yeah, Britain had put down a full scale rebellion of Indian troops with a 100:1 casualty ratio ninety years earlier, and had a full-blown self-styled "Indian National Army" surrender to them at the end of WWII shortly before independence was actually granted. They were tired of war at the time but certainly not afraid of badly-armed rebels. Noncooperation posed an entirely different challenge because it couldn't just be responded to with force of arms, and colonialist dogma taught that British leadership was supposed to make India a better run country, not virtually ungovernable. There were also more cameras around in 1947 than 1857 The flip side is that simple disobedience has far less effect in states less concerned with optics and values they claimed to live up to than the tail end of the British Empire or the US federal government at the height of the the Civil Rights era
  - vkou 10mo ago
    > The flip side is that simple disobedience has far less effect in states less concerned with optics and values they claimed to live up to than the tail end of the British Empire or the US federal government at the height of the the Civil Rights era Most importantly, the Civil-rights era US government was highly concerned with optics, because, you know, the world was being swept by Communist revolutions, and the last thing it wanted to do is to provide further fuel to their fire. The current US government couldn't give two shits about its optics, because none of the people running it can even conceive of there being consequences to their brutality. The tail is wagging the dog.
    - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
      > the world was being swept by Communist revolutions, and the last thing it wanted to do is to provide further fuel to their fire I’d broaden the premise a bit: the world was awash with new countries in the wake of decolonization. It was a unique time in history when ideas held geopolitical sway in a way it hasn’t since.
- lovich 10mo ago
  If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history because they make your narrative not work, then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that both the Civil Rights movement in the USA and the Indian Independence movement both had violent actors in the background telling the oppressors what comes next if they don't work with the populace.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history Straw man. Obviously violent revolutions work. But nonviolent ones work, too, and often without substantially needing the “violent actors in the background.” They’re both valid tools, but they work in different contexts and seldom productively together. (Disruptive protest works incredibly well with diplomacy. But not violence. That gives the oppressor justification to dial up their own violence.) > telling the oppressors what comes next What comes next if the violent elements in India or the Civil Rights movement gained the upper hand would have been borderline-exterminationist intervention. Same as happened in the countless violent failed “revolutions” that preceded them.
    - lovich 10mo ago
      I am not allowed to go into more detail into how we differ in opinion on forums with a US nexus.

by lovich 10mo ago

JumpCrisscross 10mo ago

> there also were violent sticks in the background vs Ghandi’s carrot There are always agitators. Britain, however, did not withdraw because of them. As with King, if they’d taken the driver’s seat, British public opinion probably wouldn’t have turned towards India the way it did in our timeline. Now consider that the principle anti-colonial pusher in the wake of WWII was America. The timelines are too far apart for serious commingling. But consider how much worse the world would be if India fought a bloody revolution, and then America saw domestic terrorism at home. Instead of two forces amplifying each other we’d see strong incentives for the majorities in each power to err on the side of caution and security.

stefan_ 10mo ago
The "principal anti-colonial pusher"? The first thing America did coming out of WW2 was support France, a nation just resoundingly beaten, in an utter colonial fumble on the other side of the planet.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > The "principal anti-colonial pusher"? Yes. It was a major foreign policy issue for us. > first thing America did coming out of WW2 was support France Principal doesn't mean uncompromising. Just a main thrust. Britain was constrained in India, in part, by America.
notahacker 10mo ago
A key part was that the PM of the UK at the time of independence had been supportive of the notion of Indian self rule for two decades. England had other priorities in the 1947 that administering India didn't help with too. But yeah, Britain had put down a full scale rebellion of Indian troops with a 100:1 casualty ratio ninety years earlier, and had a full-blown self-styled "Indian National Army" surrender to them at the end of WWII shortly before independence was actually granted. They were tired of war at the time but certainly not afraid of badly-armed rebels. Noncooperation posed an entirely different challenge because it couldn't just be responded to with force of arms, and colonialist dogma taught that British leadership was supposed to make India a better run country, not virtually ungovernable. There were also more cameras around in 1947 than 1857 The flip side is that simple disobedience has far less effect in states less concerned with optics and values they claimed to live up to than the tail end of the British Empire or the US federal government at the height of the the Civil Rights era
- vkou 10mo ago
  > The flip side is that simple disobedience has far less effect in states less concerned with optics and values they claimed to live up to than the tail end of the British Empire or the US federal government at the height of the the Civil Rights era Most importantly, the Civil-rights era US government was highly concerned with optics, because, you know, the world was being swept by Communist revolutions, and the last thing it wanted to do is to provide further fuel to their fire. The current US government couldn't give two shits about its optics, because none of the people running it can even conceive of there being consequences to their brutality. The tail is wagging the dog.
  - JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
    > the world was being swept by Communist revolutions, and the last thing it wanted to do is to provide further fuel to their fire I’d broaden the premise a bit: the world was awash with new countries in the wake of decolonization. It was a unique time in history when ideas held geopolitical sway in a way it hasn’t since.
lovich 10mo ago
If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history because they make your narrative not work, then go ahead. It doesn't change the fact that both the Civil Rights movement in the USA and the Indian Independence movement both had violent actors in the background telling the oppressors what comes next if they don't work with the populace.
- JumpCrisscross 10mo ago
  > If you want to ignore the violent revolutionaries in history Straw man. Obviously violent revolutions work. But nonviolent ones work, too, and often without substantially needing the “violent actors in the background.” They’re both valid tools, but they work in different contexts and seldom productively together. (Disruptive protest works incredibly well with diplomacy. But not violence. That gives the oppressor justification to dial up their own violence.) > telling the oppressors what comes next What comes next if the violent elements in India or the Civil Rights movement gained the upper hand would have been borderline-exterminationist intervention. Same as happened in the countless violent failed “revolutions” that preceded them.
  - lovich 10mo ago
    I am not allowed to go into more detail into how we differ in opinion on forums with a US nexus.