6 ms·

Agreed, a true pacifist is rare. During the war (to his credit, before the full extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were publicly known), Gandhi ca

by Crito 13y ago

Agreed, a true pacifist is rare. During the war (to his credit, before the full extent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis were publicly known), Gandhi called on Britons to fight the Nazis without arms, suggesting that the only way to defeat the Nazis with violence was to become more horrible than the Nazis. Today we have the benefit of hindsight so we can see that was a silly thing to assert, but that hindsight realization should drive us to realize that caution must be exercised when advocating non-violent resistance. It cannot be successfully applied to every situation. (To Every Briton: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945851/posts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945851/posts)

smacktoward 13y ago
George Orwell called him out on it contemporaneously. From his essay "Reflections on Gandhi", published January 1949 (http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/reflections-on-gandhi/ http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-a...): [T]here is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity... he believed in ’arousing the world’, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing?
- Crito 13y ago
  Gandhi also made statements after the war (and therefore without the possibility of being ignorant as to what happened) that people have raised very similar objections to: --- “Hitler,” Gandhi solemnly affirmed, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. I believe in hara-kiri. I do not believe in its militaristic connotations, but it is a heroic method.” “You think,” I said, “that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” “Yes,” Gandhi agreed,” that would have been heroism. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to the evils of Hitler’s violence, especially in 1938, before the war. As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.” [snip] Mahatma Gandhi has never lived under a thoroughly totalitarian regime; his generosity and humanity make it difficult for him to realize how very cruel a dictatorship can be. In India, and in Palestine, and other plces, violence or organized nonviolence is a form of “public relations.” … Thus gandhian nonviolence as well as its ugly opposite — Zionist terror — implies the existence of a free democratic society in England (and in America). It is to this court of public opinion that the resisters in India and kidnappers in Palestine have appealed. But suppose there were no democracy in Western nations? A British prime minister could not order a million people dragged out of their houses and off the streets to be melted down to soap in fiery furnaces. Hitler could — and did. --- That last section in particular strikes me as quite similar to George Orwell's objection. (quotation from "Gandhi and Stalin: Two Signs At The World's Crossroads", by way of: http://stevereads.com/weblog/2007/12/10/gandhi-the-jewish-victims-of-the-holocaust-should-have-committed-mass-suicide/#comment-5298 http://stevereads.com/weblog/2007/12/10/gandhi-the-jewish-vi...)
  - ballard 13y ago
    Gandhi gets misunderstood quite easily because of how well he understood how to defeat those that employ violence... By showing massive fortitude by acts of passive resistance, it both awes the bully and gains their respect instead of appearing as another target to be neutralized: whether demanding a harsher punishment in a court room or opposing an army without weapons, such uncommon acts of bravery demand intrigue. This is how to "be like Jesus," neither a wallflower nor a wimp, without creating more violence. (Yes, yes, leaders of movements rarely live to retirement... Often becoming martyrs thanks to assassins.)
    - Crito 13y ago
      I think Gandhi's critics understand this. The standard objection to the universal application of these techniques is that people like the Nazis would not have been awed by such a display of bravery and resolution. Had the Jews all committed mass organized suicide (the organization of which would have been almost certainly impossible... but that is a tangential objection...) the Nazis would have been pleased that the job had been done for them. You might argue that even if Germany had been unswayed, the Americans and British would have been. That may be true, but then you are just pushing the task of using violence to stop Hitler onto another party. You haven't eliminated violence, you've just postponed it and had millions of people senselessly kill themselves instead of making the Nazis struggle with the task.
      - sp332 13y ago
        Most Germans didn't know about the atrocities until after the war. If Germany closed down the media so well, the people might not have known about mass suicides either.
        Crito 13y ago
        The Nazi regime was fundamentally self-destructive. German citizens who witnessed the mass Jewish suicide and were swayed by into practicing non-violent resistance would have become targets of the Nazis themselves. Were they to kill themselves to make a point as well? The only way that loosing the support of the uninformed German masses would have stopped the Nazis is if those previously uninformed German masses took up arms against their government. The Nazis were only going to stop killing once there was nobody left to kill, or once they were killed. They played by a different set of rules.
- cwp 13y ago
  I can't help but think this is an east-vs-west thing. Ghandi calling on the Jews to resist the Holocaust through non-violence sounds "silly" to western ears. Orwell argues that non-violence only worked in India because the British weren't as ruthless as the Nazis. There's something to that, but consider the case of Tibet. Ok, China isn't Nazi Germany, but they're pretty totalitarian, particularly in Tibet. They certainly don't allow "a free press and right of assembly." The Dalai Lama, as spiritual and political leader of Tibet, has insisted on Ghandi-style non-violent resistance for over 60 years now. Instead of jumping into the ocean, Tibetans protest the occupation by setting themselves on fire. It happens so often that gasoline is a controlled substance in Tibet. We might note that non-violence hasn't been very effective against the Chinese, (at least so far) and if that's all Orwell was getting at, fine. On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that the Dalai Lama and his followers do understand the nature of totalitarianism, and it's not just naiveté that makes them continue with non-violence.
  - Crito 13y ago
    "We might note that non-violence hasn't been very effective against the Chinese, (at least so far) and if that's all Orwell was getting at, fine." That is a very strong component of what Orwell was getting at. What Orwell was further getting at is that the Germans had extermination on their mind, the English in India and even the Chinese in Tibet did not. Additionally Orwell is pointing out that non-violent resistance is made effective by the existence of free societies anywhere in the world that they might have influence. The Tibetans benefit from this, as you can infer from how much time the Dalai Lama spends courting the international community. Gandhi's suggestion to the British would have led to the eradication of free societies.
    - cwp 13y ago
      That's why I think this is an east-vs-west thing. Orwell focuses pretty narrowly on the problem of Nazi aggression. They're killing Jews and attacking other countries. So we go to war and 6 years later, the problem is solved. Except... decades later, Europe is still dealing with the after-effects of WWII. The current economic crisis can be traced pretty directly back to the war. Ghandi and the Dalai Lama, on the other hand, have a much broader goal, which, yes, involves lifting oppression, but also includes more subtle aspects of the well-being of their followers once that goal has been achieved. I think that contra Orwell, practitioners of non-violence appeal not only to free societies elsewhere, but also to the humanity of their oppressors. And so they try to eliminate the conflict, rather than winning it. Except... decades later, Tibet is still oppressed by China. My point is not that Orwell is wrong, but that he misunderstands Ghandi.
selimthegrim 13y ago
The wages of true pacifism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people#Invasion_by_Taranaki_M.C4.81ori http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people#Invasion_by_Tara...

by Crito 13y ago

smacktoward 13y ago

George Orwell called him out on it contemporaneously. From his essay "Reflections on Gandhi", published January 1949 (http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-and-other-works/reflections-on-gandhi/ http://theorwellprize.co.uk/george-orwell/by-orwell/essays-a...): [T]here is reason to think that Gandhi, who after all was born in 1869, did not understand the nature of totalitarianism and saw everything in terms of his own struggle against the British government. The important point here is not so much that the British treated him forbearingly as that he was always able to command publicity... he believed in ’arousing the world’, which is only possible if the world gets a chance to hear what you are doing. It is difficult to see how Gandhi’s methods could be applied in a country where opponents of the regime disappear in the middle of the night and are never heard of again. Without a free press and the right of assembly, it is impossible not merely to appeal to outside opinion, but to bring a mass movement into being, or even to make your intentions known to your adversary. Is there a Gandhi in Russia at this moment? And if there is, what is he accomplishing?

Crito 13y ago
Gandhi also made statements after the war (and therefore without the possibility of being ignorant as to what happened) that people have raised very similar objections to: --- “Hitler,” Gandhi solemnly affirmed, “killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. I believe in hara-kiri. I do not believe in its militaristic connotations, but it is a heroic method.” “You think,” I said, “that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?” “Yes,” Gandhi agreed,” that would have been heroism. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to the evils of Hitler’s violence, especially in 1938, before the war. As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.” [snip] Mahatma Gandhi has never lived under a thoroughly totalitarian regime; his generosity and humanity make it difficult for him to realize how very cruel a dictatorship can be. In India, and in Palestine, and other plces, violence or organized nonviolence is a form of “public relations.” … Thus gandhian nonviolence as well as its ugly opposite — Zionist terror — implies the existence of a free democratic society in England (and in America). It is to this court of public opinion that the resisters in India and kidnappers in Palestine have appealed. But suppose there were no democracy in Western nations? A British prime minister could not order a million people dragged out of their houses and off the streets to be melted down to soap in fiery furnaces. Hitler could — and did. --- That last section in particular strikes me as quite similar to George Orwell's objection. (quotation from "Gandhi and Stalin: Two Signs At The World's Crossroads", by way of: http://stevereads.com/weblog/2007/12/10/gandhi-the-jewish-victims-of-the-holocaust-should-have-committed-mass-suicide/#comment-5298 http://stevereads.com/weblog/2007/12/10/gandhi-the-jewish-vi...)
- ballard 13y ago
  Gandhi gets misunderstood quite easily because of how well he understood how to defeat those that employ violence... By showing massive fortitude by acts of passive resistance, it both awes the bully and gains their respect instead of appearing as another target to be neutralized: whether demanding a harsher punishment in a court room or opposing an army without weapons, such uncommon acts of bravery demand intrigue. This is how to "be like Jesus," neither a wallflower nor a wimp, without creating more violence. (Yes, yes, leaders of movements rarely live to retirement... Often becoming martyrs thanks to assassins.)
  - Crito 13y ago
    I think Gandhi's critics understand this. The standard objection to the universal application of these techniques is that people like the Nazis would not have been awed by such a display of bravery and resolution. Had the Jews all committed mass organized suicide (the organization of which would have been almost certainly impossible... but that is a tangential objection...) the Nazis would have been pleased that the job had been done for them. You might argue that even if Germany had been unswayed, the Americans and British would have been. That may be true, but then you are just pushing the task of using violence to stop Hitler onto another party. You haven't eliminated violence, you've just postponed it and had millions of people senselessly kill themselves instead of making the Nazis struggle with the task.
    - sp332 13y ago
      Most Germans didn't know about the atrocities until after the war. If Germany closed down the media so well, the people might not have known about mass suicides either.
      - Crito 13y ago
        The Nazi regime was fundamentally self-destructive. German citizens who witnessed the mass Jewish suicide and were swayed by into practicing non-violent resistance would have become targets of the Nazis themselves. Were they to kill themselves to make a point as well? The only way that loosing the support of the uninformed German masses would have stopped the Nazis is if those previously uninformed German masses took up arms against their government. The Nazis were only going to stop killing once there was nobody left to kill, or once they were killed. They played by a different set of rules.
cwp 13y ago
I can't help but think this is an east-vs-west thing. Ghandi calling on the Jews to resist the Holocaust through non-violence sounds "silly" to western ears. Orwell argues that non-violence only worked in India because the British weren't as ruthless as the Nazis. There's something to that, but consider the case of Tibet. Ok, China isn't Nazi Germany, but they're pretty totalitarian, particularly in Tibet. They certainly don't allow "a free press and right of assembly." The Dalai Lama, as spiritual and political leader of Tibet, has insisted on Ghandi-style non-violent resistance for over 60 years now. Instead of jumping into the ocean, Tibetans protest the occupation by setting themselves on fire. It happens so often that gasoline is a controlled substance in Tibet. We might note that non-violence hasn't been very effective against the Chinese, (at least so far) and if that's all Orwell was getting at, fine. On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that the Dalai Lama and his followers do understand the nature of totalitarianism, and it's not just naiveté that makes them continue with non-violence.
- Crito 13y ago
  "We might note that non-violence hasn't been very effective against the Chinese, (at least so far) and if that's all Orwell was getting at, fine." That is a very strong component of what Orwell was getting at. What Orwell was further getting at is that the Germans had extermination on their mind, the English in India and even the Chinese in Tibet did not. Additionally Orwell is pointing out that non-violent resistance is made effective by the existence of free societies anywhere in the world that they might have influence. The Tibetans benefit from this, as you can infer from how much time the Dalai Lama spends courting the international community. Gandhi's suggestion to the British would have led to the eradication of free societies.
  - cwp 13y ago
    That's why I think this is an east-vs-west thing. Orwell focuses pretty narrowly on the problem of Nazi aggression. They're killing Jews and attacking other countries. So we go to war and 6 years later, the problem is solved. Except... decades later, Europe is still dealing with the after-effects of WWII. The current economic crisis can be traced pretty directly back to the war. Ghandi and the Dalai Lama, on the other hand, have a much broader goal, which, yes, involves lifting oppression, but also includes more subtle aspects of the well-being of their followers once that goal has been achieved. I think that contra Orwell, practitioners of non-violence appeal not only to free societies elsewhere, but also to the humanity of their oppressors. And so they try to eliminate the conflict, rather than winning it. Except... decades later, Tibet is still oppressed by China. My point is not that Orwell is wrong, but that he misunderstands Ghandi.

selimthegrim 13y ago

The wages of true pacifism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people#Invasion_by_Taranaki_M.C4.81ori http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriori_people#Invasion_by_Tara...