3 ms·
"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 ve
by 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 agoThat'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.