Thinking about nonviolence

[valarltd]

* Nonviolence: The success of our movement depends on the idea that we must present our concerns in the same ways as Gandhi and MLK. We should never appear ill-composed, we should never aim to strike fear into the hearts of those we feel wronged us. We should always come at these situations with nonviolence of action, thought, and speech. We are on the side of goodness, let's reflect that. Because the ultimate goal is to cause enough stir to be invited back to the negotiation table.

--From Soulforce on how to protest


I was thinking on this today. I won't be going to the protests tomorrow. I'm staying home with my very sick youngest so Mudd and the two big kids can go.

Is nonviolence really the answer?
Would MLK have been so effective without the threat of Malcolm X and Eldridge Cleaver?
When the latter terrified white America, those in power realized they could talk sense to MLK.


I had wanted to carry a sign that said "Morlock for Marriage" but I decided that was too geeky.
But I believe Magneto is right:
"No one ever talks about [extermination]. They just do it. And you go on with your lives, ignoring the signs all around you. And then, one day, when the air is still and the night has fallen, they come for you."

Comments

[synamontwist.livejournal.com]

Sadly, non-violence only seems to work when you have a martyr fronting it. That kind of means that, like Satanism, it is strongly dependent on the prevailing way of thinking for it to exist.(satanism is drawn so completly from catholisim that if you take the christian element out whats left??? All thier masses are the catholic masses said backwards.)

All the sucessful pascifist movments have only taken off after they had a martyred figure head to incite people to rise up(ie threaten violince)and the only places even able to support a pascifist movement were already civilized to some extent in the forst place. Everywhere else the pacifists ended up dead or slaves before they got started.


I am afraid Aristotle had this one right. "We make war that we may live in Peace"

[valarltd.livejournal.com]

My point exactly.

Ghandi was only effective because he lived under British rule. Had the Russians ruled India, he'd have been shot anonymously.

I'm horrible. I wonder how much faster things would progress if there were militant bands of gay people setting fire to churches during worship services.

The unspoken threat being "You can deal with Soulforce, which is nice and peaceful. Or there's a chance the awful ones will go Vlad Tepes on your congregation."

Except for the whole, you know, "small enough subgroup that a concerted effort could wipe them from the population," problem that gays have.

[kadath.livejournal.com]

Is nonviolence really the answer?

No!

(This has been another edition of Short Answers to Complex Questions.)

[snowdropexplodes.myopenid.com (from livejournal.com)]

I think the best example is that of Nelson Mandela: the reason the White South Africans were willing to talk to him was because the ANC had upped its game from non-violent protest to sabotage and guerilla tactics.

The thing that non-violence provides is a face-saving way for the other side to negotiate with you, and when it has large numbers of protesters, then it proves that your pacifist figurehead has the ear of their followers.