mahoney@bach.DEC (01/19/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 16-JAN-1986 19:37--------------------- Mr Sevener I agree in the use of civil disobedience. Two of my heroes happen to be Martin Luther King and Gahndi but I have a serious question that I do not know the answer. How do you fight a government that does not mind killing people? The British for the most part where civilised an where not going to wipe out the population or even try to. The allowed constraints on themselves and thus had "weaknesses" that could be used against them. The same in the US with the civil rights movement the violence got bad and some people did die but the government did not openly condone it. The courts also did there best to stop such violence. What about regimes where that is not true. Germany where they wiped out 6 million people. Stalin's Russia where an estimated 20 million people died. Mao's China where I have read an estimated 30 million people died. Lets look at Pol's Pot Regime in Cambodia where 3 million (?) people died. These people had no problem with killing any number of people who got in there way. These people did not care about world opinion and would have saw civil disobedience as a weakness and as easy targets to kill. How would you have stopped Idi Amin and his gang of thugs these are not easy questions. I don't have the answer and am looking for them. Could you give me your insight into this. Anyone else feel free to also comment as I am sure you will :-). I have turned from violence as best I could through my life and continue to do so. I wonder sometimes if it is always the best way. Until I feel differently I will continue to turn from violence for I see no better solution. Brian Mahoney mahoney%bach.dec@decwrl.arpa "If someone has a cure all you can be sure it will make you sick."
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (01/21/86)
In article <566@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bach.DEC writes: > >civil disobedience as a weakness and as easy targets to kill. How would you >have stopped Idi Amin and his gang of thugs these are not easy questions. I >don't have the answer and am looking for them. Could you give me your > insight into this. > Anyone else feel free to also comment as I am sure you will :-). > >I have turned from violence as best I could through my life and continue to >do so. I wonder sometimes if it is always the best way. Until I feel >differently I will continue to turn from violence for I see no better >solution. > >Brian Mahoney > My thoughts on non violence: I believe that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty much alike. Thus I don't think that the Germans of Hitlers time or the Russians of Stanlins time are fundamentally any different than the English or British. Non-violence acts slowly. Martin Luther King was assinated years ago. His actions are still bearing fruit, but have not fully eliminated the conditions he was concerned about. A similiar statement may be made about Gandhi. Non-violence often leads to the death or injury of those practicing it. People like Gandhi and King recognized and accepted this. Thus non-violence I believe is an approach that requires sacrifices by those that practice it for the future benefit of all people. Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have been stopped by his own people. Is it not possible that, if FDR had been a proponent of non-violence, with his charisma he could have found and implemented a non-violent approach to stopping Hitler, to eliminating the conflict with Japan in the 30's with non violence rather than weapons in the 40's. I think that the more people that practice non-violence in their own lifes the more chance it has of becoming a world wide mode, and the fewer total lives will be lost. If one studies the marshall art Akido one gets a better understanding of how this works in practice. Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/22/86)
> Mr Sevener > > I agree in the use of civil disobedience. Two of my heroes happen to be > Martin Luther King and Gahndi but I have a serious question that I do not know > the answer. How do you fight a government that does not mind killing people? > > The British for the most part where civilised an where not going to wipe > out the population or even try to. The allowed constraints on themselves > and thus had "weaknesses" that could be used against them. The same in the US > with the civil rights movement the violence got bad and some people did die but > the government did not openly condone it. The courts also did there best to > stop such violence. > > What about regimes where that is not true. Germany where they wiped out > 6 million people. Stalin's Russia where an estimated 20 million people > died. Mao's China where I have read an estimated 30 million people died. > Lets look at Pol's Pot Regime in Cambodia where 3 million (?) people died. > These people had no problem with killing any number of people who got in there > way. These people did not care about world opinion and would have saw > civil disobedience as a weakness and as easy targets to kill. How would you > have stopped Idi Amin and his gang of thugs these are not easy questions. I > don't have the answer and am looking for them. Could you give me your insight > into this. Anyone else feel free to also comment as I am sure you will :-). > > I have turned from violence as best I could through my life and continue to > do so. I wonder sometimes if it is always the best way. Until I feel > differently I will continue to turn from violence for I see no better > solution. > > Brian Mahoney In the first place the assumed benevolence of the British in India is questionable. In fact, recall that the British openly fired upon and massacred hundreds of Indian women, children and men at Amritsar. While General Dyer was tried for this crime a number of the British in India raised money for his retirement and as encouragement for proper handling of the uppity Indians. I do not buy the oft-repeated argument that the British were somehow a bunch of wimps who allowed Gandhi to win by nonviolence because they were "nice chaps". The British showed in many situations besides Amritsar that they could be quite brutal in conquering an Empire. On the other hand, even the most brutal suffer pangs of conscience in inflicting pain upon those unwilling to retaliate in kind. For one thing, one of the psychological points of violent subjugation, is to somehow "win" or "defeat" one's opponent and thereby control them. When a Gandhi or Martin Luther King refuses to play by those rules by refusing to be controlled without responding with violence then the rulers have trouble dealing with it. I am not sure what can be done about widespread mass murder but a society can never operate for long on such a basis. There was no violence per se that ended Stalin's reign of terror simpy his death and the final recognition that Soviet society could not continue on such a basis. The question that must be considered is: how is it that high leaders of the Communist party would accept Stalin's terror? Even when it often threatened themselves? One must understand the bases of power and authority to deal with this problem. We often tend to assume in our individualistic outlook that such reigns of violence are the product of one man, one demented dictator. But that is false. A Hitler, a Pol Pot, a Stalin has no power unless he is able to give orders to underlings who is willing to obey him. If those people refused to obey, and if the vast majority of society simply refuse to obey then all a dictator's power crumbles. The problem is that it is very difficult to get enough people to have courage to fight such oppression when it is internally generated. But in the case of defense of the nation it would seem that all the advantages are on the side of the defenders. They are already united as a nation with one government, one culture, frequently the same language. They know the local terrain, by necessity if it is a large country, they must continue to run it and do the labor of running it. These are rather scattered thoughts and I must get going, but your question is a good one and very much worth pondering. But surely as Gandhi and King came up with creative approaches to nonviolent resistance, there are many avenues as yet unexplored in this area. We have not explored them because most people are stuck in the rut of favoring kneejerk violent solutions and not being imaginative enough to see alternatives. tim sevener whuxn!orb
agrawal@acf2.UUCP (Mukul Babu Agrawal) (01/23/86)
> > I agree in the use of civil disobedience. Two of my heroes happen to be >Martin Luther King and Gahndi but I have a serious question that I do not know >the answer. How do you fight a government that does not mind killing people? > >The British for the most part where civilised an where not going to wipe >out the population or even try to. The allowed constraints on themselves >and thus had "weaknesses" that could be used against them. The same in the US >with the civil rights movement the violence got bad and some people did die but >the government did not openly condone it. The courts also did there best to >stop such violence. > >Brian Mahoney I don't know what makes you say that the british were any more civilized than the Germans or the Chinese, and neither am I aware of any 'constraints' that they allowed on themselves. There have been a number of incidents which for obvious reasons have never been known to the western world. The British government and all other so called 'civilized' governments of the western world do not like there misdeads to go out in public. And by the way, The British government certainly DID NOT mind killing people. Mukul Agrawal ...cmcl2!csd2!agrawal agrawal@nyu-csd2.arpa
cramer@kontron.UUCP (01/23/86)
> My thoughts on non violence: > > I believe that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty > much alike. Thus I don't think that the Germans of Hitlers time or the > Russians of Stanlins time are fundamentally any different than the English > or British. > I suggest that you spend more time talking to people from different cultures. There are significant cultural differences between Russians (not Soviets) and Americans, just as there are significant cultural differences between different parts of America. I hear a lot of criticism of attempting "to impose our values on our peoples". If people are fundamentally similar, what's problem. Also: saying "...that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty much alike." is rather like saying that Charles Manson and Mahatma Gandhi are pretty much alike if you ignore their social conditioning. Perhaps that's true -- but the real world we live in has a lot of people with lots of social conditioning. > Non-violence acts slowly. Martin Luther King was assinated years ago. His > actions are still bearing fruit, but have not fully eliminated the conditions > he was concerned about. A similiar statement may be made about Gandhi. > It's very difficult to distinguish between the results of Martin Luther King's non-violent actions and the actions of the government in the 1950s and 1960s in relation to the civil rights movement. While I am not critical of the Federal Government's actions in this time period, I have no illusions that the government's actions were "non-violent". They were coercive actions taken against the coercive actions of the state and local governments. > Non-violence often leads to the death or injury of those practicing it. People > like Gandhi and King recognized and accepted this. > > Thus non-violence I believe is an approach that requires sacrifices by those > that practice it for the future benefit of all people. > No argument here -- but remember that non-violence in some situations may require sacrifices from people that don't accept your ideas on this. Like the six million who died in concentration camps. > Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's > with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have > been stopped by his own people. > Someone with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King would have lasted about a week before disappearing into a concentration camp. If no one had known of Gandhi or King, would they have made any impact on the society? > Is it not possible that, if FDR had been a proponent of non-violence, > with his charisma he could have found and implemented a non-violent > approach to stopping Hitler, to eliminating the conflict with Japan in > the 30's with non violence rather than weapons in the 40's. > Yes. FDR could have talked and talked and talked, and in the end, Europe would have been completely _Judenrein_, and all of us who still lived would be speaking German. Come to grips with reality. Non-violence works well against half-civilized opponents (like the British) whose consciences can be appealed to. It doesn't work with savage animals like Hitler and Stalin. > I think that the more people that practice non-violence in their own lifes > the more chance it has of becoming a world wide mode, and the fewer total > lives will be lost. If one studies the marshall art Akido one gets a > better understanding of how this works in practice. > > Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA I hate to pick on something as trivial as using the wrong word ("marshall" where the correct word is "martial") but this is pretty typical of supporters of non-violence. The ideas are quite attractive -- if you haven't read any history, and realized the limited context in which non-violence works. Learn a little more about what has happened in the past -- it will teach you what limitations you are running into with non-violence as a solution to evil.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/23/86)
In article <566@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bach.DEC writes: > I agree in the use of civil disobedience. Two of my heroes happen to be >Martin Luther King and Gandhi but I have a serious question that I do not know >the answer. How do you fight a government that does not mind killing people? > >The British for the most part were civilised and were not going to wipe >out the population or even try to. The allowed constraints on themselves >and thus had "weaknesses" that could be used against them. The same in the US >with the civil rights movement the violence got bad and some people did die >but the government did not openly condone it. The courts also did their >best to stop such violence. I would like to emphasize this point. I think the success of King and Gandhi says very positive things about modern American and British society. Civil disobedience in Russia today is in most cases quite useless -- unless you are already famous, the government quietly locks you up and no one ever hears of it. What value there is in the tactic is only because of foreign pressure. Civil disobedience is preferable to violence if it works, but it only works against fundamentally decent opponents. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter) (01/24/86)
> Context: Long article by Brian Mahoney (sp) and Tim Sevener. Brian asks the > question: being a believer in non-violent protest, how do you deal with a > regime that doesn't care about killing people. Tim replies that it is not > at all clear that the Brit's were such ``wimps'' in India, but that non- > violence still succeeded. Gentlemen, You both have very valid points. The British were not at all gentle with Gahndi and his followers in India. However, non-violent protests would obviously be futile in certain opressed area in todays world (e.g., Cambodia). What, then, determines when a non-violent protest has some chance for success? It is my belief that non-violence can only be effective when rampant murder on the part of the opressor brings more harm to the opressor than to the protesters. For example, the civil rights movement worked because televised murders by southern cops in the U.S. would not be tolerated by the U.S. citizenry. Gahndi succeeded because Brittian, a democratic country with few resources except (at the time) significant control of world trade, could not tolerate being branded as murderers by those with whom they traded. However, it is not at all clear that the cambodians (or North vietmamese, or Iranians, or ...) really give a sh.. what the world thinks of them. They are ruled by dictatorial regimes that (to a point) don't have to care what their populace thinks about them. Here non-violent protests are doomed to fail. Not so clear, however, is the plight of the ``coloreds'' of south africa. It is here that non-violence should be at least attempted before violent tactics are persued. To Brian: Sorry, I have done nothing the answer your lament. (For the benefit of those who didn't see Brians message: What then is a person committed to non-violence to do when it becomes obvious that it cannot solve the problem at hand.) Phil Ritter ps I believe that the ``Palistinian problem'' (aka ``The Isreali Problem'') is doomed to a violent solution because both sides claim that they cannot win as long as the other exists. -- Phillip A. Ritter
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (01/25/86)
> [Richard Foy] > My thoughts on non violence: > > I believe that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty > much alike. Thus I don't think that the Germans of Hitlers time or the > Russians of Stanlins time are fundamentally any different than the English > or British. -- Maybe so, but their governments were vastly different. -- > Non-violence acts slowly. Martin Luther King was assinated years ago. His > actions are still bearing fruit, but have not fully eliminated the conditions > he was concerned about. A similiar statement may be made about Gandhi. > > Non-violence often leads to the death or injury of those practicing it. People > like Gandhi and King recognized and accepted this. > > Thus non-violence I believe is an approach that requires sacrifices by those > that practice it for the future benefit of all people. > > Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's > with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have > been stopped by his own people. ---- No. What about Karl von Ossietsky (sp?), the German Pacifist who won the 1935 Nobel Peace Prize. Hitler threw him in a concentration camp (the extermination camps had not been built yet) where he died. What about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Your naivete is amazing. ---- > Is it not possible that, if FDR had been a proponent of non-violence, > with his charisma he could have found and implemented a non-violent > approach to stopping Hitler, to eliminating the conflict with Japan in > the 30's with non violence rather than weapons in the 40's. ---- Sure. He could have sent flowers to Hitler instead of destroyers to the British.-) ---- > I think that the more people that practice non-violence in their own lifes > the more chance it has of becoming a world wide mode, and the fewer total > lives will be lost. ---- Maybe so, but we'll all be long dead by then. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (01/25/86)
In article <224@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >My thoughts on non violence: >I believe that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty >much alike. Thus I don't think that the Germans of Hitlers time or the >Russians of Stanlins time are fundamentally any different than the English >or British. >Non-violence acts slowly. Martin Luther King was assinated years ago. His >actions are still bearing fruit, but have not fully eliminated the conditions >he was concerned about. A similiar statement may be made about Gandhi. >Non-violence often leads to the death or injury of those practicing it. People >like Gandhi and King recognized and accepted this. >Thus non-violence I believe is an approach that requires sacrifices by those >that practice it for the future benefit of all people. >Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's >with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have >been stopped by his own people. The trouble is that non-violence wouldn't be enough--the Nazis would just go along killing non-Aryans. If you meant that the German in question would not just stand by, but actively help the Nazis' victims, then it would require violence to do so. The Nazis had no qualms about killing innocent people, whether or not those innocent people used violence. Anyone who advocated resistance, non-violent or otherwise, would be dead, without a chance to gain any supporters as did Gandhi or King, who after all lived in a society whose rulers were much more civilized than the Nazis. And if non-violence acts as slowly as you claim, the Nazis could have conquered Europe and killed many millions more people before it worked, if at all. Only military force could save these people. Not only does non-violence lead to the death or injury of those practicing it, it can lead to the death of others who have little choice, if saving those others requires violence. >Is it not possible that, if FDR had been a proponent of non-violence, >with his charisma he could have found and implemented a non-violent >approach to stopping Hitler, to eliminating the conflict with Japan in >the 30's with non violence rather than weapons in the 40's. Not possible. These countries wanted world (or near-world) conquest. They were willing to fight wars to do so. Their decision to do so was not negotiable. And giving up land to appease them (i.e., the Sudetenland) only caused a shift of their attentions to the next pieces of land. >I think that the more people that practice non-violence in their own lifes >the more chance it has of becoming a world wide mode, and the fewer total >lives will be lost. If one studies the marshall art Akido one gets a >better understanding of how this works in practice. If everyone practices non-violence, fine. But some won't (i.e. Nazis), and in a world where some do and some don't, the "dont's" have the upper hand. Allowing the dont's to go on killing is not the answer, and neither is lying in their way--they'll just kill you too. >Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA >The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of >hard knocks. Thus they are my own. > -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
mahoney@bach.DEC (01/26/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 23-JAN-1986 15:48--------------------- > I don't know what makes you say that the british were any more civilized >than the Germans or the Chinese, and neither am I aware of any 'constraints' >that they allowed on themselves. > There have been a number of incidents which for obvious reasons have >never been known to the western world. The British government and all other >so called 'civilized' governments of the western world do not like there >misdeads to go out in public. > And by the way, The British government certainly DID NOT mind >killing people. > > Mukul Agrawal > ...cmcl2!csd2!agrawal > agrawal@nyu-csd2.arpa One I meant the governments and not the people just to make that clear. As I have read and my sources could be wrong the British were under PR pressure. Yes I realize that there were many people killed by the British but not in the systematic fashion as was done in German Russia China and Cambodia to name a few. Killing of people is obviously wrong but what happened in the countries named is abhorrent. The British where tring to but down a revolt and in doing so people were killed. (I do not condone these killings in anyway) The Germans were trying to systematically wipe out a particular people. The Chinese and Russians were wiping out political enemies and particular classes of people. The Cambodians wer (as I understand it but could be wrong) were just on a killing spree. I do see differneces in what happened and the number of people by both numbers and percentages shows the differnece. The purposes of what the British did was not to kill people but to stop a revolution. The rest of them was to kill the people and get rid of what they saw as problems. Brian MAhoney
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (01/27/86)
>>Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's >>with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have >>been stopped by his own people. It may be *possible*. But having spent a great deal of time studying Nazi Germany I think it very unlikely. Many Germans of that time were extremely intelligent, idealistic, etc. Many such Germans left Germany after Hitler came to power. Many who remained did their best to stop Hitler. Many were tortured and killed for their efforts. I am highly sympathetic to those (say from India) who have a deep resentment of what was done in the name of the British Empire. But the worst behavior of the British Empire does not compare with the behavior of Hitler or Stalin. If a Gandhi or a King had appeared in Nazi Germany I would expect he would have been executed in short order. The same goes for the Soviet Union in Stalin's day. Anyway, don't be too self-righteous in condemning the Germans. We may yet see a fascist type government here. You may find it not so easy to stop. Already I am embarassed to say that I am an American when I am abroad. Usually I say I am from California, or Berkeley. Then the people are more friendly.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/28/86)
In article <495@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> I agree in the use of civil disobedience. Two of my heroes happen to be >>Martin Luther King and Gahndi but I have a serious question that I do not >>know the answer. How do you fight a government that does not mind killing >>people? >> >>The British for the most part where civilised an where not going to wipe >>out the population or even try to. The allowed constraints on themselves >>and thus had "weaknesses" that could be used against them. The same in >>the US with the civil rights movement the violence got bad and some people >>did die but the government did not openly condone it. The courts also did >>there best to stop such violence. > >In the first place the assumed benevolence of the British in India is >questionable. In fact, recall that the British openly fired upon >and massacred hundreds of Indian women, children and men at Amritsar. >While General Dyer was tried for this crime a number of the British >in India raised money for his retirement and as encouragement for >proper handling of the uppity Indians. I do not buy the oft-repeated >argument that the British were somehow a bunch of wimps who allowed >Gandhi to win by nonviolence because they were "nice chaps". The >British showed in many situations besides Amritsar that they could be >quite brutal in conquering an Empire. On the other hand, even the >most brutal suffer pangs of conscience in inflicting pain upon those >unwilling to retaliate in kind. For one thing, one of the psychological >points of violent subjugation, is to somehow "win" or "defeat" >one's opponent and thereby control them. When a Gandhi or Martin Luther >King refuses to play by those rules by refusing to be controlled >without responding with violence then the rulers have trouble dealing >with it. The issue was not the benevolence of the British *in India*. Gandhi managed to appeal to the British populace, and since that populace was, as a group, benevolent, and *since it ultimately controlled the govern- ment*, this was effective. In the absence of a free press, the appeal would not have been possible; without a democratic government, the effectiveness of popular opinion would have been much more doubtful; and without a liberal tradition in English culture, the appeal would likely have fallen on deaf ears. >I am not sure what can be done about widespread mass murder but a >society can never operate for long on such a basis. That depends on exactly what you mean. Societies can tolerate mass murder of outsiders indefinitely. Consider the Jews in Europe. Mass murder was practiced against them more or less continuously from the end of the Roman Empire until modern times. Armies in ancient times generally felt free to slaughter the enemy population if it was convenient. England's refusal to use slaughter against Gandhi and the Indians was rather more a historic first than an example of a general law. >There was no >violence per se that ended Stalin's reign of terror simpy his death >and the final recognition that Soviet society could not continue on >such a basis. >We often tend to assume in our individualistic outlook that such >reigns of violence are the product of one man, one demented dictator. >But that is false. Don't you see some contradiction between these two statements? >A Hitler, a Pol Pot, a Stalin has no power unless >he is able to give orders to underlings who is willing to obey him. >If those people refused to obey, and if the vast majority of society >simply refuse to obey then all a dictator's power crumbles. If 90% of the population refuses to obey, but the other 10% will do anything, and the 10% includes the armed forces, guess who wins? Once you have fallen into a dictatorship, the only viable options are armed revolution, outside intervention, a coup, or waiting for the dictator to die. Under the right circumstances, non-violent resistance may make a coup more likely, but some minimal amount of sympathy from the army is required before this can work. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/28/86)
In article <224@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >My thoughts on non violence: > >I believe that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty >much alike. Thus I don't think that the Germans of Hitlers time or the >Russians of Stanlins time are fundamentally any different than the English >or British. How do you get *underneath* people's social conditioning? People raised in different cultures will react differently in the same situations. This includes the way they will react to a campaign of non-violence. If by "fundamentally the same" you mean that there are no significant genetic differences between the behavior of humans from varied racial groups, I am inclined to agree. If you think the actions and arguments which will persuade most people from one culture can be counted on to persuade most people from another culture, then I am afraid you are very naive. >Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's >with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have >been stopped by his own people. Yes. A man like George S. Patton might have done it, too. >Is it not possible that, if FDR had been a proponent of non-violence, >with his charisma he could have found and implemented a non-violent >approach to stopping Hitler, to eliminating the conflict with Japan in >the 30's with non violence rather than weapons in the 40's. No, I don't think so; at least not after Hitler had gotten into power. The only policy which would have prevented WWII then would have been a clear readiness to use force to prevent German agression. (Or a capable assassin.) >I think that the more people that practice non-violence in their own lifes >the more chance it has of becoming a world wide mode, and the fewer total >lives will be lost. If one studies the marshall art Akido one gets a >better understanding of how this works in practice. I agree that non-violence is more effective in the modern world than ever before. This is because more people than ever before are willing to be persuaded by non-violent means, not because more are willing to practice it. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (01/29/86)
In article <265@spp1.UUCP> ritter!spp1@trwspp.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter) writes: >Not so clear, however, is the plight of the ``coloreds'' of south africa. >It is here that non-violence should be at least attempted before violent >tactics are pursued. The ANC pursued a non-violent policy for many years without success. You may think they weren't patient enough, and you may think their present policy is likely to be disastrous; but you can't blame them for not trying. (By the way, the big problem in South Africa is not the "coloreds", who are persons of mixed race, but the "blacks", who are the majority.) Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (02/04/86)
Nonviolent passive resistance is a very old idea. In James Michener's _The Source_, there are a number of episodes dramatizing non-cooperation with brutish authority. There is a moving scene in which a group of people stage a nonviolent "sit-in", defying an edict of the authorities. In order to work, large numbers of ordinary people have to participate. Gandhi started with small issues and gradually but inexorably built up a following. At every stage he was careful not to push for anything so great that he was seen as more than just a minor nuisance to the British. By the time that they realized he was world-class, he already had a world-class following. He cultivated the press, and everything was witnessed by impartial observers. In White Knights, the dramatic scene at the end is played before a throng of international diplomats and journalists. The oppressor cannot operate in the light of day. Recall the Chicago demonstrations during the Democratic Convention. As Mayor Daly's Police cracked the skulls of the demonstrators, the chant was heard, "The whole world is watching." The power of the presence of witnesses to make the oppressor painfully and self-consciously aware of his acts of oppression was understood in biblical times. Today we call it the Hawthorne Effect. It's also a fundamental theorem in Feedback Control Theory: a prerequisite for controlling some aspect of the output of a system is that the aspect in question must be *observable* by the controlling agent. If the agent is the self, one must first become aware of the self's behavior, and this is the role of the external witness. --Barry Kort
stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) (02/04/86)
Frank Adams writes: >I would like to emphasize this point. I think the success of King and Gandhi >says very positive things about modern American and British society. Civil >disobedience in Russia today is in most cases quite useless -- unless you are >already famous, the government quietly locks you up and no one ever hears of >it. What value there is in the tactic is only because of foreign pressure. Both Gandhi and King were killed, like their mentor. >Civil disobedience is preferable to violence if it works, but it only works >against fundamentally decent opponents.
stim@fluke.UUCP (Randy Stimpson) (02/05/86)
Frank Adams writes: >(By the way, the big problem in South Africa is not the "coloreds", who >are persons of mixed race, but the "blacks", who are the majority.) I thought the big problems was the whites. Randy Stimpson
rak1@magic.UUCP (Billy the Kid) (02/06/86)
> Frank Adams writes: > >(By the way, the big problem in South Africa is not the "coloreds", who > >are persons of mixed race, but the "blacks", who are the majority.) > > I thought the big problems was the whites.[RANDY STIMPSON] The 'big problem' in South Africa is not the whites, nor the "coloreds", nor the blacks, nor the Asians. The 'big problem' is an economic one. If apartheid were somehow dismantled in the RSA and if non-whites were given an education comparable to what the whites receive today, the privileged minority would have to compete with the 'others' for the good things of life. Apartheid is a convenient way of confining the nation's resources within the privileged minority. This problem is as old as history. Ancient war-like nations such as the Hittites, Assyrians, Scythians and Parthians subjected 'other' peoples and derived economic benefit out of their subjection. Prior to the Norman conquest of England, the Anglo-Saxons were a relatively free people. William the Conqueror distributed the Anglo-Saxon lands among his ethnic Norman friends, and the peasants who worked on these lands were made the serfs of Norman barons. No one would deny that the Norman warriors profited from the take-over of England (their descendants still do!). No privileged minority has ever given up its status willingly. True democracy is recent invention, it has been won by considerable violence in some cases. [Don't tell me that ancient Athens with its slaves was a 'democracy']. The 'others' in South Africa will be free only if it is economically expedient for the privileged minority. This can happen if:- (1) No one does business with them. (2) The 'others' in South Africa create enough trouble and make it impossible for the government to function normally. (3) The Western nations [the USA included] provide military and personnel support to the South African resistance. [We provide aid to the Nicaraguan and Afghan resistances, don't we?] It's time we in America resurrected the tradition of Valley Forge and provided help to freedom-fighters *everywhere*. It is a shame to see freedom-fighters forced to seek help from the Soviets, when true justice and freedom lie with America. -Billy the Kid -- "I like a good, honest fight." -Billy the Kid