orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (01/24/86)
Sam Cramer writes in response to comments on nonviolence : > > > 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. > And what about the casualties of *violence*? It is quite possible that 4 billion people, i.e. the whole human race, could be destroyed by our acceptance of the use of violence as a means of attaining national ends. Moreover as against the six million who died in concentration camps (victims of a regime which *glorified* violence to the hilt) there have been many more millions who have died in wars since World War II. Please explain to me the great success of the PLO's use of violence to try to gain a Palestinian homeland. They have been engaged in random acts of violence since 1948 - where is their great liberation? Please explain to me the great success of the Irish Republican Army in their campaign of terrorist bombings and violence. I doubt their attempt to bomb Maggie Thatcher is what led to the current important imrprovements in Ireland but rather the election of members of the parliament who support steps towards the independence of Northern Ireland. Is the African National Congress better off by promoting violence? I fail to see how this has helped their struggle significantly. Instead it makes it ever more impossible to negotiate with the whites who feel they are fighting for their lives while providing an excuse for conservatives in the rest of the world to back the apartheid regime. We may very well all be fried by our unfortunate committment to violence as any sort of "solution" to political and social problems. tim sevener whuxn!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/27/86)
> Sam Cramer writes in response to comments on nonviolence : For starters: it wasn't Sam Cramer that wrote the response -- it was Clayton Cramer. Tim Sevener, as usual, isn't reading carefully before he responds. > > > > > 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. > > > > And what about the casualties of *violence*? It is quite possible that 4 > billion people, i.e. the whole human race, could be destroyed by our > acceptance of the use of violence as a means of attaining national ends. > > Moreover as against the six million who died in concentration camps > (victims of a regime which *glorified* violence to the hilt) there > have been many more millions who have died in wars since World War II. > > Please explain to me the great success of the PLO's use of violence to > try to gain a Palestinian homeland. They have been engaged in random > acts of violence since 1948 - where is their great liberation? > > Please explain to me the great success of the Irish Republican Army > in their campaign of terrorist bombings and violence. I doubt their > attempt to bomb Maggie Thatcher is what led to the current important > imrprovements in Ireland but rather the election of members of the > parliament who support steps towards the independence of Northern Ireland. > > Is the African National Congress better off by promoting violence? > I fail to see how this has helped their struggle significantly. > Instead it makes it ever more impossible to negotiate with the whites who > feel they are fighting for their lives while providing an excuse for > conservatives in the rest of the world to back the apartheid regime. > > We may very well all be fried by our unfortunate committment to violence > as any sort of "solution" to political and social problems. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mr. Sevener: as usual, you are grossly distorting what I said. I was not arguing in favor of violence as a generic solution to a problem (as the rest of my comments made clear). I was pointing out that non-violence works under some conditions, and not others. Of course, you've never been one for reading before writing, so I don't expect this posting to be any different.