Talking doesn't work VIOLENCE..

Discussion in 'Activism' started by LonelyPlanet, May 27, 2012.

  1. storch

    storch The compliant

    I get what you're saying.

    My thoughts are that If a certain people are being unjustly oppressed, and they protest that oppression by way of violence, then what you have is a war. Fighting fire with fire serves only to create a bigger fire. And if you vanquish your oppressor, you can celebrate the fact that your fire consumed the other's fire. The thing that is usually never considered in these fiery clashes is that smiting the shit out of your enemy inevitably creates a resistance. Resistance rarely dies. And in the end, the truth is always there staring everyone in the face; that being: the means by which you acquire or attain something is also the means by which you agree to have it taken from you. However, if peace is attained through revelation and spiritual growth, the fire will be out, and there is no need for resistance; it will no longer serve any purpose.

    So how does all of that figure into the use of non-violence to attain peace? Good question. The way I see it, when one party oppresses another, and the oppressed breaks out the rocks, guns, and booby traps, it is perceived by all as a tit for tat exchange. If the oppressed party protests in a non-violent way and are beaten down over and over, eventually the rest of the world looks on and is given the choice between opening their eyes and seeing the barbarity for what it is, or closing their eyes and minds to the truth of the matter as if they are somehow separate from the barbarity and play no role in it. If a government is the source of the unjustified oppression and violence against their own, or another, people, that's when the dysfunctional parent-child relationship between that government and the people that that government represents becomes painfully obvious.
     
  2. GuerrillaLorax

    GuerrillaLorax along the peripheries of civilization

    To answer most of this, here is a chapter of How Nonviolence Protects the State:



    But to engage more in your last paragraph. One of the best, most recent, examples out of an infinite list, of how mass awareness, positive media, government and celebrity attention is essentially meaningless and a useless strategy would be Standing Rock:

    "Ultimately, however, the NoDAPL campaign failed. I would suggest this occurred for a number of reasons, the primary one being that the opposition, despite some militant actions that occurred, was primarily based on “non-violent civil disobedience” and pacifist methods. Any attempts at creating a diversity of tactics were largely squashed by the NGO-type organizers that dominated the debates on tactics, combined with the lack of experience among members of the Standing Rock reservation.

    In contrast, I like to point out the resistance carried out by the Mi’kmaq in New Brunswick in 2013 against exploratory work for fracking operations. They didn’t have thousands of people gather, didn’t have big name celebrities join in, and didn’t have tens of thousands of dollars at their disposal. They mobilized their community and after a brief attempt at non-violent civil disobedience, they carried out more militant actions including sabotage and road blockades. Their main blockade was cleared out by police in October 2013, which resulted in six police cars being torched; afterwards, they used more mobile tire fire blockades to disrupt the exploratory work. Eventually, the company, SWN Resources, pulled out before completing all their work, and the next year a provincial election was held that saw the pro-fracking government thrown out of power in what was seen as a plebiscite on fracking. The new government enacted a moratorium on fracking. The Mi’kmaq, even though they were much smaller in numbers than what we saw at Standing Rock, and with far less resources, were victorious.

    In looking at the two campaigns, there are many lessons to be learned, and I would caution against people hoping to replicate the Standing Rock model because, ultimately, it was defeated." - An Interview with Gord Hill

    And to say one more thing about your premise altogether. As someone who I'm sure has a good understanding of the current state of the world, and who knows the failures of the 60's. We do not have another 50 years to wait around hoping that somehow 7 billion people (or more accurately the governments and corporations) have "spiritual growth" and start reversing climate change.
     

Share This Page