My understanding of history and pacifists, (which may or not be right), is that no pacifist movement has ever “won” a revolution by peaceful means themselves. It always takes a group of people who are willing to use violence and die in the process if need be to achieve the desired ends to back the pacifists up.
Popular modern peaceful movements led by people such as Martin Luther King in the US and Ghandi in colonial India were parallel backed by violent groups such as the Black Panthers in the US and a bunch of small and very active violent groups in India.
And the only reason we know and remember Ghandi and King and hold them up as shining examples of pacifism, is because the powers that be decided it was easier and more beneficial to negotiate with them rather than the more violent factions. After all, that could get you killed outright trying to negotiate with the violent leaders or at least totally ousted from power at best. Dealing with the pacifists was a good way to stay alive and maintain at least some power if not all of it. But until those in power are convinced they can die because enough of the population is actively trying to kill them, they don’t much care about talking to the pacifists. I mean, what are they going to do? Carry signs and march for a few days? Oh! The horror! If that worked, Trump would be in jail by now.
Until enough of the populace is angry enough to take up arms and risk death to kill those evil people in power, nothing will change. There will be no reason to make deals or vacate the power for the pacifists to occupy.
But there still remains the problem of the violent people the pacifists now need to deal with. And those people have the taste of blood. This is the weak point in any revolution…
Popular modern peaceful movements led by people such as Martin Luther King in the US and Ghandi in colonial India were parallel backed by violent groups such as the Black Panthers in the US and a bunch of small and very active violent groups in India.
Keep in mind with King (I’m not so studied up on Gandhi), optics played a big role. You had squeaky clean pillars of the community and schoolchildren being attacked by police dogs, hoses, and baton wielding police for daring to ask for equality. The US actually had decent journalism back then so they looked horrible on the world stage as the US was positioning itself as the leader of a free world. America’s arm was twisted into giving black people nominal rights with token representation while surreptitiously undermining both.
I’m not so sure the threat of armed black people made the government acquiesce. The state loves nothing more than a pretext for violence.
Popular modern peaceful movements led by people such as Martin Luther King in the US and Ghandi in colonial India were parallel backed by violent groups such as the Black Panthers in the US and a bunch of small and very active violent groups in India.
I’m not big on this area of history, but wasnt much of the “evil” of the black panther party just straight up propaganda from COINTELPRO and other federal programs designed to undermine and villify them via any means necessary to avoid having black people stand up for themselves, and having white people support them?
And ignores a lot of the public good they did feeding the needy and trying to cop watch in the era when there were no tiny pocket sized high resolution cameras with which to catch the police misdeeds on?
My understanding of history and pacifists, (which may or not be right), is that no pacifist movement has ever “won” a revolution by peaceful means themselves. It always takes a group of people who are willing to use violence and die in the process if need be to achieve the desired ends to back the pacifists up.
Popular modern peaceful movements led by people such as Martin Luther King in the US and Ghandi in colonial India were parallel backed by violent groups such as the Black Panthers in the US and a bunch of small and very active violent groups in India.
And the only reason we know and remember Ghandi and King and hold them up as shining examples of pacifism, is because the powers that be decided it was easier and more beneficial to negotiate with them rather than the more violent factions. After all, that could get you killed outright trying to negotiate with the violent leaders or at least totally ousted from power at best. Dealing with the pacifists was a good way to stay alive and maintain at least some power if not all of it. But until those in power are convinced they can die because enough of the population is actively trying to kill them, they don’t much care about talking to the pacifists. I mean, what are they going to do? Carry signs and march for a few days? Oh! The horror! If that worked, Trump would be in jail by now.
Until enough of the populace is angry enough to take up arms and risk death to kill those evil people in power, nothing will change. There will be no reason to make deals or vacate the power for the pacifists to occupy.
But there still remains the problem of the violent people the pacifists now need to deal with. And those people have the taste of blood. This is the weak point in any revolution…
Keep in mind with King (I’m not so studied up on Gandhi), optics played a big role. You had squeaky clean pillars of the community and schoolchildren being attacked by police dogs, hoses, and baton wielding police for daring to ask for equality. The US actually had decent journalism back then so they looked horrible on the world stage as the US was positioning itself as the leader of a free world. America’s arm was twisted into giving black people nominal rights with token representation while surreptitiously undermining both.
I’m not so sure the threat of armed black people made the government acquiesce. The state loves nothing more than a pretext for violence.
I’m not big on this area of history, but wasnt much of the “evil” of the black panther party just straight up propaganda from COINTELPRO and other federal programs designed to undermine and villify them via any means necessary to avoid having black people stand up for themselves, and having white people support them?
And ignores a lot of the public good they did feeding the needy and trying to cop watch in the era when there were no tiny pocket sized high resolution cameras with which to catch the police misdeeds on?