View Single Post
Old 11-30-2011, 06:14 PM   #208
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
You know the history of nonviolence is in itself mired with sexism and racism, right?
You mention Gandhi, the obvious example of nonviolence, but he was a very conservative man with very traditional roles. And why not give credit to the numerous other movements and people in the Indian independence movement? Why not remember that Gandhi staunchly opposed Nehru's call for total independence of Britain in the 30's? Why not remember that it was the militant Sri Aurobindo that considered Mira Alfassa his equal in leadership? What of Udham Singh, who assassinated Michael O'Dwyer, the governor responsible of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and in doing this Nehru claimed that Singh "kissed the noose so that we may be free."? What of the militant Aruna Asaf Ali, militant communist and the face of the youth in the Quit India Movement, who created the first women's political organization in India, the National Federation of Indian Women, within the auspices of the party?
I mention Gandhi because people love to bring him up as a failure of pacifism, not because I think he was particularly successful. He is rightfully famous as one of the first prolific pacifists but I think people love to dig into him as a racist sexist bad person mostly because he was a man of colour who challenged the way we think about power and oppression.

Its not that Indian independence was an entirely peaceful one, but Gandhi seems to be dragged through the mud as a failure while extremists who killed and arrested thousands of those who were suspected of supporting his assassins are the true heroes of independence. And how well violence carried out is debatable, after all the Indian National Congress Party made a martyr of Udham Singh, and became an oppressive corrupt government in their own right.

Quote:
As for Martin Luther King Jr., he did not want peace, he wanted love. And love is not always peaceful. Martin Luther King Jr. was the man who said "The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be… The nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."
Simply saying that Martin Luther King Jr. was all about non-violence is such an offensively stereotypical and inaccurate caricature of his ideas that it shouldn't be taught past second grade.
King was very much inspired by Gandhi, who's nonviolent tactics he thought was the most moral way to fight oppression, and thought Gandhi employed Christianity better than any Christian could. He also believed that civil disobedience is perfectly respectable, but that you must accept your arrest afterwards. Later he became friends with Thich Nhat Hanh who inspired him to question the Vietnam War, and he became active in the peace movement. Did I miss somewhere where he condoned violence in the name of love? Just because he said the word "extremists" after saying Jesus was an extremist of love doesn't mean that was exactly a call to violence. He didn't shy away from the label as an extremist just because he stood up for social justice, like Jesus and Amos did. Who is labeled an extremist is after all pretty relative and doesn't necessitate violence.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote