There was actually a pretty good comment here once about how MLK and Gandhi only really succeeded with progress when a visible and difficult threat to the system was perceived.
Civil rights stagnated until the ramp up with the march to Washington and widespread riots from groups like the black panthers were damaging public society.
Similarly, Gandhi had trouble convincing the British to even consider independence until widespread communal violence swept the nation in the aftermath of WWII.
Both figures were touted as succeeding in history books due to their non violent movements, but in reality they simply became the center of attention for media at the time which solidified them as icons of their respective movements.
Ironically, both were assassinated which means their opposition definitely viewed them as a a powerful political threat, and not just some supporters for peace.
Where do you get that from? All the violent resistance like Subhash Chandra Bose and revolutionary movement were not big enough to be a major concern. Civil disobedience was more concerning given how widespread it was.
Civil Disobedience was the peaceful alternative; it is a show of force that only works if it carries the implication of a more violent alternative. Nobody ever won their freedom by appealing to the morality of the oppressor.
Nope, nope, nope. It is not a show of force, it’s making the society ungovernable, like not paying taxes, growing/making/selling anything to anyone etc. There was no implication of anything more violent. It is not appealing to the morality of the oppressor.
And they tried. Look at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the salt raids, the mass imprisonments. But the point wasn’t to wait for mercy, it was to make the cost of control so high, through sheer non-cooperation, that ruling became practically impossible. The system depends on participation. Remove that, and power collapses under its own weight. It’s not about violence, nor about moral appeals. It’s about leverage. When millions stop obeying, even bullets can’t fix the math.
There was actually a pretty good comment here once about how MLK and Gandhi only really succeeded with progress when a visible and difficult threat to the system was perceived.
Civil rights stagnated until the ramp up with the march to Washington and widespread riots from groups like the black panthers were damaging public society.
Similarly, Gandhi had trouble convincing the British to even consider independence until widespread communal violence swept the nation in the aftermath of WWII.
Both figures were touted as succeeding in history books due to their non violent movements, but in reality they simply became the center of attention for media at the time which solidified them as icons of their respective movements.
Ironically, both were assassinated which means their opposition definitely viewed them as a a powerful political threat, and not just some supporters for peace.
What are you talking about?
Gandhi was the peaceful alternative that gave Britain a place at the table.
Where do you get that from? All the violent resistance like Subhash Chandra Bose and revolutionary movement were not big enough to be a major concern. Civil disobedience was more concerning given how widespread it was.
Civil Disobedience was the peaceful alternative; it is a show of force that only works if it carries the implication of a more violent alternative. Nobody ever won their freedom by appealing to the morality of the oppressor.
Nope, nope, nope. It is not a show of force, it’s making the society ungovernable, like not paying taxes, growing/making/selling anything to anyone etc. There was no implication of anything more violent. It is not appealing to the morality of the oppressor.
If that was true, the British would have had their puppets shoot and starve them until they were governable.
And they tried. Look at the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the salt raids, the mass imprisonments. But the point wasn’t to wait for mercy, it was to make the cost of control so high, through sheer non-cooperation, that ruling became practically impossible. The system depends on participation. Remove that, and power collapses under its own weight. It’s not about violence, nor about moral appeals. It’s about leverage. When millions stop obeying, even bullets can’t fix the math.