Re: The Success & Failure of Non-Violence
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:38 am
I'll stick with Simone on this one.“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
I'll stick with Simone on this one.“If Mr. Gandhi can protect his sister from rape through non-violent means, then I will be a pacifist.” Simone Weil
I stand corrected but I do think this '...control over the population was unlikely to be tenable,' was because they knew that violence would be in the offing given the actions, few tho' they were, of the radical parties.the dankster wrote:I'm not sure that suggestion is tenable at all. There was no meaningful violence until October 1943, and by that point self-rule had already been all but assured and all that was being negotiated was the time frame. On top of that, the efforts at violence were rather pathetic, the INA surrendered in 1945 having accomplished almost nothing on the battlefield. At most, it was the enormous pro-INA sentiments expressed by the Indian people, therefore demonstrating that continued British control over the population was unlikely to be tenable, that led the INA's mostly symbolic move to have any accelerating effect on the timeline at all. ...
Again I stand corrected.Yes, likely. Nearly everything King achieved occurred before the Black Panthers even formed. There is a strong argument that the rise and subsequent fall of the Black Panthers is what caused Civil Rights gains to stall out at that point.