Skip to main content

View Diary: Woman Sexually Assaulted by NYPD Convicted of Felony Assault (394 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No one can possibly defeat the current order ... (9+ / 0-)

    ...with armed force. That is why the government is actually not particularly concerned about the likes of the Bundy Bunch. They can be wiped out to the last man woman and unfortunately-affiliated child at any time. And the Bundy Bunch peeps probably have a healthy sense of paranoia over that. Oh, wait. It's not healthy but it's definitely paranoid.

    Moving right along...

    Organized peaceful protest, however, that's worse than 9/11 to a superpower. Just ask that former superpower, the British, how long they kept India once that got up and running. (Answer: Quite a while, but a quite a bit less than forever.)

    •  The resistance in India was (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Don midwest, poco, Norm in Chicago

      far more violent than anything we've seen in the last century or so.

      No War but Class War

      by AoT on Mon May 05, 2014 at 04:52:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ok, looking for stats on that (0+ / 0-)

        Also, I would hate to think someone would conflate the various violent revolutionary movements in India with the nonviolence movement in India.

        Or, are we saying that there was no such thing as nonviolence in India? That would be big news.

        •  I wasn't intending to conflate the two (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          poco

          movements, although there was some connections.

          But a lot of people conflate the Indian independence movement with nonviolence, which was not exactly true.

          I certainly don't want to deny the role that nonviolence played in independence.

          No War but Class War

          by AoT on Mon May 05, 2014 at 05:18:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nonviolence certainly played a role in Indian (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, Wednesday Bizzare

            independence, but its role is vastly overstated by those who wish that that be the preferred mode of conduct of all protesters.

            The main reasons for Indian independence:

            1) British soldiers were on the verge of mutiny after WWII, being asked to pacify the various violent freedom movements in India.

            2) US not being willing to help Britain maintain its empire, since after WWII, US was emerging as a major superpower, and would prefer to not have competition.

            It's *Gandhi*, not Ghandi

            by poco on Mon May 05, 2014 at 05:35:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So Civil Rights never worked (0+ / 0-)

            because nonviolence, modeled after India, failed?

            •  Please don't put words in my mouth. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Wednesday Bizzare, snoopydawg

              And let's not forget that the movement for civil rights was also not completely non-violent. Certainly MLK was, but he wasn't the only person fighting for civil rights and black liberation. You speak as if there was no violence in the sixties.

              No War but Class War

              by AoT on Mon May 05, 2014 at 08:33:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So Indian independence struggle and Civil Rights (0+ / 0-)

                were comparably non-nonviolent, per the substance of this rebuttal.

                Ok, now we have a benchmark to work with. We can discuss the merits on that premise, because we actually DO have stats on the Civil Rights struggle and its correlates, and the relative merits of violent advocacy for same and their legacy in history, leftist and rightist and centrist all three.

                •  Certainly, the two can be compared (0+ / 0-)

                  But as I said elsewhere, I don't have hard numbers on violence during the Indian independence movement. Given that there were in fact outright violent rebellions I'd imagine it would be a rather larger death toll that that of any black revolutionaries in the US. I don't think the two are likely 'comparable' if by that you mean that they had similar amounts of violence on the part of people seeking liberation.

                  No War but Class War

                  by AoT on Mon May 05, 2014 at 09:12:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And both of those non-violent movements (0+ / 0-)

                  were seen as the reasonable alternative to factions that would have been more than happy to go medieval on someone's ass.

                  •  When I think of racial violence in the 1960s (0+ / 0-)

                    I think first and most of the Long Hot Summer of 1967, which occurred after the passing of the Civil Rights Act and struck rather prominently in locations outside of the Southeast such as Newark, Buffalo and Detroit. Then there were the other 100 or so cities involved, some of them (Atlanta) in the south too.

                    Surely, no one here is insisting that dissent is always either nonviolent or violent. So no objection exists among us.

                    Just as no one here is maintaining that there is only one umbrella mode of dissent and that all acts, violent or nonviolent, are conflated into same. Again, we have no quarrel.

          •  I never got those stats on how deadly (0+ / 0-)

            the nonviolence movement was in India.

            A little help, someone?

        •  I'd say nonviolence has always played an important (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wednesday Bizzare

          role in change, but too be successful it often has to play the 'good cop' to more radical / violent movements. Usually, if there's no 'bad cop' on the horizon, the powers that be are quite fine ignoring non-violent protest. Bad cop shows up, however, and suddenly the non-violent wing of a movements looks a lot better in people's eyes.

          •  by that logic all nonviolent movements.... (0+ / 0-)

            ...are 5th columnists by definition and must be destroyed rather than lend legitimacy to terrorists.

            That's exactly what technocratic-authoritarians thought about nonviolent protesters during the US-supported junta years throughout Latin America.

            That's why such persons got disappeared, on the Cold War dime.

            •  Which is nothing more than the truism that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cskendrick

              there are two means to effect change in this world. The (relatively) peaceful way, through politics, and the violent way (through war). Yes, everyone has heard "war is is the continuation of politics by violent means." It's opposite is true, though. Politics is the continuation of war through peaceful means, or simply, the supposition of the counting of heads for the breaking of heads.

              To deny this is basically to undercut that which chiefly makes politics preferable to war on most occasions. On the other hand, no one every lives in a pure state of politics or a pure state of war. No matter the situation or disagreement, both some negotiation and some violence are involved in settling it.

              It's just that when the background violence causes minimal disruptions in the average person's life, the threat of violence is usually implicit rather than explicit, and negotiation (politics) the prevailing form of dispute resolution we call it peace. Yet even in "Peace", there remains violence.

              On the other hand, when the background violence causes great disruptions in the average person's life, the threat of violence is usually explicit rather than implicit, and violence the prevailing form of dispute resolution we call it war. Yet even in "War", there remains negotiation.

              The morality of your technocratic-authoritarians, and the merits of their politics, are purely separate matter. Since war and politics exist on a continuum, rather than as isolated entities, the opinion that

              "Non-violent movements are 5th columnists by definition and must be destroyed rather than lend legitimacy to terrorists" has exactly as much underlying legitimacy and fallacy as it's is mirror image "The status quo (governments?) are all tyrannies, and thus must be destroyed rather than lend legitimacy to tyrannies."

              •  I as merely trying to parse in isolation... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kingfishstew

                ...the thought process by which Occupy is treated as the existential threat and guys training weapons on BLM agents is just a bunch of good ole boys, never meanin' no harm.... (a la "Dukes of Hazzard" theme song, from way back).

                As for the subtleties of not-war/not-peace not-sovereignty/not-leaving we could always dive into one of the least binomial issues of the day - the other Occupation... of Palestine.

                Or, since we are getting all Subcontinent, that of Jammu/Kashmir. :)

      •  Now if you mean Raj repression of Quit India... (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (151)
  • Community (66)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Republicans (39)
  • Culture (37)
  • Elections (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (34)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Labor (28)
  • Media (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (25)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Spam (23)
  • GOP (23)
  • Economy (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site