Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nonviolence

kinginstitute.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 164 posts

Re: Nonviolence

#21

Post by jimbo808 »

kstenerud wrote: post #5

[flagged]

As long as you pretend these didn't happen:

Iran (1953) - overthrow of the Shah by the CIA

Guatemala (1954) - overthrow of an elected government on behalf of US corporate interests

Cuba (1961) - invaded Cuba via proxy forces, attempted to assassinate Castro (Bay of Pigs)

Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1955–1975)

Chile (1973) – overthrow of Salvador Allende

Nicaragua (1980s) - overthrow the Sandinista government (Contra war) without international authorization

Panama (1989) - invaded and overthrew the government without international without international authorizationauthorization

Iraq (2003) - invaded and overthrew the government without international authorization

Serbia (1999) - airstrikes without international authorization

Libya (2011) - exceeded authorization by UN to effect regime change

Syria (2014–present) - US military occupation and oil seizure is ongoing

There are many more, these are the more notable ones

Re: Nonviolence

#22

Post by nvader »

kstenerud wrote: post #5

[flagged]

I share your sense that there is an unsettling in the balance of the world order at present. However, I completely disagree that non-violence has no place in the absence, and I enter into evidence the Satyaagraha movement in British India in the interwar period, especially the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi.

For just one example, see his response to the Massacre of Jallianwalla Bagh, which happened around the time of the end of WWI.

https://www.mkgandhi.org/storyofg/chap18.php

Non-violence formed a backbone of the Indian independence movement until independence was achieved at the close of WWII in 1947.

Re: Nonviolence

#23

Post by tptacek »

dpc050505 wrote: post #14
nathan_compton wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

King was definitely not protesting in a rules based order, at least not one which applied to black people. Nor was Gandi.

He also died from a bullet to the head and 60 years later a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

Nonviolence was never proposed as a shield for activists against violence. He knew what he was up against.

Re: Nonviolence

#24

Post by HNisCIS »

andy99 wrote: post #4
mystraline wrote: post #2

"Nonviolence" only works when a group is doing that, AND there is also a contingent of violent folks with the same aims. Nonviolent folks can be negotiated with. Its not permitted to negotiate with criminals/terrorists. We need both violent and nonviolent forces, but we're not permitted to say that out loud. But historically, thats what works.

Is anyone aware of a more thorough argument for why this must be the case? Is it a commonly held view? It sounds realistic, but not necessarily and immutable law, I’d like to know what thought has been given to this.

A commonly cited example is during the Battle of Seattle the cops wanted to beat the shit out of a nonviolent sit in and the black bloc protected them through a combination of strength and diversion. The non violent people are there for the optics and the violent people are there assuring that any move made on the nonviolent protesters will be rewarded swiftly.

The important part is that the violence mostly doesn't start until someone tries to hurt those who are there peacefully. Good was there peacefully so retaliation is becoming a possibility.

Re: Nonviolence

#25

Post by zkmon »

Sometimes, I suspect that Gandhi was helped by the global developments of that time, specifically the British context at the end of the war. Gandhi could have been lucky, in part, to find the British in a mood to relinquish their holdings. Bose, on the other hand, decided to fight by all means, though being no match against the British. Maybe, both strategies would have been equally weak, if there was no world war.

Re: Nonviolence

#26

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

dpc050505 wrote: post #14
nathan_compton wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

King was definitely not protesting in a rules based order, at least not one which applied to black people. Nor was Gandi.

He also died from a bullet to the head and 60 years later a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

[flagged]

Re: Nonviolence

#27

Post by bluescrn »

kstenerud wrote: post #5

[flagged]

We haven't had a 'world order'. We've had the threat of mutually-assured destruction.

Which has prevented another world war, but not regional conflicts, a cold war, and whatever the history books decide to call the current social media driven conflict.

Re: Nonviolence

#28

Post by Rperry2174 »

This is a good articulation of mlkjr's theology and dicipline around nonviolence, but I think its incomplete if you read it in isolation.

His strategy worked because it existed alongside MANY other voices, IMO the most underrated of which is Malcolm X, that rejected this "gradualism" outright and refused endless delay.

They weren't organizing violence but they were instead making it credible that there is a world where those "peaceful" people do not accept complicity or "no" for an answer.

This shifted the baseline of what a "compromise" could look like (as we today see baselines shift very frequently often in a less just direction)

Seen that way, nonviolence wasn't just a moral stance, it was one side of a coin and once piece of a broader ecosystem of pressure from different directions. King's approach was powerful because there were alternatives he was NOT choosing.

You cannot have nonviolence unless violence is a credible threat from a game-theory perspective. And that contrast made his path viable without endorsing the alternatives as a model

Re: Nonviolence

#29

Post by dpc050505 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #26
dpc050505 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also died from a bullet to the head and 60 years later a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

[flagged]

It was a bad faith argument to shut down discourse about summary executions of black men in the streets of the USA. It's been about 10 days since they executed a white soccer mom who had not committed any crime, the people who were harping on about 'All lives matter' are still no where to be found. The whole time it was empty rhetoric, people who care about human life understand that sometimes there's a group in particular being oppressed.

Re: Nonviolence

#30

Post by dripdry45 »

tptacek wrote: post #23
dpc050505 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also died from a bullet to the head and 60 years later a statement as simple as 'black lives matter' was controversial.

Nonviolence was never proposed as a shield for activists against violence. He knew what he was up against.

not so sure he did. Both King and X were “allowed” to speak out as much as they wanted… until each of them, realize the war they were fighting was not the real war. The real war was against the rich. Once Malcolm realized this, and that he was being played, and once MLK realized that non-violence was BS he started to drift more toward Malcolm’s end of things and direct that anger toward class warfare? That’s when they were each killed.
Post reply on HN