It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts...

[NightWatcher]

than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.- Gandi

[HopeHoops]

1. Violence serves one purpose - it inspires more violence.

[baldguy]

3. And Gandhi's movement wasn't exactly "impotent" either.

[HopeHoops]

4. Well said.

[coalition_unwilling]

13. Well, I'm not advocating violence, but it did free the slaves during

the United States' Civil War and it did free those still alive in the German concentration camps during World War II.

[MADem]

2. "People have to follow the law."

Elizabeth Warren, candidate for US Senate-MA.

[baldguy]

6. People generally do follow the law; it's the police, prosecutors & courts that generally don't.

[ZombieHorde]

15. MLK disagreed with her on that subject. nt

[MADem]

16. She never discussed that with MLK. She was a young girl when he was murdered.

I'm just quoting her comment from two days ago.

[ZombieHorde]

19. I did not mean to suggest the two literally discussed the issue.

I was suggesting MLK thought breaking the law was sometimes justified for progress.

[MADem]

20. MLK didn't sit around in tents in parks and get into night time conflicts.

He MARCHED. With signs. And song. And one plain message. There was no mystery as to what he wanted. The people marching beside and behind him were on the same page, too.

His protests had a beginning, middle and end. And he did lots of 'em.

When he didn't have a permit, he was arrested. After a while, when he didn't have a permit, the AG (RFK, e.g., during the Birmingham campaign) ORDERED that he be given one.

He got national attention, and was able to sustain it, because he was disciplined and understood what was "good" PR and what wasn't.

He wasn't hanging around in a public park, waiting to be evicted and fighting the police because he wanted to camp in a tent. He was marching, speaking, going on TV, marching some more, speaking, preaching, going on radio...you get the idea. His message was focused.

OWS needs to get focused, too--IMO. Most everyday people I speak with are like me--they like the OWS concept, but believe, like I do, that it's losing the bubble. I know the "insiders" might not care what the "uncool schmucks" think, but whatever.

Taunting police is just not good PR. It is pointless. Instead of doing that "Sexy/Cute/Riot Suit" crap to a bunch of overweight, ill-trained, clumsy campus cops (what does that have to do with economic parity?) the energy would better be spent, IMO, marching during the DAYTIME with signs that say "Pass the STOCK Act NOW" or "Money Out of Politics" or "INVEST IN JOBS IN USA"--stuff like that. Or do a sit-in at a legislator's home office, or even picket it--something that will bring the media out. These roaming bands of people defending their tents just aren't cutting it.

I don't demand that anyone agree with me, but that's my sense of what's going on--or not going on.

[ZombieHorde]

25. None of that matters to my point.

MLK broke the law. MLK advocated breaking the law. MLK made the US a better country by breaking the law and advocating others to do the same.

[NYC_SKP]

5. Only as the lesser of two evils, a last resort. Context matters. His full quote:

He said,

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence.

There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent.

There is no such hope for the impotent."

In Gandhi's view, every person and every nation should use active methods appropriate to their level of spiritual development. He hoped that his beloved India would become the first example of a nation to free itself from a foreign oppressor entirely without violence, drawing upon his spiritual doctrine of ahimsa, or nonviolent action. As we know, India did succeed in this sixty-year effort, ridding itself of British colonial rule without warfare — although Gandhi, who died in 1948, sadly considered that he had failed when more than a million people were killed immediately after the partition of India and Pakistan.

Note that his dictum, above, was never implemented by his followers.

:patriot:

[FirstLight]

7. Thanks so much!

context matters... especially when talking about violence. Portland succeeded in a huge victory because they kept calm, peaceful and rational...and if instigators arose, they would go and talk them down, or openly reject them as not one of the protest.
I know we are all sitting on a long time of frustration and angst, but we cannot fight fire with fire on this one.

[Ohio Joe]

8. +1 for context - nt

[pinboy3niner]

11. More context:

For Gandhi, the key to this conundrum was spiritual development. Many times he wrote that when oppressed people lack spiritual development, they may use violence to free themselves. In fact (and surprisingly to me when I first read it), he was scathing in his criticism of passive or subservient nonviolence as a response to oppression, which he found unacceptable at any time. He said, "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. Violence is any day preferable to impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." In Gandhi's view, every person and every nation should use active methods appropriate to their level of spiritual development. ....


--A Quaker in the Military: Reflections of a Pacifist among the Warriors
http://www.aetheling.com/essays/pacifism.htm

[NYC_SKP]

12. Thanks for the link, that's precisely the page I used as a source.

:thumbsup:

[MADem]

21. Context changes everything.

Thank you for taking the time to post that.

[Kaleko]

22. Here's a quote that summarizes the idea.

I've taken that one to heart and have acted on it many times.


The reward for being nice in oppressive circumstances is to be mistreated more.

- Clarissa Pinkola Estés

[Motown_Johnny]

9. A weak man is just by accident. A strong but non-violent man is unjust by accident.

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.

Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mohandas_gandhi.html#ixzz1dcKCGNjH





http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov

*snip^

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent -Asimov

[TheKentuckian]

18. More the first choice of the incompetent and the last option of the righteous.

[Motown_Johnny]

23. his point being that we all try other means first

if we are competent enough to achieve our goals through those means they we never turn to violence.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent because they were not competent at achieving their goals through nonviolent means.

[TheKentuckian]

28. We do not all try other means first and certainly violence for many is not a last resort.

The quote is a mixture of utopian, blind to reality, and quite arrogant.

It implies that if you had performed non-violence better that violence would not have come and in many cases there is no more competent execution possible and/or that every possible opposition will respond to such tactics when honest people know better.

Just as hard work does not always result in success and the best of intentions can liter the path to hell, non-violence cannot always be an effective tactic. There have been plenty of non-violent groups and people who were wiped out without mercy and died on their knees.

The quote is foolish, if properly interpreted. There are no magic bullets, a philosophy built on such will eventually prove false. There is no tool that is functional for every situation possible.

[Quartermass]

10. Without violence

there'd be no United States nor would there be the concept of civil rights and liberties. You cannot have rights without violence, for people who do not like rights will not allow you to have them will not listen to any amount of reason.

If people would listen to reason, Wallstreet would change its practices and be be brought to justice and there'd be no need for protests.

But if there is no incentive to change, people won't. Even more so if they feel they're fully justified in their position or feel they'll lose their property and wealth.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

14. Amen to that. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Being servile to those who do wrong, has never fixed wrong. However, OWS is doing all this in PEACE.

[RZM]

17. One probelm with not explicity rejecting violence

Is that you lose any sort of moral authority when it comes to the issue of violence. As long as you are willing to use violence, you sound like a tool if you criticize the violence of others.

It's the difference between 'we shall overcome' and 'bring it on.' There's a time and place for 'bring it on,' but I don't think this is it.

Another problem is that it's often not a winning strategy. If you want to open that door, you better be damn sure you're going to win in the end.

[blindpig]

24. Are you speaking of government? n/t

[Taverner]

26. Interesting. I have nothing to add, other than this quote got me thinking.

...

I like that

[LoZoccolo]

27. The "violence in your heart" might not be adaptive to achieving your goal.

Remember that it existed long before something as complex as participatory democracy on the scale of a state government came about. A long time ago, it might have helped someone survive an immediate threat to their own life, or the further propogation of their genes, when those were some of the few problems that people faced. But within a system where power is gained by persuasion and consensus, you're going to find that it carries many disadvantages, and may in fact nullify all the advantages, the most obvious of which is that many people feel that it is an inherent cheat of the system of persuasion and consensus.