• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who's your teacher?

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Maybe the police should have been ordered to “take the knee” and show their submission to avoid a confrontation as they did with BLM.

Those that went to do what the police are paid to do, protect property, were met by police in riot gear. Not with police dancing in the streets and taking the knee as we have seen at other left-wing protests.

That seems to be the way it works these days. Different rules for different factions.

Anyway, do you have to be far-right to do what you pay your inept and ineffective police force to do?
Did the Right need to use force?
Or did they simply choose to use force for their own reasons?
 

Notanumber

A Free Man
They have only been charged after the protests. George Floyd was only the straw that broke the camels back. Police killing people scot-free has been systemic for decades. Without comprehensive reforms it is only a question of time when the next George Floyd, Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor gets killed.

Justice might be swift sometimes, but how swift do you expect it to be?

Would lynchings suit you better?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Gandhi had proved that nonviolent protest could be immensely successful.
He would reprimand these looter, arsonists in the USA today.
Gandhi's own words:

"I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. "

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence."

Perhaps we should also mention that Gandhi was an anarchist who advocated the overthrow of all centralized and violence-based government and a return to self-governing village communes.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Gandhi's own words:

"I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor. "

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence."

Perhaps we should also mention that Gandhi was an anarchist who advocated the overthrow of all centralized and violence-based government and a return to self-governing village communes.
Wow,
I learned as a young man that if someone gives you only half the truth, they are deceiving liars.
I will not call you as such, however please explain to my why you sellectively chose only one of his statement and to rip it out of contect.
Just look at what you did!
You took one of my teachers, who I like because of 90% the things he did, one of the bravest men on earth, and you made him a Looting, killing, socialist, terrorist such as the rubbish in the USA who defiled Floyd's name!
I give you the full version of what Ghandi said, and I urge you to buy books about his life and read for yourself.
Damn your professors who taught you these lies!
The doctrine of the Sword | Gandhi's views on Peace, Nonviolence and Conflict Resolution
Why did you edit this out?
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier. But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish, it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Perhaps we should also mention that Gandhi was an anarchist who advocated the overthrow of all centralized and violence-based government and a return to self-governing village communes.
Absolutely correct, although, personally, I prefer to say he was for local sovereignty only.

By chance, are you familiar with what's called (unfortunately) "Neo-Marxism"? It pretty much follows the Gandhian approach but put into modern day reality. I find it very compelling but, unfortunately, probably unattainable.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Here's why people think of Gandhi as a pacifist rather than a rabble rouser who inspired people to loot and riot:
He was friends with the American journalist Webb Miller, a prestigious former war correspondent who would diligently report Gandhi's side of things to the US public, and by extension the rest of the Western imperialist world. This made the official press releases from the UK colonial regime look foolish and untrustworthy, and essentially caused people in the West to sympathize with the Indian independence movement to a far greater degree than previously.

During Gandhi's independence campaigns in India, people never stopped rioting violently against British rule. It was just that the focus of global media was on the brutal treatment of civilians at the hands of the colonial government, not the violence of protesters.
 
Last edited:

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
When protesters are confronted by police, there will always be violence. The people who demand protesters be nonviolent are doing so because they would rather have the violence be one-sided, to have the police beat down defenseless people, rather than have a violent clash between two sides on equal grounds.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
During Gandhi's independence campaigns in India, people never stopped rioting violently against British rule. It was just that the focus of global media was on the brutal treatment of civilians at the hands of the colonial government, not the violence of protesters.
Actually he did with three of his fasts. Even the movie "Gandhi" accurately shows that.

Here's why people think of Gandhi as a pacifist rather than a rabble rouser who inspired people to loot and riot:
Gandhi said he was not a "pacifist", but was an activist, but he certainly did not intend to "inspire people to loot and riot". There were times he stopped his campaign when that started happening.

One cannot help bring about change by ignoring the problems. Here in the States, our "Founding Fathers" well knew that, and they even used violent methods, which I don't advocate btw.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Actually he did with three of his fasts. Even the movie "Gandhi" accurately shows that.
Or if we tell the story from the other end, people in India rioted violently at least three times while he was engaging in political campaigns.

Gandhi said he was not a "pacifist", but was an activist, but he certainly did not intend to "inspire people to loot and riot". There were times he stopped his campaign when that started happening.

One cannot help bring about change by ignoring the problems. Here in the States, our "Founding Fathers" well knew that, and they even used violent methods, which I don't advocate btw.
Yes, but he never faulted people for rising up, to my knowledge, just for the negative consequences of it.

I also do not recall him ever objecting to looting or other forms of violence against private property. What he objected to was violence against people.

Violence is a tool in politics like any other. Government carries the implict threat of violence, and violence is brought down against factual or perceived threats against the government and its legitimacy. What I have observed when comparing reactions to various protests (BLM, Hong Kong, Occupy, Anti-Globalization) is that when it comes to the police's reaction and conduct, it does not seem to particularly matter who is in charge politically. When they see a group as a threat to the government's power, they will eventually react with violence, even lethal violence.

What I also believe is that once a political conflict has escalated into violence, it is very difficult to step down from that level of escalation. Once conflicts turn violent in politics, they seem to stay violent until the conflict is somehow resolved. So what Americans have in this situation is a conflict that has already turned violent, and the police engaged in violence. What is left now, is to decide if that violent conflict is going to be one sided, or two sided.

From what I know of Gandhi, he seemed to be aware of that. If you look at his campaigns, they are almost invariably designed from the ground up to provoke the British colonial power into open displays of violence. And because he could rely on friendly journalists to portray the situation from his side, he could count on these displays of violence being used to garner sympathy for his own cause.

So calling Gandhi's tactic nonviolence is only partially true. They were extremely violent, it was just not the protesters who had initiated the violence. They were violent one-sided conflict where Gandhi's activists presented themselves as the victims of violence, on purpose. Satyagraha was, in essence, weaponized victimhood for political purposes.

But weaponized victimhood only works when people care about the victims, and when there is a sympathetic system of mass media that makes them care.

This is what I see as the issue in American politics. It's not so much that people are "looting" or being "violent" - for the most part, the violence seems to be one-sided much like in Gandhi's situation. It's that the American media landscape - and indeed most Western media - seems to be so thoroughly divided into partisan spheres that it has likely become impossible to garner the same amount of sympathy for a cause as Gandhi would have managed, with little more than a handful of friendly journalists at his side.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
why?
Do you believe you have the right to loot, burn, murder because someone thousands of miles away murdered someone else, and you dont like it?
I think people acting this way are mentally impared!
Trump used the right words early on in his presidency to the tune of,

"These are very sick people".
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Or if we tell the story from the other end, people in India rioted violently at least three times while he was engaging in political campaigns.
Any judge will tell you that "intent" is crucially important. Gandhi did not use violence or encourage his followers to use violence.

Yes, but he never faulted people for rising up, to my knowledge, just for the negative consequences of it.
Depends what you mean by "rising up".

I also do not recall him ever objecting to looting or other forms of violence against private property. What he objected to was violence against people.
False again.

From what I know of Gandhi, he seemed to be aware of that. If you look at his campaigns, they are almost invariably designed from the ground up to provoke the British colonial power into open displays of violence.
His intent was to have the British stop their oppression of the masses, which even the British later apologized for. In the UK, he became a hero to so many working class people who felt that he stood up for them as well as the oppressed in South Africa and India.

So calling Gandhi's tactic nonviolence is only partially true.
Do you believe Jesus was also guilty of that? After all, he did provoke both the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and we well know what happened next.

Great leaders will often challenge the status quo, but since we're all creatures of habit, change often comes with some turmoil. To put it another way, there's almost always a price to pay for change.

This is what I see as the issue in American politics. It's not so much that people are "looting" or being "violent" - for the most part, the violence seems to be one-sided much like in Gandhi's situation.
Again, false. Police brutality by some cops encouraged the formation of BLM and the demonstrations, most of which were peaceful. But, as I said previously, I certainly do not sanction the use of violence by either the protesters or the police or anyone else.

To put it another way, you're blaming the wrong people.

Nuff said; at least by me.
 

SA Huguenot

Well-Known Member
Any judge will tell you that "intent" is crucially important. Gandhi did not use violence or encourage his followers to use violence.

Depends what you mean by "rising up".

False again.

His intent was to have the British stop their oppression of the masses, which even the British later apologized for. In the UK, he became a hero to so many working class people who felt that he stood up for them as well as the oppressed in South Africa and India.

Do you believe Jesus was also guilty of that? After all, he did provoke both the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and we well know what happened next.

Great leaders will often challenge the status quo, but since we're all creatures of habit, change often comes with some turmoil. To put it another way, there's almost always a price to pay for change.

Again, false. Police brutality by some cops encouraged the formation of BLM and the demonstrations, most of which were peaceful. But, as I said previously, I certainly do not sanction the use of violence by either the protesters or the police or anyone else.

To put it another way, you're blaming the wrong people.

Nuff said; at least by me.
Flippen Brilliant mate!
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Any judge will tell you that "intent" is crucially important. Gandhi did not use violence or encourage his followers to use violence.

Depends what you mean by "rising up".
Resisting the British colonial power, protesting openly in the streets, smashing salt refineries, that kind of stuff.

False again.

His intent was to have the British stop their oppression of the masses, which even the British later apologized for. In the UK, he became a hero to so many working class people who felt that he stood up for them as well as the oppressed in South Africa and India.[/QUOTE]
Then I guess if we just lay down and let cops beat us to near death, then that will somehow stop the government from oppressing us. Do you actually believe that's the real factual effect of nonviolent protest?

I think this argument is doing Gandhi's political work a massive disservice here.

Do you believe Jesus was also guilty of that? After all, he did provoke both the Jewish leaders and the Romans, and we well know what happened next.
At the time of his arrest, Jesus was a known religious terrorist who had committed massive property damage and had deliberately harmed peaceful and legitimate businessmen. During said arrest, his followers engaged in violence against agents of the legitimate government of Judea.

And that's just from hearing their side of the case.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Great leaders will often challenge the status quo, but since we're all creatures of habit, change often comes with some turmoil. To put it another way, there's almost always a price to pay for change.
On a personal note, I find your attachment to "great leaders" uncomfortable. It dismisses the thousands of people who rose up, and still rise up, to risk their lives facing the violent powers of the state, and it cheapens their sacrifice if we cling to "great leaders" who will somehow magically solve all our problems at no cost to ourselves.

What you so cutely and vaguely call "turmoil" is the blood, sweat and tears of thousands or even millions of people beaten, stabbed or shot by those who claim to defend them, in the name of regimes that prefer to sacrifice their lives over introducing even the most miniscule changes in how to do things.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
On a personal note, I find your attachment to "great leaders" uncomfortable. It dismisses the thousands of people who rose up, and still rise up, to risk their lives facing the violent powers of the state, and it cheapens their sacrifice if we cling to "great leaders" who will somehow magically solve all our problems at no cost to ourselves.

What you so cutely and vaguely call "turmoil" is the blood, sweat and tears of thousands or even millions of people beaten, stabbed or shot by those who claim to defend them, in the name of regimes that prefer to sacrifice their lives over introducing even the most miniscule changes in how to do things.
Based on the above, you totally appear to have no clue where I'm coming from as the above is a complete non-sequitur. It seems you'd much rather argue than actually read what I've written and actually try and digest it. I have no interest in discussing this or anything else with you when you pull disingenuous stunts like the above, as you have misportrayed what I said and what Gandhi did and why he did it. Utterly disgusting.

Goodbye.
 
Top