PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
Are liberation movements generally effective and worth participating in?
-
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!
Liberation movements
- Thread starter PoetPhilosopher
- Start date
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Can't speak for all, but my impression is that jail and prison breaks are not typically successful ventures.
Entirely dependant upon (1) the context and particular material circumstances, (2) the aims and methods of the 'liberation movement' in question and (3) if there are, at a minimum, reasonable prospects for success.
'Liberation movement' is quite an imprecise and ambiguous term: encompassing phenomena as diverse as civil disobedience protests, passive resistance, armed revolutions and coups, guerrilla campaigns, wars of independence and terrorism.
It can also be used in a much more limited political sense to mean something benign like campaigns aiming to create a fairer society by having policies / laws repealed or revoked that somehow disenfranchise / discriminate against certain groups in society - such as lobbying for racial equality, women's liberation, LGBT rights etc.. In this 'narrow' sense, I see value in "liberation movements" and would consider them to have had a generally good success rate throughout history (i.e. as can be seen, for example, in the gradual broadening of the electoral franchise towards universal suffrage from the 1820s - 1960s in many democracies around the world).
If what you are referring to, however, is 'liberation' in the sense of 'national liberation' (i.e. an actual revolutionary upheaval and regime change, as in independence from an empire or change of political system): in principle, if enough people in a given country - as in, millions at least - feel so passionately about the state of their country that they are willing to take to the streets and protest, even in the face of reprisals from the state, then there is a good argument for supporting the right of the people to withdraw consent from their government and try to 'liberate' themselves from the current regime. (Although prudence might, in practice, suggest that action is best avoided if the prospects of success are so vanishingly slim that little is to be gained and more harm may occur if the attempted 'liberation' continues).
However, I would never - under any circumstances - support an alleged 'liberation movement' that targeted civilians or endorsed acts of terror in any way, nor ones that resort to violence for any reason other than an absolute last resort after every attempt has been made with the government to ameliorate the causes of the uprising and reach a negotiated settlement (even then, I am pretty much almost a pacifist and would expect the 'liberation movement' to seriously pursue peaceful protest and non-violence for as long as possible, unless it is practically impossible in the circumstances (hence my almost but not quite pacifism).
Generally speaking - I think political brinkmanship, consensus-building and dialogue across partisan lines should be pursued well in advance of any recourse to a concerted campaign for 'liberation', in case the underlying causes can be resolved in a less contentious fashion, without fanning the flames of greater division, unrest and polarisation in society. But if it comes to the bit, and all other sensible avenues have been exhausted and proven fruitless, "liberation movements" can become a necessity.
'Liberation movement' is quite an imprecise and ambiguous term: encompassing phenomena as diverse as civil disobedience protests, passive resistance, armed revolutions and coups, guerrilla campaigns, wars of independence and terrorism.
It can also be used in a much more limited political sense to mean something benign like campaigns aiming to create a fairer society by having policies / laws repealed or revoked that somehow disenfranchise / discriminate against certain groups in society - such as lobbying for racial equality, women's liberation, LGBT rights etc.. In this 'narrow' sense, I see value in "liberation movements" and would consider them to have had a generally good success rate throughout history (i.e. as can be seen, for example, in the gradual broadening of the electoral franchise towards universal suffrage from the 1820s - 1960s in many democracies around the world).
If what you are referring to, however, is 'liberation' in the sense of 'national liberation' (i.e. an actual revolutionary upheaval and regime change, as in independence from an empire or change of political system): in principle, if enough people in a given country - as in, millions at least - feel so passionately about the state of their country that they are willing to take to the streets and protest, even in the face of reprisals from the state, then there is a good argument for supporting the right of the people to withdraw consent from their government and try to 'liberate' themselves from the current regime. (Although prudence might, in practice, suggest that action is best avoided if the prospects of success are so vanishingly slim that little is to be gained and more harm may occur if the attempted 'liberation' continues).
However, I would never - under any circumstances - support an alleged 'liberation movement' that targeted civilians or endorsed acts of terror in any way, nor ones that resort to violence for any reason other than an absolute last resort after every attempt has been made with the government to ameliorate the causes of the uprising and reach a negotiated settlement (even then, I am pretty much almost a pacifist and would expect the 'liberation movement' to seriously pursue peaceful protest and non-violence for as long as possible, unless it is practically impossible in the circumstances (hence my almost but not quite pacifism).
Generally speaking - I think political brinkmanship, consensus-building and dialogue across partisan lines should be pursued well in advance of any recourse to a concerted campaign for 'liberation', in case the underlying causes can be resolved in a less contentious fashion, without fanning the flames of greater division, unrest and polarisation in society. But if it comes to the bit, and all other sensible avenues have been exhausted and proven fruitless, "liberation movements" can become a necessity.
Last edited:
Maybe sometimes, but usually you're just liberating folks from one type of prison into another.
When the idealist becomes the realist.
PoetPhilosopher
Veteran Member
I was talking about the nonviolent kind personally, but you guys can talk about any kind if you want to. I mean, it was a pretty general question.
I think one consequence to dedicating your life to peaceful protests is that for every person who stands up and protests, it can sometimes fuel and make more vocal the other side, who might have generally been more peaceful otherwise, sometimes.
I think one consequence to dedicating your life to peaceful protests is that for every person who stands up and protests, it can sometimes fuel and make more vocal the other side, who might have generally been more peaceful otherwise, sometimes.
Stanyon
WWMRD?
Life is a struggle of ideas, some win some lose.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
From my conversations with Black people who were involved in civil rights movements past and present:
The Liberation movements are helpful for motivation, inspiration, and organization.
But the most effective changes always come from consistent, small, incremental changes and person to person friendships with those with opposing points of view.
I remember a few that weren't, here's one
I never could figure out who the "Symbionese" were. However, I recall reading an interview with Patty Hearst years after her kidnapping, and she said that while she was living with the SLA, they all had to use the same toothbrush.
So, I guess there's a certain "buyer beware" aspect of liberation movements. If everyone has to use the same toothbrush, then I want nothing to do with it.