zlacker

Indian independence? Martin Luther King?

>>jbay80+(OP)
In both cases, the protestors were violently attacked over and over. Also, both Ghandi and MLK were murdered for their efforts.

>>jbay80+(OP)
Ghandi is the face of that movement but was just the tip of what was a very bloody revolution. It is important that we think the movement was "non-violent" such that we can point to it to dissuade people from challenging the status quo in a material way.

>>ixtli+22
Gandhi was also not a pacifist. He strongly believed in the right of self-defense.

>>jude-+T
Yes, a peaceful protest can be violently attacked and still be a peaceful protest.

It's not required that the police be peaceful, only the protesters.

>>ixtli+22
Would you say that his protests didn't change anything and were forgotten as soon as they were over?

>>jbay80+tc
And that is exactly why they were successful. When governments/police crack down on peaceful protests, it shines the light on the oppressor's behavior and creates a strong sympathetic reaction. That reaction is what evokes the change.

>>jbay80+Hc
No, the history taught about ghandi carefully selects instances of "non-violence". I don't think ghandi is responsible for how we learn about ghandi in the west.

Just like MLK is regarded as "peaceful" when in fact he and others spoke quite a bit about the fact that there was never any response from white people unless property was attacked.