zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. ixtli+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-05-31 19:33:41
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.
replies(2): >>pell+c5 >>jbay80+Fa
2. pell+c5[view] [source] 2020-05-31 20:14:42
>>ixtli+(OP)
Gandhi was also not a pacifist. He strongly believed in the right of self-defense.
3. jbay80+Fa[view] [source] 2020-05-31 20:56:08
>>ixtli+(OP)
Would you say that his protests didn't change anything and were forgotten as soon as they were over?
replies(1): >>ixtli+IU1
◧◩
4. ixtli+IU1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 15:12:14
>>jbay80+Fa
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.

[go to top]