Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer From: cramer@kontron.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: The use of nonviolence. Message-ID: <484@kontron.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 13:30:21 EST Article-I.D.: kontron.484 Posted: Thu Jan 23 13:30:21 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:45:30 EST References: <566@decwrl.DEC.COM> <224@aero.ARPA> Organization: Kontron Electronics, Irvine, CA Lines: 82 > My thoughts on non violence: > > I believe that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty > much alike. Thus I don't think that the Germans of Hitlers time or the > Russians of Stanlins time are fundamentally any different than the English > or British. > I suggest that you spend more time talking to people from different cultures. There are significant cultural differences between Russians (not Soviets) and Americans, just as there are significant cultural differences between different parts of America. I hear a lot of criticism of attempting "to impose our values on our peoples". If people are fundamentally similar, what's problem. Also: saying "...that underneath their social conditioning all peoples are pretty much alike." is rather like saying that Charles Manson and Mahatma Gandhi are pretty much alike if you ignore their social conditioning. Perhaps that's true -- but the real world we live in has a lot of people with lots of social conditioning. > Non-violence acts slowly. Martin Luther King was assinated years ago. His > actions are still bearing fruit, but have not fully eliminated the conditions > he was concerned about. A similiar statement may be made about Gandhi. > It's very difficult to distinguish between the results of Martin Luther King's non-violent actions and the actions of the government in the 1950s and 1960s in relation to the civil rights movement. While I am not critical of the Federal Government's actions in this time period, I have no illusions that the government's actions were "non-violent". They were coercive actions taken against the coercive actions of the state and local governments. > Non-violence often leads to the death or injury of those practicing it. People > like Gandhi and King recognized and accepted this. > > Thus non-violence I believe is an approach that requires sacrifices by those > that practice it for the future benefit of all people. > No argument here -- but remember that non-violence in some situations may require sacrifices from people that don't accept your ideas on this. Like the six million who died in concentration camps. > Is it not possible that, if there had been a German in the 30's > with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King, Hitler would have > been stopped by his own people. > Someone with the abilities and dedication of a Gandhi or King would have lasted about a week before disappearing into a concentration camp. If no one had known of Gandhi or King, would they have made any impact on the society? > Is it not possible that, if FDR had been a proponent of non-violence, > with his charisma he could have found and implemented a non-violent > approach to stopping Hitler, to eliminating the conflict with Japan in > the 30's with non violence rather than weapons in the 40's. > Yes. FDR could have talked and talked and talked, and in the end, Europe would have been completely _Judenrein_, and all of us who still lived would be speaking German. Come to grips with reality. Non-violence works well against half-civilized opponents (like the British) whose consciences can be appealed to. It doesn't work with savage animals like Hitler and Stalin. > I think that the more people that practice non-violence in their own lifes > the more chance it has of becoming a world wide mode, and the fewer total > lives will be lost. If one studies the marshall art Akido one gets a > better understanding of how this works in practice. > > Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA I hate to pick on something as trivial as using the wrong word ("marshall" where the correct word is "martial") but this is pretty typical of supporters of non-violence. The ideas are quite attractive -- if you haven't read any history, and realized the limited context in which non-violence works. Learn a little more about what has happened in the past -- it will teach you what limitations you are running into with non-violence as a solution to evil.