Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!ritter
From: ritter@spp1.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: The use of nonviolence.
Message-ID: <265@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 23-Jan-86 17:01:43 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.265
Posted: Thu Jan 23 17:01:43 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Jan-86 22:33:07 EST
References: <566@decwrl.DEC.COM> <495@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: ritter!spp1@trwspp.UUCP (Phillip A. Ritter)
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 42

> Context: Long article by Brian Mahoney (sp) and Tim Sevener.  Brian asks the
> question: being a believer in non-violent protest, how do you deal with a
> regime that doesn't care about killing people.  Tim replies that it is not
> at all clear that the Brit's were such ``wimps'' in India, but that non-
> violence still succeeded.

Gentlemen,

You both have very valid points.  The British were not at all gentle with
Gahndi and his followers in India.  However, non-violent protests would
obviously be futile in certain opressed area in todays world (e.g., Cambodia).

What, then, determines when a non-violent protest has some chance for success?
It is my belief that non-violence can only be effective when rampant murder
on the part of the opressor brings more harm to the opressor than to the
protesters.  For example, the civil rights movement worked because televised
murders by southern cops in the U.S. would not be tolerated by the U.S.
citizenry.  Gahndi succeeded because Brittian, a democratic country with
few resources except (at the time) significant control of world trade, could
not tolerate being branded as murderers by those with whom they traded.

However, it is not at all clear that the cambodians (or North vietmamese, or
Iranians, or ...) really give a sh.. what the world thinks of them.  They are
ruled by dictatorial regimes that (to a point) don't have to care what their
populace thinks about them.  Here non-violent protests are doomed to fail.

Not so clear, however, is the plight of the ``coloreds'' of south africa.
It is here that non-violence should be at least attempted before violent
tactics are persued.

To Brian: Sorry, I have done nothing the answer your lament.  (For the benefit
of those who didn't see Brians message: What then is a person committed to
non-violence to do when it becomes obvious that it cannot solve the problem
at hand.)

Phil Ritter

ps  I believe that the ``Palistinian problem'' (aka ``The Isreali Problem'') is
doomed to a violent solution because both sides claim that they cannot win as
long as the other exists.
--
Phillip A. Ritter