Skip to main content

View Diary: Native Americans Declare War on Fracking. Canada Declares War on Native Americans. Updates. (188 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This wasn't nonviolent (4+ / 0-)

    And you're flat wrong.

    the whole point of nonviolent protest is to garner sympathy for your cause by protesting without resisting.
    No, the point of nonviolent protest is to resist nonviolently, not to refuse to resist. Refusing to work, i.e. a strike, is nonviolent and it's also resistance. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of nonviolence as a resistance tactic. Resistance is not violence.
    You don't get to fire bomb the police simply because they are preforming their lawful duties. It's really that simple.
    Well, I think some people who were involved with this action might disagree with you. Sure, you'll probably get in trouble for it, but lets not pretend like it doesn't happen.
    That's something I will not support because yes it does undermine what people will think, because it's not effective and because it really shows you're no better then the alleged wrong doing.
    So you're against it for purely PR reasons? Because that's what you make it sound like.
    •  that's semantics pure and simple (0+ / 0-)

      As to the rest, how do you think non-violent protesting works? It's always been about 'PR' (if that is what you want to call it).

      I'm ignoring your defence of illegal activity btw.

      Der Weg ist das Ziel

      by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 06:37:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, it's not about PR (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, Don midwest, Laconic Lib

        Union strikes weren't about PR. Gandhi's march to the sea wasn't about PR. The way that non-violent protest works is by actually using non-violent means to physically resist the injustices that are happening. It's not a symbolic protest and it sure as hell is not about PR. It's about physically resisting injustice by whatever means you can. Nonviolence is not passive*. The idea that nonviolence is passive betrays the legacy of MLK, Gandhi, and Thoreau. Nonviolence is active resistance.

        All that said, this was not a nonviolent protest. And I don't blame them at all. Gandhi himself said that the power of nonviolence is directly related to the ability to do violence. The more violence you have the ability to do the more powerful your nonviolent resistance is. So where does that leave a minority that has little to no power, physical or otherwise? Not in a very good position.

        Ultimately, if the problem is PR then the answer is to defend the people doing these things, not to attack them on the internet for their choice of tactics.

        •  um Gandhi's march was very much PR (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Union strikes sure those are different but that's because they have legal standing in terms of the contract they are after. What exactly about this situation relates to that? Because I don't see any similarity between union strikes and protesting (never mind fire bombing some cars).

          I think we're going to just disagree what non-violent protest means because to me it's all about the symbology. After all Gandhi didn't 'win', in point of fact he actually 'lost'. But in 'losing' he created such powerful symbology and sympathy that his 'loss' became his 'victory'.

          And no I'm not going to defend violent acts even if they mean well. I'm sorry but good intention isn't a get out of jail free card.

          Der Weg ist das Ziel

          by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:06:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, Gandhi's march to the sea was about (4+ / 0-)

            actually making salt and throwing off the British oppressors. It was about PR only insomuch as taking action against oppression always inspires people to oppose oppression if your action is successful.

            I think we're going to just disagree what non-violent protest means because to me it's all about the symbology.
            Then either you haven't read or haven't understood Gandhi and King. And yes, Gandhi did win. He may have died, but he still won. He broke the subcontinent free from the oppression of England. And he managed to minimize the violence of that despite the best efforts of the English.
            And no I'm not going to defend violent acts even if they mean well. I'm sorry but good intention isn't a get out of jail free card.
            So you admit that the issue isn't PR in general, but your specific view on the subject? Because originally you said your problem was the PR aspect, not the violence specifically. But now the problem is the violence in and of itself as a bad thing. And if that's the case then you should be condemning a lot of things, including the police in general. But you aren't, and you won't. How do you square that circle?
            •  granted it's not the best source (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              But I think you should read the wiki entry on the salt march because it sounds a lot more symbolic and 'PR' then actual results.

              Also the whole reason behind using 'win' and 'lose' instead of win and lose was that I was trying to point out that it was not actually winning or losing. Yes Gandhi won but he did it by 'losing' which was the great break in non-violent protest.

              As to the rest of course I'm arguing my specific view just as you are arguing yours I would assume. I mean after all this is about a matter of opinion and as such you're going to see it a certain why and I will see it another way. And those views will exist inside a spectrum ranging from complete agreement to complete disagreement. Personally speaking I think we agree more then we disagree but I do object to violence. And the violence is tied to the how the situation looks. After all what is more sympathic? This happening or this happening without the fire bombings?

              PS I'm never going to condemn the police in general because that's a blanket statement that to me lacks nuance. Most of the time the police are just doing a job; they don't get to pick and choose the laws they enforce. And really I don't ever want them to.

              Der Weg ist das Ziel

              by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 07:42:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  FYI, when I say "condemn the police" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I don't mean condemn the police as individuals, I mean condemn them as an institution. I know you won't do that either, but I want that to be clear. I don't think that every single police officer is a horrible person, I do think that they contribute to a racist and corrupt system in such a way that racism, sexism, etc. is continued.

                And there is a difference between doing something that will attract other people and doing something just because it will attract other people. Propaganda of the deed is not PR. Propaganda of the deed is doing, not pretending.

                •  fair enoughh (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and yes I'm not going to condemn them as an institution either. The police are not perfect but as an institution it's the best choice we have.

                  As to the rest I just simply don't see a distinction there, sorry. To me there's nothing 'pretending' about being willing to take a baton to the face or being sprayed with a fire hose or taking a less then lethal plastic bullet or bean bag round. In point of fact I think that it's easier to destroy then it is to endure.

                  I think we've about exhausted the topic or at least I think I have.

                  You have a good day.

                  Der Weg ist das Ziel

                  by duhban on Thu Oct 17, 2013 at 08:10:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site