This is a short diary and I am advocating nothing.
I don't understand why the systematically oppressed and murdered without justice in this country are always supposed to take the higher ground when those who do them harm are not. I don't think it is right that the targeted and justifiably fearful are expected to swallow their own humanity in order to behave like literal Saints so that they may be considered human enough to not be murdered by State-funded resources. Exactly how much bile can one swallow when it comes to seeing the murderers of your race get off scot free again and again and again?
The world loves Mandela and Gandhi, so I will let them speak for me.
**
Nelson Mandela, 1961:
There are thousands of people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence — against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenceless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate.
Nelson Mandela, 1964:
I must deal immediately and at some length with the question of violence. Some of the things so far told to the Court are true and some are untrue. I do not, however, deny that I planned sabotage. I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness, nor because I have any love of violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation, and oppression of my people by the Whites.
I have already mentioned that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto. I, and the others who started the organization, did so for two reasons. Firstly, we believed that as a result of Government policy, violence by the African people had become inevitable, and that unless responsible leadership was given to canalize and control the feelings of our people, there would be outbreaks of terrorism which would produce an intensity of bitterness and hostility between the various races of this country which is not produced even by war. Secondly, we felt that without violence there would be no way open to the African people to succeed in their struggle against the principle of white supremacy. All lawful modes of expressing opposition to this principle had been closed by legislation, and we were placed in a position in which we had either to accept a permanent state of inferiority, or to defy the Government. We chose to defy the law. We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the Government resorted to a show of force to crush opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.
But the violence which we chose to adopt was not terrorism. We who formed Umkhonto were all members of the African National Congress, and had behind us the ANC tradition of non-violence and negotiation as a means of solving political disputes. We believe that South Africa belongs to all the people who live in it, and not to one group, be it black or white. We did not want an interracial war, and tried to avoid it to the last minute. If the Court is in doubt about this, it will be seen that the whole history of our organization bears out what I have said, and what I will subsequently say, when I describe the tactics which Umkhonto decided to adopt.
Ghandi
I WOULD risk violence a thousand times rather than risk the emasculation of a whole race.
Whilst I may not actually help anyone to retaliate, I must not let a coward seek shelter behind nonviolence so-called. Not knowing the stuff of which nonviolence is made, many have honestly believed that running away from danger every time was a virtue compared to offering resistance, especially when it was fraught with danger to one's life. As a teacher of nonviolence I must, so far as it is possible for me, guard against such an unmanly belief.
Self-defence....is the only honourable course where there is unreadiness for self-immolation.
Though violence is not lawful, when it is offered in self-defence or for the defence of the defenceless, it is an act of bravery far better than cowardly submission. The latter befits neither man nor woman. Under violence, there are many stages and varieties of bravery. Every man must judge this for himself. No other person can or has the right.
**
I am advocating nothing. But I believe both Mandela and Gandhi would have specific things to say about what is happening in America today. And I think they would say it knowing they could very well wind up beaten, tortured, thrown in jail, and/or mysteriously dead.
Note: This diary title has been changed from what was originally published.
Sat May 23, 2015 at 7:20 PM PT: My thinking here might be (i.e. probably is) wrong. As pointed out by Ban Nock, what separates Mandela and Gandhi from what is happening in America today is the right to vote.
I know the voting statistics and even understand why they are what they are.
Time to rethink this.