• WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    I remember trying to make the case that MLK's peaceful protests wouldn't have been successful if the more militant philosophies in which Malcom X and the black panther party waded weren't there to provide a backbone to the cause. The guy I was talking to cited a movie in which Gandhi's efforts were actually frustrated by the efforts of the militant wing of India's liberation cause.

    My supporting evidence turned against me because he cited a fucking movie. Why do I even try? I tell myself I won't, but I just keep talking.

    • AntiVolcelAktion [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I've heard, but not verified, that the only reason gandhi got his way is because the anglos were getting rekt by the militants and wanted defeat with the delusion of honor. any sources with truth to this?

      • extraterrestrial5 [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Passive resistance is about forcing authorities to use the prison state apparatus for silly unjust laws, so maybe?

        • AntiVolcelAktion [none/use name]
          ·
          4 years ago

          nah, i heard the actual resistance, the ones with guns, were winning in the more rural parts to such a degree that they chose to give in the ineffectual parts like gandhi.

    • grey_wolf_whenever [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I don't even think you can argue against that (your point that is), its like classic good cop bad cop stuff. Of course its more effective with a militarized group to make you look reasonable and tbh we need that now.