General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is revolution the only way we can elicit change? [View all]marions ghost
(19,841 posts)who would advocate violence and send their armies of 9-year old girls out to shoot us...
We who are not armed must use more technical, more clever means. But resist we must.
My point is that big changes can occur without violence --if enough people are on board with it.
Too often people hear the word "revolution" and think it only means taking up physical weapons. This is a narrow interpretation of the word. And indicates the lack of a better strategy.
We have thinkers and people with vision, rather than clowns with guns, on our side. We need our side to come forth and take a stand in any way that makes sense (and does not incite violence).
Violence never wins in the end...Gandhi is inspiring on that point, even though today our methods are different and more involved with technology, the principles remain the same...
------------
Gandhi
Non-violence has great appeal because it removes the illogicality of trying to make the world a less violent and more just place by using violence as a tool.
Among the techniques of non-violent protest are:
peaceful demonstrations
sit-ins
picketing
holding vigils
fasting and hunger strikes
strikes
blockades
civil disobedience
Gandhi
One of the most famous leaders of a non-violent movement was Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948), who opposed British imperial rule in India during the 20th century.
Gandhi took the religious principle of ahimsa (doing no harm) common to Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism and turned it into a non-violent tool for mass action. He used it to fight not only colonial rule but social evils such as racial discrimination and untouchability as well.
Gandhi called it "satyagraha" which means 'truth force.' In this doctrine the aim of any non-violent conflict was to convert the opponent; to win over his mind and his heart and pursuade him to your point of view.
Gandhi was firm that satyagraha was not a weapon of the weak - "Satyagraha is a weapon of the strong; it admits of no violence under any circumstance whatever; and it always insists upon truth."
Gandhi did not think that non-violence was a tool for those who were too scared to take up arms (an accusation that was sometimes made):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/war/against/nonviolence.shtml