Can an unarmed population prevent a tyranny? If you think so, tell me how.

Originally posted by jimmiec
reply to post by Konoyaro

 

Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mohandas Gandhi, an Autobiography, page 446.

What can one say about that. It's very complicated comment to begin to unravel. It may be fatuous but at the very least it's ironic.

reply to post by region331


It does make one wonder if guns were available to him how they would have played into his fight for freedom for his people. The fact that he wrote it is a bit telling.

reply to post by region331


No it's not ironic. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I assume you are referring to his non-violence stance. I know he was also mostly referring to the indian military. But I agree with him, while I think he would rather die than to pickup a weapon in self-defense he supports the right to defend your own body should the need arise (very practical and down to earth thought), he is just a sentinel of freedom. You don't have the claim or right to decide what another person does as long as he doesn't hurt you in some way, some might say "what gives you the right to decide that then?" Well, it seems reasonable to be at least be responsible for yourself and your own actions, if there is anything on this earth I claim...it is the right do as I will with my own body anyone who tries to deny me that right will know my wrath, but then again I will give my unconditional love to anyone who doesn't deny me said right and I will not step on another brothers toes.

Originally posted by Konoyaro
reply to post by region331

 

No it's not ironic. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I assume you are referring to his non-violence stance. I know he was also mostly referring to the indian military. But I agree with him, while I think he would rather die than to pickup a weapon in self-defense he supports the right to defend your own body should the need arise (very practical and down to earth thought), he is just a sentinel of freedom. You don't have the claim or right to decide what another person does as long as he doesn't hurt you in some way, some might say "what gives you the right to decide that then?" Well, it seems reasonable to be at least be responsible for yourself and your own actions, if there is anything on this earth I claim...it is the right do as I will with my own body anyone who tries to deny me that right will know my wrath, but then again I will give my unconditional love to anyone who doesn't deny me said right and I will not step on another brothers toes.

I did say it was fatuous and you can interpret it on many levels.
The slaughters/civil wars that followed. The massive 'what if' scenario, had the Indians not had the opportunity to protest peacefully. The fact that he himself was shot.

I agree with you and Gandhi that no nation or individual has the right to subjugate another but is that what he meant?

reply to post by Konoyaro


There have been more wars/death in the name of God than any other reason. Ghandi's fight was for his countries freedom. He used peaceful defiance to achieve it. The big question is whether he chose that means because it was the only means at his disposal without massive death to his people. Obviously he would choose peace over violence, however...............

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by Moresby
The Soviet Union fell without armed revolt. As did most of their satellite states.

Bloodless revolutions and coups do occur. They are not the norm. But they do happen. And they may be the best solution in large countries with large populations.

That said, guerrilla warfare has also been very successful. It worked well against the British in the American Revolution. And against the U.S. in Vietnam. There are countless other examples.

Hopefully, one never gets in a situation that requires the exercise of either option.

But notice that the Soviet Union - East Block countries fell after they had the tyranny, it did not prevent it. Guerilla warfare may work, but in case of it being the country itself, it would be a civil war.

That means, if tyranny arises, it may implode or be stopped by civil war. But we cannot prevent tyranny.

Well, preventing tyranny before it happens mostly occurs without violence. Usually just by voting in other people.

reply to post by region331


Well we can never know exactly what he meant but after reading much about him and his autobiography I feel that I a have at least a little glimpse to how he thought. Since he was a very principled man who even starved himself to keep others from fighting, it's hard to see how it could be viewed in another way. Despite it being weapons which he despised, in reality the Indians ability to protect themselves from a foreign nation was also deprived. It's just the the matter of the right itself. He was still only human and a very much a realist with a very clear view of how the world works.

reply to post by Moresby


Agreed, however, since the advent of computer voting i have to wonder if our votes actually have any meaning whatsoever. Since most states do not require voter I.D, i have to wonder if our votes have any meaning whatsoever. Since Congress has discovered they can buy votes through entitlements, i have to wonder if our votes have any meaning whatsoever. Since the media has become a political machine, i have to wonder if our votes have any meaning whatsoever.

reply to post by jimmiec


No even they had access to weapons he would have used a peaceful solution. After India was released from British rule the hindus and muslims were fighting in the streets with axes and swords over how to split the country. He starved himself until the violence stopped completely (he used massmedia to get this message out around the country actually, since journalists were so interested in him). He was always very very clear that his protest be absolutely devoid of anything even bearing the slightest resemblence to violence. Unfortunately he didn't manage to keep India in one piece, much to his despair, but at least they got out of the British rule. Not sure if this answers your question but that was the kind of man he was.

Hypothetically speaking , of course.

300 million - 500 government - 500 military roughly


200 million people. 200 million Molotov cocktails.


When the entire country is in flames, hunt them down, round them up , and hang / shoot them.

Before it even got that far, have large groups of people set up guillotines in each city commons, in all 50 states,
(54 if you are obama)

that should send a loud enough message, before first bottle is even thrown

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


The pen is mightier than the sword.

When they modify a fact it becomes a fiction.

So one way to change America is attack the language that uses adverb verb syntax.

See Judge David Wynn Miller

Quantum Parse Syntax Grammar.

Originally posted by Moresby


Well, preventing tyranny before it happens mostly occurs without violence. Usually just by voting in other people.

Could you provide just 1 example of a tyrant being voted out of office?

What you are seemingly implying is that a murderer won't murder you if you ask him politely not to.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Ghandi's peaceful revolution simply proves that not only is unarmed and peaceful protest possible, it's actually far superior to an armed, violent one. An armed and violent revolution against your own government, especially one as well armed and financed as the US government, is simply practically impossible.

People say "GORILLA WAR!" they quite quickly forget that they need to feed themselves and the feds have done a very good job of ensuring that they hold all of the cards in supply and distribution chains. Simply put - If Americans tried an armed revolution they would starve, freeze, lose all will to fight as they lose every creature comfort they've ever known has been stripped away from them and then be arrested at best or rounded up and slaughtered at worst.

Going the peaceful rout of non-compliance however. That would make a change.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


You have an armed population and it is not preventing tyranny in the US. So I do not think an unarmed population would really make any difference. An armed population is no match for the US military. They can kill you from a computer screen...

The tyranny of America is the tyranny of the majority. Our elected officials reflect the corruption inherent in the society. The belief in militarism and capitalism is widespread among the populace.

Most people (~70%?) in America are not victims of tyranny, but benefactors of it.

reply to post by purplemer


It has happened before actually. 1946 The Battle of Athens.

jpfo.org...

Tyranny: When one is made to live his life under the command of another. Another may be one or more.

reply to post by ThinkingHuman


Obviously Tiannamen Square did not really change anything. But that was China.

Imagine the same happening in New York or London or Paris. And the subsequent responses and consequences - financial, commercial and even military - as the footage is broadcast around the world.....

Yes, an unarmed population CAN prevent a tyranny. In the West.

Of course, it does also depend on what you call a tyranny. Pol Pot and Stalin were tyrants. The British, French and Americans have simply never experienced anything like it in modern times, nor are ever likely to, whatever some might want you to think.

Edit: the 'western' idea of tyranny seem to be someone telling us to do something that we don't want to do. Spoilt brat syndrome, in other words.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Most people (~70%?) in America are not victims of tyranny, but benefactors of it.

That is a very interesting comment indeed.

Originally posted by lampsalot

Most people (~70%?) in America are not victims of tyranny, but benefactors of it.

Make that 99.9% and I'd agree with you.

Same in the UK and the rest of the western world.