posted on Nov, 22 2009 @ 07:16 PM
It's worth noting that this has always been a controversial point. During India's struggle for independence, many people viewed Gandhi as a kind of
"patsty" or "uncle tom" for the British, to keep the Indians pacified so the British could remain as long as possible or at least pull out
retaining maximum wealth and avoiding chaos. Gandhi's comments on the way
Jews should respond to the holocaust
were also roundly criticized by many because they were thought to lead to unnecessary pacifisim and hence
abade mass genocide.
Martin Luther King was also roundly criticized by certain elements of the black liberation movement (such as Malcom X, the Black Panthers, etc.) for
I cannot say which way is wrong or right. To a very large degree, I think the effectiveness of whichever way is chosen depends on how the the world
views it, which is controlled to a great extend by the media and other forms of propaganda/presentation. For example, consider the impact that one
famous photo of the man standing in front of the Tienanmen Square tanks had:
This is an image known around the world because it was pumped heavily in the Western press. The Press had an agenda at the time: ending or crippling
communism, so the protests were given the utmost attention and praise. On the other hand, similar things happen in Palestine every day. Most of them
are ignored because it goes against the MSM agenda, although other aspects of the the press treat such people as heroes because they have an opposite
To sum up, the perception of the value of violence versus nonviolence seems to be shaped by the media and the forces that stand behind the media.
This is not fair at all, but its just the way the world works. I think (almost) all humans have a kind of instinctual respect for the nonviolent
underdog, but this can be manipulated and twisted in so many way by different power blocks and ideological groups for their own purposes.