But Speaking of 9/11, a Different Kind of Voice
31 August 2006 by Sean
Truth, purity, self-control, firmness, fearlessness, humility, unity, peace, and renunciation — These are the inherent qualities of a civil resister.
— Mahatma Gandhi
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
— Mahatma Gandhi
On 9/11, US to look at Mahatma for peace
I know you hawks in the audience will hate this one, but this was a great man, and he did achieve his goal, so something worth thinking about.
WASHINGTON: When the world remembers the victims of 9/11 terrorist attack in America on September 11, a US-based institute is organising a public rally in Washington to mark the 100th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi’s first non violent public action, on the same day.
The Tennessee-based M K Gandhi Institute is organising a public rally on the historic Lincoln memorial grounds in Washington on September 11 to highlight Gandhi’s philosophy of peace and non-violence.
The rally will be led by Arun Gandhi, the grandson of India’s father of the nation.
On September 11, 1906 Mahatma Gandhi had launched his non-violence, non-cooperation movement against the British in India.
The rally will be a “Day of prayer, peace, reconciliation against terrorism and other forms of violence worldwide,” said Arun Gandhi, founder of the Institute.
“While for all American people, September 11, 2001, is a black day of mourning and hopelessness, it can be transformed into a day of hope and harmony,” he said.
The rally in Washington DC will be preceded by a day long conference on peace and non-violence on Sep 10 at Georgetown University, Washington.
This conference is expected to bring together policy makers, mediators, activists and educators to see how diverse actors can work together to increase their impact.
Among the institute’s activities planned includes an appeal to communities worldwide to host an inter-faith prayer on September 11 and to make this an annual event as well as launching a programme to include standardized curriculum on non-violence in middle and high schools across the US.
31 August 2006, on 3:09 am
I did not know that Sean. Thanks.
Maybe we should organize a “What’s wrong with this picture?” day to show that real peace can never come from dogma or ideology, but from truly secular tolerance and understanding of all our common interests and neccessities.
We are all human. To be humane is to be moral. ‘Nuff said.
31 August 2006, on 3:28 am
Well put, DRB. Well put.
I don’t know how much such events like this will acommplish anything, but I truly want to live in a world where they still go on.
I remember marching in a huge protest against the impending Iraq war, and a counter-protester followed us for eight long city blocks with a megaphone screaming into it: “Peace pussies! Peace pussies! Peace pussies!”
From whence comes this insane rage? I have had relatives in every major war sans the two Gulf Wars for the past century. None of us are very proud of it. It’s tragic.
Why do we worship war? Is there an alternative way of solving these problems? I don’t know, but I’m not gonna give up completely and march through the streets screaming “peace pussies” at people. Gets us nowhere.
Funny, my girlfriend at the time shut him up by finally yelling back: “You came from a peace pussy, asshole!!”
31 August 2006, on 6:54 am
see, the sad thing is, the mainstream media will never put something like this in the eye of the world, they’d rather see who can win best dramatic performance with the coverage of the 5 year anniversary.
31 August 2006, on 7:47 am
I was against the invasion of Iraq and I am against preemptive war but I am not a big fan of the religious extremist Gandhi. I used to think that I really liked Gandhi and I have even used many of his quotes to highlight points I have made in posts but after doing some thorough research I have been ultimately repulsed by the majority of what Gandhi stood for, which was unrestricted Hindu extremism.
Gandhi’s unrestricted version of non-violent opposition was not only predominately irrational, with the exception of his opposition to Britain, but would have been genocidal if followed through in many other scenarios.
Gandhi’s thoughts on Nazi Germany and the “final solution.”
The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs.
Gandhi on the invasion of the British Isles by Nazi Germany:
I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions…. If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt
If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for “ages to come.” If they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they would leave a “rich heritage to mankind.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhi
Gandhi apparently believed that Hitler’s hatred could be transformed by the application of non-violent resistance. Gandhi has come under fire in particular for statements to the effect that the Jews would win God’s love if they willingly went to their deaths as martyrs.
These are only Gandhi’s views regarding what he believed should have been the Jews response to Nazi Germany, these being his most profane. However he does retain even more unethical beliefs regarding sex, his wife, suffering, etc. In many ways he is the Hindu version of the detestable fundametnal Catholic Mother Teresa.
31 August 2006, on 8:12 am
JDHURF: So how would you have freed India?
31 August 2006, on 8:15 am
I respect Gandhi for one things alone: the sophisticated concept of passive civil resistance.
31 August 2006, on 9:57 am
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2165132838065157556&q=Bullshit+holier+than+thou
Be careful that the ghandi that you respect is the one you think you know.
Oh, if anyone here has NOT seen a few episodes of Bullshit it’s a great series that can be seen on showtime and rented from netflix.
31 August 2006, on 10:56 am
Sorry, O/T…Everyone needs to see this- Keith Olbermann eviscerating Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush Administration, with a heaping helping of Edward R. Murrow.
31 August 2006, on 11:18 am
RDZ,
Thanks for that link. I’m sure the fascists are busy screwing up Mr. Olberman’s life now.
31 August 2006, on 12:28 pm
As much as I normally detest the MSM, I have certainly been developing some respect for Keith Olbermann. He is very brave at times. Even when he has to report on some of the mundane fluff, he makes a face and tells his audience he was forced to report on it.
31 August 2006, on 12:33 pm
Ghandi was a vegan and reportedly believed in letting animals live free.
It would be interesting to see what he might have done as India’s first PM.
Ya’ se, any cowboy can stand for human rights; this requires no
courage or integrity.
31 August 2006, on 12:42 pm
While Gandhi may have preached and practiced non-violence, the independence movement he set in motion resulted in violence on a horrific scale between Muslim and Hindu Indians.
Paul Johnson has some interesting commentary about Gandhi in his book ‘Modern Times’. My favorite quote was by an Indian maharajarh (but spoken by Gandhi in the movie) that “it costs a lot of money to keep Gandhi in poverty.”
31 August 2006, on 12:43 pm
I’ve been watching all the episodes of Bullshit I can find. The episode that talks about Ghandi is certain to burst more than a few bubbles. Be carefull however when watching Bullshit not to fall for bullshit- the show does have a obvious libertarian slant to it ( in a few episodes they have on ‘experts’ from the American Enterprise Institute- basically a ‘free’ market cheerleading group and a orginization which had a hand in drafting the odious Project for a new American century- Penn and Teller need to look into the bullshit groups like this diseminate as well. Remember ones own shit can stink as well ).
31 August 2006, on 1:58 pm
I simply welcome a different voice on the stage of the war on terror. As they call it. It will be interesting to hear what Mr. Gandhi’s grandson has to add to the equation.
I enjoy Bullshit! But Penn has his Libertarian head in his ass sometimes. Their episode on recycling was disgracefully wrong.
31 August 2006, on 2:22 pm
“Among the institute’s activities planned includes an appeal to communities worldwide to host an inter-faith prayer on September 11 and to make this an annual event”
Recently completed scientific research proved the total ineffectiveness of prayer, yet the Ghandi institute is unaware of this. It promotes a philosophy that is damaging to society by promoting action based on religious ideals rather than science and logic.
Ghandi’s religious beliefs, like the “turn the other cheek” attitude, leads to a passive resistance that does not work. It is based on a lack of appreciation for the frailty and singularity of our existence. One can offer up his/her life to tyrants if he/she believes there’s more beyond this life. You take a different attitude when you know there isn’t.
Sometimes evolution will move us toward increased freedom. Sometimes revolution is necessary. There is no blanket response to despotism.
31 August 2006, on 3:09 pm
In an interview at Salon.com, Michael Shermer of Skeptic Magazine has this to say: We evolved as a social primate species in which we had to cooperate to get along. It’s not random, there are parameters defined by our own human nature. If these guys want to say, well, that’s how God did it, OK, that’s fine. But let’s keep studying it scientifically to understand why that would have come about through natural forces.
In the end, you don’t need a top-down entity to give life meaning. If anything, if nobody is out there, it is much more important to find meaning ourselves. Instead of this world being a mere staging for the next world of eternity — meaning it doesn’t really matter what we do now — it’s better to realize there is no eternity, that this is it. In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts.
As an atheist I can support actions based on logical and scientific data. The musings of a man like Ghandi — however great his reputation — about loving those who hate you just does not lead me to confident protest.
31 August 2006, on 3:42 pm
JDHURF said:
“In many ways he is the Hindu version of the detestable fundametnal Catholic Mother Teresa.”
RE that:
Penn & Teller highlighted much the same about all the overlooked info regarding Ghandi, Mother Teresa…and the Dalai Lama in their 2005 season’s “Holier Than Thou” episode…I think it was their #31. It was completely taken off of Showtime’s lineup; mostly because of the Catholic Church. I emailed P&T about that; and commented here on the subject some time ago.
[I got it on a Torrent download though,...and finally solved my codec playback problems..."Oooh!…Goodie-goodie!”…and…”Tee-hee!"]
It just points up the fact that certain groups NEED to have Saints and/or ‘heros’ for their self-righteous propaganda; and are willing to hide the real truth about any embarrasing ‘dark side’ info in order to achieve their agendas.
Case in point: the NeoCon Fundie Bush Administration; where the operative is: “The End Justifies the Means!”
31 August 2006, on 3:54 pm
Has anyone read “Lest Innocent Blood by Shed” by Phillip Hallie, about the community of Le Chambon in Vichy France who saved about 4,500 Jews by acting totally nonviolently to the Nazis who were in and about their town? It’s a fascinating look at what was possible in one place at one time. The key is, they started immediately resisting any allegiance to the German reich. No church bells rung, no running up the flag at the schools and city buildings, etc., no cooperating with the Gestapo when they came around looking for people – but they would offer the officers food and drink and be polite to them. I was moved to tears by this, even though I’m not sure it would have worked en masse (though I’ve also read that one of Hitler’s earliest groups of victims was that of the mentally retarded, and that the outcry when they were imprisoned was so loud that he stopped).
The Le Chambonoise were Hugenots, by the way, which someone has suggested was important. They know what being the focus of a society’s hatred meant.
Let’s please spell Gandhi’s name correctly, she said, being a editor and a pedant.
And is it true that the Dalai Lama recently said when asked about the morality of the Iraq War that he couldn’t really say in principle that it was wrong or immoral. The jury was still out (not his words but his basic premise). So no more Hello, Dalai to you. (if it’s true)
Don’t know how I feel about Gandhi at this point. Couldn’t he have been really far ahead of his time in terms of nonviolent resistance, and still sexist as a product of his time?
31 August 2006, on 4:14 pm
Unfortunately, Ghandi’s tactic only worked because his opposition was basically civilized. Try the same with the headchoppers, and the outcome would be a bit different.
31 August 2006, on 4:22 pm
Catherine:
“Let’s please spell Gandhi’s name correctly, she said, being a editor and a pedant.”
“Yes, Mrs. Catherine!” [kidding...ala "The Shining"]
OK…of course you’re right…and please excuse my ‘penitent’ silliness:
100 times on the Blogboard?…
[My math version of a Gandhi penance:]
…Where X = Penalty:
X = Gandhi x 100
31 August 2006, on 6:14 pm
For me the main thing to keep in mind about Gandhi is that he was above all else a human being; like Sean, I believe that means his personality was painted in shades of gray, not just black and/or white. As a person who was at the very least willing to act on his convictions, he facilitated some “good” things for humanity while also having traits many of us would view as “bad.” Another case in point is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who definitely did “good” for people but was also guilty of cheating on his wife, generally considered a “bad” thing.
I think, therefore, that ChuckA’s point that “certain groups NEED to have Saints and/or ‘heros’ for their self-righteous propaganda; and are willing to hide the real truth about any embarrasing ‘dark side’ info in order to achieve their agendas” is right on the mark. We freethinkers fortunately tend to accept the ideas and actions that benefit humanity while acknowledging that every human being, no matter how beneficial, is ultimately a person just like us, warts and all. I personally have no problem “cherrypicking” what I feel works and rejecting what doesn’t from those who appear on center stage.
MegaTroopX, I agree with you that Gandhi’s tactics only worked against “civilized” opposition; I suspect it wouldn’t work against radical, violent extremism, either.
Catherine, I heard that story too; I think it may have had a lot to do with who was doing the non-cooperating (basically, white xians). If it had been Jewish people not resisting, I wouldn’t have held out any hope of it working; they probably would have simply been picked up and shipped off to camps.
But I could be wrong.
31 August 2006, on 9:25 pm
There is a fable written by German playwright Bertolt Brecht that goes roughly like this: A man living alone answers a knock at the door. When he opens it, he sees in the doorway the powerful body, the cruel face, of The Tyrant. The Tyrant asks, “Will you submit?” The man does not reply. He steps aside. The Tyrant enters and establishes himself in the man’s house. The man serves him for years. Then The Tyrant becomes sick from food poisoning. He dies. The man wraps the body, opens the door, gets rid of the body, comes back to his house, closes the door behind him, and says, firmly, “No.”
31 August 2006, on 9:57 pm
Sean: Fables, if I must remind you, are the equivalent of fairy tales. If this tyrant had been the Nazi’s and the man living alone had been Jewish he would have been executed and Gandhi would have had nothing to say in opposition, in fact such a result would have been exactly as he had encouraged and promoted, as he would have wanted. Non-violent resistance is not actually non-violent when to practice it implicitly necessitates the genocidal murder of innocent human beings; that is simply not non-violence that is savage, profane and immoral pro-violence. To promote the surrender of ones life to the death at the hands of fascist murderers is not to encourage non-violence, it is to encourage genocide and I am sickened by any defense of such a morally profane position.
Eric: Thank you for that link, the Bullshit episode Holier than Thou was excellent. I was especially pleased that they had Christopher Hitchens on with regards to Mother Teresa, he has written a book on her titled The Missionary Possition and completed a documentary about her as well that was aired over seas but, essentially, banned here in the United States.
31 August 2006, on 10:11 pm
I really don’t know enough about Gandhi’s philosophy to comment other than to say, if a tyrant- or any of his jackbooted representatives, come to my door, I’ll shoot them and keep shooting til I run out of bullets. And, then I’d start throwing shit.
That being said, non-violence should always be the first through- well, up to the next to last, option but, sometimes, violence is absolutely essential. France essentially turned the other cheek for the Nazis and we saw how that worked out.
31 August 2006, on 11:13 pm
Sean, that Brecht story gives me the shivers.
But what about situations in which responding with violence really would get everyone slaughtered – i.e. the American civil rights movement. Does anyone think the right side would have won that if they had marched with guns and knives?
I also distinguish between tactical nonviolence – an agreement I would make with others to protest an event, an arrest, an army base, etc., and promise not to strike back if attacked, and the agreement I DON’T make to remain nonviolent if I, anyone with me, or one of my animals is endangered by your run-of-the-mill mugger.
31 August 2006, on 11:15 pm
This website revealed a flexibility in Gandhi I like: Gandhi recognized that Truth could be understood in many different ways. Gandhi believed that when an individual comprehends the plurality of Truth, all selfish motives vanish. They are replaced by compassion, devotion to non-violence and an infinite capacity for self-sacrifice. Gandhi also believed that in the pursuit of Truth, convictions must often be abandoned as untruths. He said, “If my views are proved to be wrong, I shall have no hesitation in rejecting them.”
31 August 2006, on 11:54 pm
To promote the surrender of ones life to the death at the hands of fascist murderers is not to encourage non-violence, it is to encourage genocide and I am sickened by any defense of such a morally profane position.
I think you are ignoring a key point to Gandhi’s non-violence tactics. He not only promotes non-violence but he also promotes passive-resistence — which often includes self-risk/self-sacrifice in a world-attention-grabbing flamboyant fashion. Your quote above about Gandhi stated this explicitly:
If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers’ knives and throw themselves into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for “ages to come.”
I would agree with you, it is immoral to simply promote the idea of non-violently rolling over and allowing an oppressor to quietly slaughter you behind closed doors. However, the idea of mixing flamboyant acts of self-risk/self-sacrifice (which, I agree does push the idea of being truly “non-violent”) does have the ability to call attention to your people’s plight, as it did in India. I think his main point is that there is an art to the act of passive-resistence; one needs to be unique and attention grabbing as well as non-violent.
1 September 2006, on 12:12 am
Catherine wrote: Does anyone think the right side would have won (the civil rights movement) if they had marched with guns and knives?”
There is a theory out there (I am not sure who was the author) that the “guns and knives” attitude of the Blank Panthers and the less violent but highly vitriolic rhetoric of Malcolm-X was what actually gave mainstream acceptibility to the more palatable non-violent MLK and the overall non-violent parts of the civil rights movement. While violence at the center of a movement may only beget more violence, sometimes having only violent fringes can swing the entire perspective of what is now acceptable in a particular direction. Thus, I can see times when a certain amount of violence is beneficial to an overall movement. This same argument might apply to the modern day Islamic world as well.
1 September 2006, on 12:17 am
JDHURF: I’m sorry if my fable of non-violence “sickened” you. I thought it quite moving, as Cathie clearly did, as well.
Maybe you and I will meet in a better world one day. Meanwhile, the dreamers are the changers. And no thanks for the condescension. You have no better solutions to the cycle of human violence than I do, friend.
Read this, if you please, when you have the time.
A skeptic should always be questioning.
1 September 2006, on 12:18 am
That being said, non-violence should always be the first through- well, up to the next to last, option but, sometimes, violence is absolutely essential. France essentially turned the other cheek for the Nazis and we saw how that worked out.
That’s pretty unfair to the heroic French Resistance.
1 September 2006, on 12:33 am
One more comment on this, for now. I am not a pacifist, lest I gave that impression. Somebody comes in my house (and they have) and I’m kicking the shit out of them to protect me and my own.
But as Catherine and others have pointed out, when you are talking about a massive scale, certain types of resistance can lead to huge amounts of bloodshed… That is the analogy of The Tyrant. He is not one man, nor is the passively resistant victim. Enormous amounts of lives are at stake in that analogy. At times like that, strategy, politics, rhetoric, every means at your disposal must be deployed before thousands, or millions are slaughtered. The incredible rapid escalation of WWI is a perfect example of the ultimate human folly in this regard.
Look, everything I know I learned from Star Trek. Picard was always weighing options — fight, negotiate, stand down, fake standing down, fake fighting? And he had this enormous responsibility… The fate of entire worlds. It was damned good allegorical storytelling and I will go back once in a while and watch another one simply to remember just how good it was.
We all need to be Jean-Luc Picard. We all need to seek our better natures. I mean, what other option do we have but a vicious circle of tragedy, revenge, prejudice, hate?
That’s my geek rant. Live long and prosper.
1 September 2006, on 12:41 am
Sean, the Resistance came later. I’m talking about the French Government and the subsequent Petain/Vichy setup. Out of curiousity, does anyone know whether the cold potato soup, “vichysoisse”, is named for that era- perhaps a derogatory reference to the paucity of foodstuffs available to the ordinary French during the war? I mean, as good as it is, cold potato soup soesn’t sound all that appetizing, does it?
1 September 2006, on 1:10 am
Godsarefake:
I think his main point is that there is an art to the act of passive-resistence; one needs to be unique and attention grabbing as well as non-violent.
While my main point is that Gandhi’s revered “non-violent protest” and passive-resistance would not only have failed if carried out in some of the situations in which he encouraged it but would have been utterly genocidal. Encouraging the Jews to offer their throats to the knives of the Nazi’s isn’t just illogical. It is the moral ideology of a slug or even worse, a criminal.
Sean:
I’m sorry if my fable of non-violence “sickened” you. I thought it quite moving, as Cathie clearly did, as well.
I am not sickened by your fable of non-violence, in many cases I am one of the strongest proponents of non-violence. I was sickened that you attempted to, inaccurately, use the parable as a metaphor and defense for Gandhi’s encouragement to the Jewish people that they offer themselves to the sinister will of the Nazi’s. Clearly your parable is fallacious in this regard because the events in the fable would not have been parallel to the real world events had the Jews followed Gandhi’s profane advice, I merely pointed this out.
You have no better solutions to the cycle of human violence than I do, friend.
I can tell you in all honesty that Gandhi’s version of unrestricted non-violence was not only inappropriate but deadly and as such is morally reprehensible with regards to the Jews and Nazi Germany. Clearly humanity faces a seemingly insurmountable task when facing human violence and conflict but it is also abundantly clear that there are cases in which passivity and non-violence are actually the immoral positions to take. It is most unfortunate but in reality there are situations which demand violent opposition and force and to deny this is not so much to “dream” but to actively distort reality in favor of fantasy and mythology, which, not so incidentally, is parallel to religious behavior.
I know you are an intelligent and moral individual but you are simply wrong to defend Gandhi’s pernicious version of non-violence with regards to the Jews and Nazi Germany, anyone who defends this is wrong and for the reasons that I have been presenting.
1 September 2006, on 1:20 am
Sean:
That is the analogy of The Tyrant. He is not one man, nor is the passively resistant victim. Enormous amounts of lives are at stake in that analogy.
Millions of lives that would have been indiscriminately executed had the advice of Gandhi been accepted.
1 September 2006, on 1:54 am
JDHURF says:
Sean:
I’m sorry if my fable of non-violence “sickened” you. I thought it quite moving, as Cathie clearly did, as well.
I am not sickened by your fable of non-violence, in many cases I am one of the strongest proponents of non-violence. I was sickened that you attempted to, inaccurately, use the parable as a metaphor and defense for Gandhi’s encouragement to the Jewish people that they offer themselves to the sinister will of the Nazi’s. Clearly your parable is fallacious in this regard because the events in the fable would not have been parallel to the real world events had the Jews followed Gandhi’s profane advice, I merely pointed this out.
You will notice that I wasn’t directly responding with my parable to your discussion of Gandhi and the Nazis. In fact, I have not had the time to research your claims on his positions about this issue. I was simply telling a story. That’s why I used the word “fable.” Please don’t put words in my mouth. I thought the story spine-tingling and beautifully told. Art like that can bring up ideas that have deeper meanings. I wouldn’t ever discourage it, nor would I ever discourage your more specific political and historical speech. It was just meant to add to the spirit of the conversation. I do shit like that sometimes.
JDHURF Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 1:20 am EST
Sean:
That is the analogy of The Tyrant. He is not one man, nor is the passively resistant victim. Enormous amounts of lives are at stake in that analogy.
Millions of lives that would have been indiscriminately executed had the advice of Gandhi been accepted.
I think you just missed the point of that one entirely, so I will skip it for now.
Peace,
Sean
1 September 2006, on 2:24 am
JDHURF,
Encouraging the Jews to offer their throats to the knives of the Nazi’s isn’t just illogical. It is the moral ideology of a slug or even worse, a criminal.
This is merely an example to a larger doctrine, to which you seem to denounce because you can’t deal with the example. That’s like thinking a person is stupid because their breath stinks. Hardly a logical argument.
While my main point is that Gandhi’s revered “non-violent protest” and passive-resistance would not only have failed…but would have been utterly genocidal
I am glad you fixed your crystal ball of alternative reality and feel so confident in predicting “what ifs.” Seeing that history actually DID end in genocide, does that imply that the Jews under Nazi repression, regardless of their principles, also had the “moral ideology of a slug or even worse, a criminal” as well?
There is no justification for your position in anything you said here. I get it, you hate Gandhi and his alternative suggestions for the Jews already….however your opinion of an example does not go very far in discounting Gandhi’s doctrine of passive resistence and non-violence.
1 September 2006, on 3:16 am
I would be careful with Gandhi here. I am against aggression–like this Iraq fiasco, but there are moral wars to be fought. His comments on the Jews in WW II? Sounds to me like like more stupid old-fashioned religion–Hindu style.
1 September 2006, on 3:47 am
Godsarefake:
This is merely an example to a larger doctrine, to which you seem to denounce because you can’t deal with the example. That’s like thinking a person is stupid because their breath stinks. Hardly a logical argument.
I don’t think you’re paying attention. I have already said that I am a strong proponent of non-violence. I am merely pointing out that there are many cases where non-violence is actually the immoral position to take and such is the case with what Gandhi believed should have been the Jewish response to Nazi Germany. Your last two sentences are clearly fallacious, for I am not denouncing non-violence in the larger sense but only non-violence that necessitates the genocide of those practicing it.
I am glad you fixed your crystal ball of alternative reality and feel so confident in predicting “what ifs.”
If you mean to suggest that had the Allied forces not intervened with force that the Nazi’s would have been overcome by the passive resistance and non-violence of the Jews or that this is, in any way, plausible then I will simply disagree with you and take comfort in with the reassurance that very few people will agree with your mendacious thinking.
Seeing that history actually DID end in genocide, does that imply that the Jews under Nazi repression, regardless of their principles, also had the “moral ideology of a slug or even worse, a criminal” as well?
That is one of the most spurious moral equivalencies that I have been witness to in some time.
There is no justification for your position in anything you said here. I get it, you hate Gandhi and his alternative suggestions for the Jews already….however your opinion of an example does not go very far in discounting Gandhi’s doctrine of passive resistence and non-violence.
I am not trying to discount Gandhi’s “doctrine of passive resistance” or non-violence in general and I have already made mention of the fact that I am, in many cases, a strong proponent of non-violence. What I am arguing is that there are cases in which taking a non-violent and passively resistant approach is an immoral position and that the position Gandhi encouraged and promoted with regards to the Jewish response to Nazi Germany was not only irrational but morally perverse and repugnant to the extreme.
1 September 2006, on 4:01 am
Sean:
You will notice that I wasn’t directly responding with my parable to your discussion of Gandhi and the Nazis.
Then why didn’t you say so in your first response? I don’t doubt your honesty here but surely you having not made this evident in your first response only lead me further to believe that your fable was related to my posts.
In fact, I have not had the time to research your claims on his positions about this issue. I was simply telling a story. That’s why I used the word “fable.” Please don’t put words in my mouth.
I have put no words in your mouth.
I think you just missed the point of that one entirely, so I will skip it for now.
I have missed no points. For my criticism of unrestricted non-violence and of your fable still hold true. If the tyrant had been the Nazi’s and the man had been the Jews then the fable would have had a dramatically different ending, illustrating the ineffectiveness of non-violent passive resistance in specific cases and ultimately the irrationality and moral bankruptcy inherent therein.
1 September 2006, on 12:34 pm
Godsarefake, I believe you are talking about the “Radical Flank” theory. I learned about it in a college class on racism some years ago, but I do not recall who came up with the theory.
1 September 2006, on 2:19 pm
JDHURF — I think perhaps our disagreement is based on a differing view of the Jewish efforts under Nazi Germany. I think you are assuming that the Jews followed Ganhi’s doctrines of passive-resistance in a way that fulfilled the doctrine well. I think the exact opposite. I think they failed to use the doctrine correctly. The point of the quote to which you take so much umbrage, also, is pointing out that Gandhi also felt the Jews did not follow his doctrine effectively either. Many people, including Jews, in retrospect, often say the Jews were too passive in their resistence efforts as well. Thus, using the Jewish Holocaust as an example of how Gandhi’s doctrine “failed” isn’t a fair example. There is no clear evidence that the genocide was not caused or facilitated by the Jews passivity, since the genocide did not occur until long after the Jews were rounded up and starved into submission.
Initially the Nazi efforts to round up Jews was not unlike the American efforts to move the Japanese into camps. The latter is an example of how similar passivity worked out for the benefit of the people, in that, they at least survived the immoral injustice served them. Neither of these examples, however, are a pro or con against Gandhi’s ideas because they are not actual implementations of his ideals.
1 September 2006, on 2:26 pm
Thanks for the reference, Tommykey. That’s it exactly.
1 September 2006, on 10:52 pm
Some interesting points, godsarefake.
And yes, jdhurf, my parable of The Tyrant was just a general statement. Not meant to address the whole gandhi/holocaust discussion.
5 September 2006, on 3:38 am
There’s a beautiful story, about the pacifistic resistance of the Danish to the Nazi demands of rounding up the Jews, here:
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php?topic=04#01
Not the myth of King Christian X wearing the yellow armband – click on the link below (I’ll give you a snip) -
“All the while, King Christian X expressed his firm objections to the German deportation plans and was instrumental in lending visible moral support and encouragement to his countrymen. Universities closed down to allow students to participate in the rescue efforts. From the pulpits, Danish clergy urged their congregations to help the Jews. The Danish police refused to cooperate with the Nazis in carrying out arrests and deportations. In the end, the Germans succeeded in arresting about 500 Jews and deporting them to Theresienstadt, a ghetto and concentration camp in Czechoslovakia. Even then, the Danish people sent parcels of food and provisions to their Jewish countrymen. This intense public focus quite possibly saved the Danish Jews in Theresienstadt from being transferred to Auschwitz and their imminent deaths.”
Fucking beautiful.
See, there’s more to pacifism than just laying down in front of tanks, or baring the throat to the knife.
6 September 2006, on 12:16 pm
“World opinion” did the European Jews no good.
The obvious conclusion is that Gandhi (1) understood little about Jews, Nazis, or European anti-Semitism and (2) was too egotistically ensconced in his own philosophy to recognise that its success depends upon the nature of the enemy.