Please translate?

Chinchillas bathe in sand, but that does not prove that water is unnecessary.

You're saying that just because Ghandi succeeded using non-violent resistance, it doesn't mean that violent resistance is never needed? Then I ask you where, in your opinion, is the line? At what level of foreign aggression do you say "here is the magical crossover point where violence becomes necessary"?

It's like in chess, your plan and your strategy of choice only is as strong as the opponent allows it to be. Ghandi only succeeded, because he dealt with the British Empire, and that, after all bad that could also be said about it, still was an entity of relative civilisation and scruples.

Consider ghandi having to deal with the Chinese on the Teananmen Square. Or Stalin. Hitler. The Mongoles. Probably the Romans. The Tzars. The Almohades. The Khmer Rouge. The Djandjaweed in Sudan. Some of the bloodthirsty factions in one of the many African civil wars.

Ghandi is massively overestimated, becasue his example represents an idol of "civilised" thinking how resistance shoulkd be, and how it should succeed by being that. It is a tale from (for) a perfect world, or in other words: an exception from the rule. But that is more a wishful tought, than dedication to reality. The best reply to Ghandi comes from Roosevelt: speak with a calm voice, and always carry a big club with you.


Sorry, I searched for a potent translation of that poem, but found none. Just translating it word by word it means something like "Why making all these many words, what is it good for? The issue is at this (on this?) sword, at (on) this blade alone."

And to quote from a movie: "Once the bullets start flying past your head, ideals go straight out of the window."

Not in Ghandi's opinion. When asked what he thought of western civilisation, he said "I think it would be a good idea". Still, I take your point and in response I ask you the same question I asked Letum.

Wishful thinking? Er, didn't he succeed? I'm pretty sure he succeeded. In reality.

Close enough.

You made an argument that ran along the lines of:
"Gandhi achieved Independence for India with out the use of soldiers
Therefore soldiers are unnecessary."

To say:
"Someone achieved X with out needing Y
Therefore Y is unnecessary"
Is clearly not a valid argument.
That is what I was trying to show when I said:
"It is not the case that because Chinchillas bathe in sand, water is
unnecessary."

The closest valid argument to what you saids:
"Gandhi achieved Independence for India with out the use of soldiers
Therefore soldiers are not always necessary to achieve independence."


I don't. Just because I disagree with your argument, it doesn't necessarily mean I
disagree with your conclusions.

Heh, hilarious how you'd post this in the first place, but alas, your Ghandi example is pointless. Where's the Ghandi that stopped Nazi Germany?

That line of thinking is why Tibet is free, I suppose *sarcasm*.

And yes, you need people like me, with guns to protect you from other people with guns that are aimed in YOUR direction. Your La-La-Land aside, in the real world peace is almost ALWAYS at gunpoint.

OLC raises some interesting points but I think the use of Ghandi as an example of successful nonviolent resistance is a dead-end.

India's independence only came after the British Empire had been rent asunder and bankrupted by 6 years of war. When Ghandi first tried his Quit India movement, the response from the Empire was a series of military reprisals and mass arrests.

Ghandi himself then met a violent end, unwillingly passing control of his nation to what became a socialist elite cadre that left the country languishing in poverty for decades.

Hardly the example I would choose.

The British arrests and imprisonments you refer to only served to strengthen support for Ghandi's cause in India. Also, you can't demonstrate that the lack of British bankruptcy would have resulted in Ghandi's failure, so that point is moot, no?

Agreed, hence the response I posted to you/anyone.

Maybe I am slow today, but - what?

What?

Again, Ghandi is overestimated. Many powers would not have backed down, but would have shot, stabbed, hacked, chopped and bombed him and all his followers into pieces.

And in many places it still gets done this way until today.

Ghandi simply was lucky. Needing to be lucky - makes a bad ideal to follow. I recommend not to invest into that strategy.

Or to return to my reference to chess: do not follow plans that only can function if the opponent cooperates with your intention by playing weak moves.

Okay, ignore it. It's funny how I've been accused of having my head in the sand and now so many are burying their heads in the sand with regards to Ghandi. :hmmm:

I wouldnt say that, more like Ghandi is one example of the success of non violence. While it is good that it took place, it is hardly anything more than a precedent. True, it would be nice if it were more than just a single example of such success, it is the exeption, not the rule.

The example is not being ignored, but aknowleged for what it is. Good idea though it is, it is not a realistic one.

What?

If you want to confuse me, congratulations. You succeeded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviol...ent_resistance

Define "realistic"? I have given a real-world example in response to accusations of a lack of realism, and I'm being repeatedly rebutted with "that's not realistic" so I would very much like to know what Ghandi did in your version of reality?

@Skybird: