From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 04:38:42 MDT
On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 23:10:11 -0700, Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 May 2003 12:27 pm, Michael M. Butler wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 May 2003 12:30:48 -0400, Michael Wiik
>> <mwiik@messagenet.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>> > I would appreciate examples of an armed populace successfully
>> > revolting against an oppressive government. Of course, one
>> > example is right here in the USA. I know there are examples of a
>> > government disarming the populace before instituting oppressive
>> > measures, but this is not the same thing.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean. According to Mohandas Gandhi, armed
>> revolt was a possibility he kept firmly in mind. That he wound up
>> emphasizing nonviolence doesn't mean it wasn't also on the
>> Viceroy's mind.
>
> He said that non-violence was for the really strong and was the superior
> method but that it was better for those less strong to take up arms than
> to simply acquiesce to that which is wrong.
>
> - samantha
http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/wwvlansu.html
has the quote as:
"I would prefer to see India defend her honor by armed force than to see
her stand like a coward, watching her defeat without an attempt to defend
herself. But I still believe just as strongly that nonviolence is
infinitely superior to violence."
He maintained with great force of will that Satyagraha would work; and, as
it happened, it did. Had it not worked, there were still armed-force
alternatives. I think he remained mindful of that to some degree or other;
perhaps "firmly" was the wrong adverb. Mea culpa.
I also want to point out, in response to the original poser, that the
Indian populace was armed--with an idea. And other arms were available as
an additional resort. Call that amphigory if you want to.
-- I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. Sometimes I forget.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 04:53:32 MDT