|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Nazis are coming to town - what do you do?
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also fascism and violence go together like horses and urinating in the woods. The idea that if nobody provokes them then they'll march quietly is quite ridiculous.
After Wrocław anti-fascists decided to not do a counter-protest in 2012 and do some alternative event instead, away from the fash, I popped along to the neo-fascist "march of patriots" and despite walking along on the market square, a firework was thrown in my direction. I wasn't protesting.
quote:
As far as I understand, Germans don't commonly have ceremonies for the war dead and do not apparently have war memorials in every village like in England.
Which makes it a bit odd to hear of an official German delegation to a war cemetery abroad. I didn't think that happened.
Generally speaking, those who are seeking to commemorate the Axis war dead are Nazis. Which seems weird to me, but there it is.
Cenoptaphs are more or less just as resplendent in Germany as in the UK. I've worked and been in many towns and villages all over Germany and seen them, largely built for WWI (though there some within Brandenburg for the various wars Prussia had) with then added names for WWII; I've seen chapels and memorial within churches dedicated to "the fallen".
I don't know if every village has them though.
Berlin has a "Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Victims of War and Dictatorship", the
Neue Wache, a controversial memorial, as it remembers both victims and perpetrators. Premiers and presidents have been known to lay wreaths there on November 11th, though I'm not sure if it happens every year.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's a decent, honorable and wise response. Why do so few seem to understand that if you wrestle with a pig you both get muddy but the pig likes it?
Why do you fail to understand that swinging fists to protect a man from being lynched is in no way the same as a mob dragging a man away to be lynched?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
And right there is the nauseating levels of moral equivalence and gaslighting which gives credibility to Nazis.
And right there is the nauseating approval of violence in the streets which tells Nazis they have a point and tells the antifa there are folks who give them a pass.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Cenoptaphs are more or less just as resplendent in Germany as in the UK. I've worked and been in many towns and villages all over Germany and seen them, largely built for WWI (though there some within Brandenburg for the various wars Prussia had) with then added names for WWII; I've seen chapels and memorial within churches dedicated to "the fallen".
I don't know if every village has them though.
Berlin has a "Central Memorial of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Victims of War and Dictatorship", the
Neue Wache, a controversial memorial, as it remembers both victims and perpetrators. Premiers and presidents have been known to lay wreaths there on November 11th, though I'm not sure if it happens every year.
Fair enough, I was talking to my German relatives around Armistice Day who suggested that the British poppy memorialising about fallen German soldiers was not a thing. Maybe I misunderstood what they meant.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That's a decent, honorable and wise response. Why do so few seem to understand that if you wrestle with a pig you both get muddy but the pig likes it?
Why do you fail to understand that swinging fists to protect a man from being lynched is in no way the same as a mob dragging a man away to be lynched?
I don't fail to understand it. People were there from both sides to have a gang fight. They went home happy. Good for the people, if any, who tried to keep them from going at it.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't believe in passive anything. Non-violence is not a method of passivity conducted by people who haven't the strength to do anything else.
...
If a mob is trying to surround someone to lynch them, then the right thing to do is to get in the way. If they start swinging weapons, then one can legitimately counter them with anything one has to hand to protect the innocent.
I wholeheartedly agree that non-violent protests are anything but passive, and they require considerable strength and courage.
Where I fail to follow your argument is when you then switch from non-violence to justification for countering the use of violence with "anything one has to hand". Surely the whole point of non-violent action to protect the innocent is that it's done without accepting the need to grab whatever you can find to do that. A line of people linked arm in arm standing between the mob and those they seek to harm protects the innocent. Period. And, while linked arm in arm you are unable to swing a punch, or grab a convenient whatever. You just stand there and take a beating, if that's what it takes. It takes courage, it takes strength, it doesn't require hitting out in response.
It's a course of action that many in our world would describe as foolish. But, what's wrong with being foolish? Maybe we should live up to the name we've given ourselves and be a Ship of Fools.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And right there is the nauseating approval of violence in the streets which tells Nazis they have a point and tells the antifa there are folks who give them a pass.
I am a pacifist and I believe in non-violence.
I'm not giving anyone a pass, thank you very much. But I do believe there is a qualitative difference in the violence of antifa and the Nazis and saying so doesn't give the Nazis a point whatsoever.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
Some of the anti-fascist side are violent thugs, no doubt. At least some of the antifa leaders don't think damaging property is violent, and some of those people are the same people who go around torching cars and smashing windows when the G20 comes to town.
They are thuggish bastards, and I abhor them.
But the other side are actual Nazis. Their entire ideology is thuggish violence and terror against anyone who happens to be black, or jewish, or whatever else. Hate is what defines them. It's not just that hate and violence is a tactic that they use - it is that hate and violence is their entire ideology.
And as far as Trump's "good people" go, I'm entirely prepared to believe that there are a bunch of basically decent people who don't want Confederate statues taken down. If they are basically decent people and they think that, then I don't think they have properly thought through what those statues mean to their black neighbours, but that doesn't stop them from being basically decent, naive or stupid people.
But here's the thing - if you're a basically decent person, and you find yourself standing alongside a group of Nazis, you need to go somewhere else. If you choose to stand with them, well, then you'll be judged with them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wholeheartedly agree that non-violent protests are anything but passive, and they require considerable strength and courage.
Where I fail to follow your argument is when you then switch from non-violence to justification for countering the use of violence with "anything one has to hand". Surely the whole point of non-violent action to protect the innocent is that it's done without accepting the need to grab whatever you can find to do that. A line of people linked arm in arm standing between the mob and those they seek to harm protects the innocent. Period. And, while linked arm in arm you are unable to swing a punch, or grab a convenient whatever. You just stand there and take a beating, if that's what it takes. It takes courage, it takes strength, it doesn't require hitting out in response.
If the only alternative to passivity is violence, then I choose violence. To paraphrase Gandhi.
If the violence was defensive and to protect the innocent from being murdered by Nazis then it was justified. Almost every Gandhian believer in non-violence would agree.
quote:
It's a course of action that many in our world would describe as foolish. But, what's wrong with being foolish? Maybe we should live up to the name we've given ourselves and be a Ship of Fools.
This is why I am a pacifist but not an absolute pacifist. This is also why I believe in Gandhian non-violence but allow that it isn't always the best available technique.
One cannot expect other people to lay down and die in front of Nazis and one cannot criticise people who are protecting others using reasonable force.
[ 17. August 2017, 17:49: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
And right there is the nauseating approval of violence in the streets which tells Nazis they have a point and tells the antifa there are folks who give them a pass.
I am a pacifist and I believe in non-violence.
I'm not giving anyone a pass, thank you very much. But I do believe there is a qualitative difference in the violence of antifa and the Nazis and saying so doesn't give the Nazis a point whatsoever.
I don't believe the the qualitative difference is enough to find a good guy because they both have crossed the line. Crossing the line is crossing the line.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't fail to understand it. People were there from both sides to have a gang fight. They went home happy.
In other words "Heather Hayes had it coming". ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
And with this, you're appeasing the violence from the fascists.
You prefer a fake peace to real justice, just like MLK said of the whites who wouldn't stand with him.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't believe the the qualitative difference is enough to find a good guy because they both have crossed the line. Crossing the line is crossing the line.
There is a group with torches, chanting "Blood and soil", to keep a statue of Lee in place. This is a bad thing to be associated with and there are no good guys in that group.
There is a group marching to oppose them. This is a good thing to be associated with. There are some bad guys in that group.
See the difference?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
So we'll be nicey-nice and wait for the Nazis to do the same. And they won't, and they'll take over.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
And England and France can say, "Okay we'll give you Poland but no more."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Some of the anti-fascist side are violent thugs, no doubt. At least some of the antifa leaders don't think damaging property is violent, and some of those people are the same people who go around torching cars and smashing windows when the G20 comes to town.
They are thuggish bastards, and I abhor them.
Yep.
quote:
But the other side are actual Nazis. Their entire ideology is thuggish violence and terror against anyone who happens to be black, or jewish, or whatever else. Hate is what defines them. It's not just that hate and violence is a tactic that they use - it is that hate and violence is their entire ideology.
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements. Determining one is worse just isn't good enough.
quote:
And as far as Trump's "good people" go, I'm entirely prepared to believe that there are a bunch of basically decent people who don't want Confederate statues taken down. If they are basically decent people and they think that, then I don't think they have properly thought through what those statues mean to their black neighbours, but that doesn't stop them from being basically decent, naive or stupid people.
I can see that. It seems preferable to me that statues of various leaders of the confederate and union armies be at civil war battlefields. That way, one can still see them if the chose to go to the battlefield but they don't have to see it in their normal course of life, for those bothered by such things. But that's not to limit statues of union leaders in non-confederate towns. Nor would I mind a statue of Abe Lincoln. The drafters of the Treaty of Versailles should have considered his ideas about how to treat a defeated foe. We may never have even heard of Nazis if they had. The only civil war memorial or statue I can think of around here is a memorial to the soldiers from this county who were killed in the war. To me, the statue in Charlottesville is a matter for the people of Charlottesville to decide. If they are wanting to sell it, bid on it.
quote:
But here's the thing - if you're a basically decent person, and you find yourself standing alongside a group of Nazis, you need to go somewhere else. If you choose to stand with them, well, then you'll be judged with them.
Absolutely. The same thing goes if you stand with antifa. This past Sunday a possibly antifa guy assaulted a local television reporter filming the protest downtown. It is my understanding that some of his fellow protesters did assist with identification and arrest. One thing I noticed from the video was one of the chants were "black lives matter, blue lives don't". We have some black lives and blue lives in our congregation. One should be ashamed to cross the line like this.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements.
Then you're not looking clearly. The core belief of the antifa people is "We're not going to tolerate Nazis because they are vile hateful scum". The core belief of the Nazis is "We are vile hateful scum".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements. Determining one is worse just isn't good enough.
Why isn't it?
quote:
Absolutely. The same thing goes if you stand with antifa. This past Sunday a possibly antifa guy assaulted a local television reporter filming the protest downtown. It is my understanding that some of his fellow protesters did assist with identification and arrest.
Right, so to be clear - your one bit of evidence that they're all the same is that one guy attacked a cameraman and was denounced by the rest of the group... and who oddly maybe wasn't part of them in the first place.
Once again you don't seem to be able to distinguish fascism, which is by very nature violent (it is there as part of the ideology) from anarchists. And from other people who might have nothing to do with the anarchists but who are just hangers on.
I'll say this: I've seen anarchists who are only interested in trouble and breaking things. I highly doubt that people standing between clergy and the Nazis were those people. If they were, then they've grown a lot more backbone since I knew them a few years ago.
I also think they'd not only have to be anarchists but also very stupid anarchists if they went to the events at the weekend for a fight with heavily armed Neo-Nazis. That's like going into a boxing ring with a gorilla and a chainsaw armed only with a teaspoon.
quote:
One thing I noticed from the video was one of the chants were "black lives matter, blue lives don't". We have some black lives and blue lives in our congregation. One should be ashamed to cross the line like this.
Mmm.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find them both violent and hateful. They both cross the line, so I don't care who people think is worse.
Then you're tragically misreading the situation. Such a position helps only one side, that of the fascists.
I much prefer tragically misreading to tragically busted heads. I won't join you in condoning the violence from anyone.
And with this, you're appeasing the violence from the fascists.
You prefer a fake peace to real justice, just like MLK said of the whites who wouldn't stand with him.
Aye, if Christians won't step up to absorb the violence, war it is.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
irreverend tod
Shipmate
# 18773
|
Posted
I'm with Cheesy and Doc on this one - sorry to be late to the party - if I've read them correctly. Apologies of I haven't it's been a long day.
You are dealing with two groups of people in the far right organizations, the knuckle dragging bullies and the media savvy manipulators. The first will always run away like whipped puppies when they are stood up to with overwhelming aggression - and I speak from considerable experience on this point. The latter who you never see on the front line need to be confronted in their chosen space. So all of you are who are in no condition to take it to the barricades can pitch in.
Before anyone starts the hatred breeds hatred line, I've got a gizmo that we castrate piglets with that I'm more than happy to deploy to stop any off the far right from breeding
--------------------
Diocesan Arsonist and Lead thief to the Church of England.
Posts: 55 | From: England | Registered: May 2017
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
This past Sunday a possibly antifa guy assaulted a local television reporter filming the protest downtown. It is my understanding that some of his fellow protesters did assist with identification and arrest.
And if that doesn't show the difference between the two sides to you, then nothing will, and you will continue to act as if they're the same, and play right into the Nazis' hands.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
It seems preferable to me that statues of various leaders of the confederate and union armies be at civil war battlefields. That way, one can still see them if the chose to go to the battlefield but they don't have to see it in their normal course of life, for those bothered by such things. But that's not to limit statues of union leaders in non-confederate towns.
There aren't any confederate towns. There was a war about it - remember?
The Union and the Confederacy are not two sides that happened to have a little war, and the two sides are not equivalent. One of these sides went to war for the right to continue to own people. That side is wrong.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the only alternative to passivity is violence, then I choose violence.
Though, non-violence isn't the same as passivity. Pacifism can, indeed should, be proactive and forceful. Diametrically opposed to passive.
So, I don't think there are just two options. There is a range of options between the extremes of passivity and violence. Placing yourself in harms way to protect another is not passive, it need not be violent either.
quote:
One cannot expect other people to lay down and die in front of Nazis and one cannot criticise people who are protecting others using reasonable force.
I'm not suggesting other people do anything. I had misunderstood your pacifist position as foregoing violence under any circumstance. However, if a sufficiently large number of people act together in non-violent opposition to the Nazis then force is not necessary.
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness. And, I believe that the cause of anti-fascism is strong enough that we don't need to take that route.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness.
The allies were weak in 1939?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I find hate and violence at the core of both, looking at their actions and statements.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Then you're not looking clearly. The core belief of the antifa people is "We're not going to tolerate Nazis because they are vile hateful scum". The core belief of the Nazis is "We are vile hateful scum".
Added to which the core of the counter-protest was not antifa. There were plenty of non-antifa people doing interviews and talking about their groups protesting the Nazis.
I didn't see any interviews with people who'd come to march with torches and shout "blood and soil" who didn't sound like Nazis.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The allies were weak in 1939?
Talking of the allies, this reminds me of the threads we had where it was argued that the allies were just as bad as the Nazis. Both wanted territory, the allies didn't really know about the holocaust so can't claim that as justification and Churchill was a racist. Both sides were violent, and hey presto "moral equivalence".
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, non-violence isn't the same as passivity. Pacifism can, indeed should, be proactive and forceful. Diametrically opposed to passive.
So, I don't think there are just two options. There is a range of options between the extremes of passivity and violence. Placing yourself in harms way to protect another is not passive, it need not be violent either.
Well sorry, I've studied non-violence and Gandhism for many years and I don't think it works against fascists and Nazis who don't give a shit.
If there is some point in laying down a life before a Nazi, then ok. But if he is just going to walk over your dead body to get to someone else, then your non-violence becomes rather pointless.
quote:
I'm not suggesting other people do anything. I had misunderstood your pacifist position as foregoing violence under any circumstance. However, if a sufficiently large number of people act together in non-violent opposition to the Nazis then force is not necessary.
Bullshit. Gandhism worked because the British didn't like to be seen as a violent race. MLK worked because he pricked people's consciences with acts of non-violence.
The Nazis in contrast do want to be a violent master race and don't have any conscience about killing the weak. Gandhism has no tools to counter that.
quote:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness. And, I believe that the cause of anti-fascism is strong enough that we don't need to take that route.
Bullshit.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And England and France can say, "Okay we'll give you Poland but no more."
It was Czechoslovakia. 20 years after the US contributed to the League of Nations in every way except by actually joining and participating in it after suffering a proportionately much smaller fraction of Anglo-French losses in WWI. Democracies were no longer prepared to make 'unreasonable' sacrifices. Starting with the US.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Gandhism worked because the British didn't like to be seen as a violent race.
It's a tangent, but arguably Gandhi was also helped by the Indian Navy mutiny which scared the British into thinking they couldn't rely on the armed forces to put down the independence movement.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Three snippets from Gandhi about violence:
quote:
I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.
quote:
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.
quote:
It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness. And, I believe that the cause of anti-fascism is strong enough that we don't need to take that route.
Really?
As soon as I get a time machine, I must go back to 1939 and let Rydz-Śmigły know that his cause is strong enough.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a tangent, but arguably Gandhi was also helped by the Indian Navy mutiny which scared the British into thinking they couldn't rely on the armed forces to put down the independence movement.
I think there are many different historical views about why the Gandhi-led Indian movement of Satyagraha worked.
I think it probably was largely at least partly due to a growing understanding that a small number of British could not control millions of Indians who didn't want to be controlled. And the British lost heart when the realised that their most violent actions were not stopping or crushing Gandhi's rebellion and because they couldn't stomach the idea of doing it any longer.
Again, that's not going to work with people like the Nazis who don't care.
[ 17. August 2017, 19:35: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
they couldn't stomach the idea of doing it any longer.
And there's the heart of it (as I know you know). Ultimately what set India free was the conscience of the British. When they had to turn inside and look, they decided they were a decent people, and that was more important than Empire.
If you can stomach endless violence, you can get away with anything, if not stopped. And if the only thing that will stop you is violence, then you must be stopped with violence.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It's a tangent, but arguably Gandhi was also helped by the Indian Navy mutiny which scared the British into thinking they couldn't rely on the armed forces to put down the independence movement.
I think there are many different historical views about why the Gandhi-led Indian movement of Satyagraha worked.
I think it probably was largely at least partly due to a growing understanding that a small number of British could not control millions of Indians who didn't want to be controlled. And the British lost heart when the realised that their most violent actions were not stopping or crushing Gandhi's rebellion and because they couldn't stomach the idea of doing it any longer.
Again, that's not going to work with people like the Nazis who don't care.
Not if the state refuses to act, no. And in Weimar IT DID. The Nazis took the streets AFTER they took power. Became the state.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Not if the state refuses to act, no. And in Weimar IT DID. The Nazis took the streets AFTER they took power. Became the state.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Hitler and the brownshirts were going around murdering and killing opponents in the 1920s before they got power as far as I remember.
Mosley and the British blackshirts tried and failed because people stood up to them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you can stomach endless violence, you can get away with anything, if not stopped. And if the only thing that will stop you is violence, then you must be stopped with violence.
One could, perhaps, make a case for the bigger battle at the moment not being with the comparatively small number of actual Nazis, but with the very much larger number of people who are prepared to stand by and make excuses for them.
We know the Nazis are vile people. But there are a large number of people (mostly on the right of US politics) who are not Nazis, but would benefit from acquiring a racial conscience. Perhaps peaceful resistance rather than violence is a better tool to sway those people to the right way of thinking.
I'm not strongly wedded to this idea, but I offer it as a thing that might be true.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And there's the heart of it (as I know you know). Ultimately what set India free was the conscience of the British. When they had to turn inside and look, they decided they were a decent people, and that was more important than Empire.
Yeah, the Brits did some pretty disgusting things around the empire even following this - but I think the end of British India set the ball in motion to end the Empire.
I think personally that there was some idea that if they gave India freedom they could cut the rot and keep the rest. Of course it didn't work out like that.
I'm sure it also helped that the leaders of Gandhi's movement were almost all British educated and knew the British mentality very well so could speak directly to it. The Brits liked to think of themselves as being civilised and didn't like hearing someone educated at Oxbridge telling them that they were being bastards. The fact that they were doing the same or worse elsewhere in the Empire didn't really register - but that's Brits for you.
quote:
If you can stomach endless violence, you can get away with anything, if not stopped. And if the only thing that will stop you is violence, then you must be stopped with violence.
Yep. And once again fascism and Nazism are literally about the strong overcoming the weak. Violence is baked into the ideology.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well sorry, I've studied non-violence and Gandhism for many years and I don't think it works against fascists and Nazis who don't give a shit.
If there is some point in laying down a life before a Nazi, then ok. But if he is just going to walk over your dead body to get to someone else, then your non-violence becomes rather pointless.
What we do isn't primarily directed at the Nazis who don't give a shit. As you note, they don't give a shit. We're concerned with those who are hanging onto the coat tails of Nazis, those who need the wake-up call of seeing the violence inherent in the system. We're interested in showing that there isn't bad on both sides. In shaming, in society disowning the Nazis.
Plus, you'll note I talked about numbers. If the Nazi steps over my body and then faces another line of pacifists and then step over them, and another and another to get to their goal then there is less chance that he will succeed.
Though I admit that, like you, I wouldn't hold that absolute non-violence position. I would, for example, be perfectly happy for the police to intervene and arrest the Nazi who is battering me to get to someone else. Which is a form of violence by proxy.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@Mr cheesy. They fought with communists, enforced Jewish store boycotts from '31 in increasing societal antisemitism above the European high norm. The game changer was Hitler's '33 chancellorship.
There is NO comparison with the American street. There is NO mandate for Christians to attack fascists on America's streets.
[ 17. August 2017, 20:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think you are talking about different things, Alan.
I think there are a range of things which can be done to prevent the Nazis from gaining the kind of increasing power in society. I don't approve of punching them when they're speaking. I don't really approve of shouting them down. But there are actions which can be done which are peaceful and loving and which make them look stupid.
Pointing and laughing is a good way to belittle a fascist.
But when it gets to the point where they are heavily armed and invading a town, then all non-violent bets are off. The non-violent tools have already failed and one has no alternative but to reach for something else.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
@Mr cheesy. They fought with communists, enforced Jewish store boycotts from '31 in increasing societal antisemitism above the European high norm. The game changer was Hitler's '33 chancellorship.
There is NO comparison with the American street. There is NO mandate for Christians to attack fascists on America's streets.
I don't understand what you are saying here (which seems historically inaccurate) or what you think the difference is between Nazis in 1920s Germany and in 2017 USA. If you explained rather than announcing and discussed rather than pontificating, this might go better for both of us.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There is no comparison. The German state imprisoned Hitler but couldn't stop rising institutional and popular antisemitism. The American left is not run by Comintern. The violence of the German left encouraged that of the of the bourgeoisie by proxy through the hard right - that IS a dangerous parallel. Fascists THRIVE on violent opposition by the left. Not so much against the state.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no comparison.
There is no comparison between the USA's current Neo-Nazis and the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the 1920s. OOokay then.
quote:
The German state imprisoned Hitler but couldn't stop rising institutional and popular antisemitism. The American left is not run by Comintern. The violence of the German left encouraged that of the of the bourgeoisie by proxy through the hard right - that IS a dangerous parallel. Fascists THRIVE on violent opposition by the left. Not so much against the state.
Again you're talking in a way that is largely impenetrable. And is very likely bollocks.
Simply stating things is not a discussion Martin.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Antifa:
I don't think I'd heard of it/them until a few days ago. This morning, "The Takeaway" radio show had a segment on Antifa. The guest was a journalist who's written a lot about them. Really good, IMHO.
I followed that up with checking out "Antifa (United States)" (Wikipedia).
Judging Antifa seems...complicated. Being on-hand to protect people was good. But that's not all they do.
BTW, Wikipedia already has a long article on the rally.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
The valid comparison is that (a) the Nazis in 1920s and early 30s in Germany were few in number, (b) many additional people liked some aspects of what the Nazis had to say** and they ignored the racialist aspects or thought them reasonable in the context of usual European prejudice against minorities (you know, fuzzy-wuzzies, wogs, kaffirs, etc: the Germans didn't like Jews, and everyone else hated brown and black people, what's so special about that?), (c) they thought that other elected people and the army would temper Hitler's extremism and make sure that only the practical aspects of his programme were pursued.
**that Germany was treated unfairly in the post-WW1 settlement mainly, and that Germany was betrayed by the "stab in the back" of communists who were sometimes replaced with Jews or combined with them, that the victorious powers had decided that nationalism and language rights should dictate the boundaries of nations whereas the natural wishes and abilities of nations to expand was the principle they seemed to pursue themselves (hence the continuation of French and British colonies, and the recent expansion of America across the continent), etc.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Surely we expect them to allow us the same freedom?
You wrote what?
You expect fascists to allow people who disagree with them the freedom to oppose them? Fascists don't believe that. That's one of the core things that makes them fascists.
No. That's exactly what we don't expect them to allow us, which is why we're protesting now, while we still can, in an effort to stop them from ever coming to power.
Added to which "should Jews, blacks, women gays have the same civil, political and human rights as straight white men?" isn't a question like "should we nationalise the railways?" or "should we raise or lower taxes?" or "should we reform the electoral system? or even "should we overthrow Saddam Hussein". The other questions we can argue about and people who hold profoundly erroneous views can fall well within the decent human being spectrum.
On the other hand if you believe that Jews, blacks, gays and women are inferior to you, you forfeit your place within the community of decent people. Prejudice isn't acceptable. The question as to whether or not to punch a Nazi is a prudential one. By and large, I think it is a bad idea. But this is not because I think we should sit down with Nazis and politely discuss their ideas.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Ultimately, it's my opinion that recourse to violence is a sign of weakness.
The allies were weak in 1939?
To repeat, I think there's a significant difference between a state confronting Nazism as a state, as a national authority, and a bunch of progressives speculating about confronting a bunch of Nazi thugs.
I feel this more than I can articulate it, but I suspect it's to do with things like casus belli. It strikes me as dangerous to reason like a state when one isn't one. Isn't that more or less the reasoning of the militias in Charlottesville?
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
This is a bad thing to be associated with and there are no good guys in that group.
There is a group marching to oppose them. This is a good thing to be associated with. There are some bad guys in that group.
See the difference?
It's not one I'm happy with. It seems to suggest that anybody and everybody on the Nazi side is fundamentally worse than even the worst on the anti-Nazi side. I don't believe there's clear blue water between the moral condition of all those on one side and all those on the other. It would make things easier, but I don't believe it's the case.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you are talking about different things, Alan.
...
But when it gets to the point where they are heavily armed and invading a town, then all non-violent bets are off. The non-violent tools have already failed and one has no alternative but to reach for something else.
I think we are all talking about different things. To be clear, I'm only really addressing the spectrum of situations ranging from small Nazi protests like some of the EDL marches we've seen in the UK, through to the sort of thing we saw in Charlottesville. So, not the situation where the Nazis have got their vile ideas enshrined in law, or where Nazi states invade other nations and engage in mass murder.
I just don't see that Charlottesville had exceeded the limits of non-violent protest. Those who responded with violence have muddied the waters, justified the presence of armed militia and gave space for people to talk about both sides being to blame (stupid though that was).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
There is no comparison.
There is no comparison between the USA's current Neo-Nazis and the Sturmabteilung (SA) of the 1920s. OOokay then.
quote:
The German state imprisoned Hitler but couldn't stop rising institutional and popular antisemitism. The American left is not run by Comintern. The violence of the German left encouraged that of the of the bourgeoisie by proxy through the hard right - that IS a dangerous parallel. Fascists THRIVE on violent opposition by the left. Not so much against the state.
Again you're talking in a way that is largely impenetrable. And is very likely bollocks.
Simply stating things is not a discussion Martin.
There is no need for Christians to illegally attack fascists in the US. What's to discuss?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think we are all talking about different things. To be clear, I'm only really addressing the spectrum of situations ranging from small Nazi protests like some of the EDL marches we've seen in the UK, through to the sort of thing we saw in Charlottesville. So, not the situation where the Nazis have got their vile ideas enshrined in law, or where Nazi states invade other nations and engage in mass murder.
OK, to be clear whilst witnessing an EDL march in Dover I stood and watched and didn't punch anyone. I agree that violence is not required in that scenario and even the police didn't really do very much.
quote:
I just don't see that Charlottesville had exceeded the limits of non-violent protest. Those who responded with violence have muddied the waters, justified the presence of armed militia and gave space for people to talk about both sides being to blame (stupid though that was).
I think it is really hard to see how. I agree that some of the anti-Nazi violence might have been counter-productive (for example pepper spray in the face of the neo-Nazis did not seem to serve any useful purpose) but in the vast majority of situations seen in the many videos, the violence was in response to attacks from the Nazis and was for the purpose of protecting others.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
