[yellow, a finger up, looking smug]
The answer to oppression is NEVER violence
Turn the other cheek
Pacifism always wins
You could earn rights by asking nicely instead
[yellow, proudly showing us a huge book]
Don’t believe me?
Open a history book!
[yellow, looking frustrated as they are shuffling through the book’s pages]
Ok so…
Uhm…
Not this page…
Wait…
The next one…
Awkward…
Another…
Yeah but…
For sure this time…
[yellow, sweating, protecting their book, a hand raised towards us]
Can you stop looking?
You’re being rude
That’s my book
https://thebad.website/comic/please_resist_responsibly
The article states what it considers a nonviolent revolution. It doesn’t mean there was zero bloodshed, but that the actual parties that were trying to take power did not use or threaten violence.
Even if you disagree with their definition or believe that they gave a bad example, I imagine that you wouldn’t find the entire list objectionable.
There are only 7 examples in the whole list.
A very useful tactic in this specific situation.
when you find counter examples to the premise you stop since the premise is demonstrably incorrect.
The entire list is counter-examples, even the ones they mentioned. I am guessing that they simply disagree with the definition given by Wikipedia. They seem to be claiming that violence prior to a revolution by somebody else who wasn’t part of the party that came into power, but which weakened the authority, is disqualifying as a nonviolent revolution.
If they don’t like Wikipedia’s definition, then they can mention that. But it’s impossible to argue against a premise that they didn’t even specify. They didn’t give substantive anything to argue against, so what would I even be arguing? Like I said, unless they state their specific problem, in my view, the entire list, even the ones they mentioned, are what you’d call counter-examples. They haven’t given a better definition of a nonviolent revolution.
If you want an example where there was no violence at all by anybody, even unrelated parties, and again, the list is only 7 entries long, just look at the June Democratic Struggle, which is the fourth in the list. Two after they stopped looking further, and I think 4 more than you looked at.
The simple fact is the there are almost no examples of non-violent revolutions. Almost every single revolution has violence as a component of it. it doesnt matter if a particular group within the wider populace (ghandi) was non-violent they were uplifted by the actions of the violent groups if only to offer an alternative group to ‘negotiate’ with.
the simple fact is: revolutions dont occur unless violence is necessary, after all if violence wasnt necessary the changes would have been made long before the revolution grew legs cropped up.
You asked for an example with zero violence. I gave you that example. And you barely acknowledge it, first saying there are “almost no examples,” but then go on to ignore it completely and say that “revolutions don’t occur unless violence is necessary.” If you had already made up your mind and decided to ignore any contrary evidence, you shouldn’t have asked for counter-examples.
I wasn’t even trying to argue for nonviolent revolutions, only to say that the tiniest bit of effort shows that they have occurred. At any rate, I don’t think you’re the kind of person I want to continue interacting with. So, bye. I’m finished with this particular exchange.
No I didnt. I was explaining to you why wikipedia’s list isnt useful and why the individual stop looking into the instances on the list immediately after finding counter examples in literally the first couple instances listed.
Because I didnt give a shit about your example because I knew what I’d find. but lets address it now to demonstrate the point I was making:
You can’t say ‘look this uprising succeeded without the use of violence!’ when the reason it succeeded was arguably because of the use of violence that proceeded it. They’re not independent events. Its the same regime, same population, within less than a generation, involving many of the same actors and part of an ongoing sequence of resistance.
My statement of there being very few examples of non-violent revolutions was a hedge because I’m not intimately familiar with the history of every civilization on the planet for all time. But every time this conversation has come up and people like yourself have cropped up I can’t recall a single instance that was referenced as being violence free.
As people have literally done for you multiple times now, you’re just fucking wrong.
You write entirely dishonest trite! That ‘revolution’ was preceded by the Gwangju Uprising, a massacre. The protestors retaliated with violence. It is this history–the threat of violence–that underpins ANY political power. There are no peaceful revolutions. Anyone who attempts to frame something as peaceful to prove that there is such a thing looks at an event myopically and dishonestly.
Read your own fucking articles. There’s nothing peaceful about killings and torture. “On June 11, the National Police Agency defended its actions on the previous day, describing rallies as illegal, and as violent “disorderly conduct”, and declaring their intention to crack down on further unrest.” You: but-b-b-but it was a peaceful protest. You are a liar and a bootlicker.
The Gwangju Uprising happened in 1980. The June Democratic Struggle happened over 7 years later in 1987. Why didn’t you mention that? Is it because you knew that it would completely discredit your point? Is it because you didn’t think somebody would call your bluff and fact check you?
So, you’re calling me a liar, and aggressively, while saying… that. I’m sorry, but I am reporting and blocking you.
You asked for it:
Next is Ecuador in ‘05 when they sent guiterrez to Brazil.
But here’s the third sentence in the intro paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that event:
Maybe the next one will prove your point…
South Korea! The June Struggle? Here’s the Wikipedia article on its background:
Almost like the nonviolent resolution was made possible by violence before it…
How about the next one:
Oh, the white lily student movement! Surely there’s a good solid Wikipedia article about that!
Barely past a stub? No mention of the boat people massacre three years before, changs successors recognizing the need to get international support after decades of martial law and the clear message from foreign influence in the Tiananmen protests the year before?
Must have been the wind.
Dateline - Philippines edsa 2, nonviolent government handover as long as you don’t count the precipitated edsa 3 just a few months later.
Oh, now we’re talking about Sudan, never mind that after the protest wave (not entirely nonviolent but I’ll leave that by the wayside for now) the military took over the transitional government.
Now I know I took a pretty let’s call it conversational tone in the above and that breakdown is for two reasons, one, I don’t want to legitimize that dogshit Wikipedia article by talking about it in neutral language and two, I’m tired.
The point isn’t to argue over specifics about some shitty wiki article but to recognize that things are only called “nonviolent” when arbitrary lines around them in time, place and even people that exclude the violent component of their existence are drawn.
Everything has context, but the context isn’t the thing itself. Sometimes, the context is the exact opposite of the thing.
Your claim seems to be that a nonviolent revolution is impossible if there was ever a violent attempt in the past that anybody in power remembers. If it sounds like a ridiculous idea, that’s because it is.
I don’t think this is the least bit complicated or controversial. I’m not even claiming that a nonviolent revolution is a good idea or possible in the future, only that it’s happened in the past. This is just a basic fact. I don’t think I can have a reasonable discussion with a person who rejects inconvenient facts.
At any rate, I think you’ve spurred me into doing something rather ironic in this situation. I’m just going to go ahead and block the entire lemmy.ml instance. There’s a button for it, but I haven’t tried it before, so there’s no time like the present. I just want you to know that the irony isn’t lost on me, that I’m judging others on your instance for the context of where they’re logged in from. But I suspect that anybody reasonable has already decided not to have an account over there. I expect this will save me the trouble of blocking you all individually. Adios.
You’re not even reading what I wrote.
I said that you can only call something nonviolent by drawing an arbitrary line separating it from the violence that preceded it, followed it or the violence done by someone else or threatened by other events.
Sucks to suck I guess. Bye.