||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANNOUNCEMENTS and ARTICLES: http://pnews.org/art/art.shtml
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Without getting into the details of Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" which
as you point out was really another form of protest and all of them
different in degrees which would make those acts considerably different
(Henry Thoreau was a great naturalist above all in my view) - I have often
heard it suggested that the Jews should have emulated Ghandi during the
Holocaust. I doubt that it would have worked at all but admittedly
physical resistance did go on in pockets of insurgencies -- but were
limited in large part due to those who cooperated (KAPOS and those who
thought it would end), lack of the defensive materials needed to resist, a
lack of training (except for the Jews who fought in WWI, including the
Jewish officers, and as patriots were surprised that it was happening to
them -- some of whom even supported the government, including the Nazis.
Civil Disobedience works less effectively than boycotts, which have worked
and do work if there is enough support for them. The boycott/sanctions
against Iraq did work in spite of George Bush's (and other Republicans)
assertions to the contrary. The boycott against the Nazis may have been
enough to criple and defeat the Hitler regime if enough people supported
it but business interests and Zionists who worked a deal for transfer of
wealthier Jews (part of which was to defeat the boycott) also undermined a
"workable" boycott.
For defense against aggression, some military action and people resistance
is often, if not always necessary in combination with the effects of
economic strangulation via boycotts by a larger community of nations --
ALL of which will be more effective than civil disobedience. Tyrants do
not care how many people they kill to overcome the kind of civil
disobedience-resistance (putting your body in front of their bullets) of a
Ghandi. The outrage which ended British oppression was MORE a product of
economics -- more than any concensus of the masses to object to British
colonialization.
Boycotts are also economic weapons and in this world where business and
personal economic interests determine the direction of their governments
more than any feelings of disdain for policy or any sense of humanity, the
civil disobedience of a Ghandi by itself is IMHO largely futile. The civil
rights movement and the end of slavery were both also based to a very
great extent on the economy of the north vs cheap labor of the south and
an unhealthy business climate caused by integration. There are a number of
studies done but I will not cite them here (I believe those citations are
readily available from sources on the net without getting into them
here)..
Hank
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Edward Kent wrote:
>
> Tomorrow I shall be discussing with one of my classes civil
> disobedience, the distinctive American political contribution of a means
> to protest injustices short of outright revolution (or the terrorist
> acts of today perpetrated both by states and resisters to same).
>
---
/ o o \ PNEWS Topic Specific Portals (Vortals)
===OO=====OO=================================================
http://pnews.org/vortal/ New World disOrder and Myth Busters
http://g0lem.net/vortal/ Insane Planet and Wacko World
http://g0lem.net/portal/ Bad-Ass Truth and TheGolemsPortal
http://pnews.org/portal/ Naked Truth and PNEWS Portal
=============================================================
\_/ \_/
