Civil Disobedience

[Russell Kanning]

So which one of us has to sit in jail for 24 years in this nonviolent revolution?


Mandela calls for Gandhi's non-violence approach

By Nita Bhalla
REUTERS

3:09 a.m. January 29, 2007

NEW DELHI – Anti-apartheid icon Nelson Mandela joined top leaders, nobel laureates and elder statesmen on Monday calling on the world to reinvent Indian freedom fighter Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent approach to solving conflicts. Mandela, who spent 28 years in prison for fighting white rule before leading South Africa to multi-racial democracy as the country's first black president in 1994, said Gandhi's non-violent approach which won India freedom from British colonial rule 60 years ago was an inspiration.

'His philosophy contributed in no small measure to bringing about a peaceful transformation in South Africa and in healing the destructive human divisions that had been spawned by the abhorrent practice of apartheid,' said Mandela.

The 88-year-old statesman was addressing a conference, through a satellite link from South Africa, to mark the centenary of Gandhi's 'satyagraha' or non-violent movement which began in Johannesburg on Sept 11, 1906, where Gandhi was practising law. Gandhi lived in South Africa from 1893 to 1914, where he was an active and high profile political activist.

Referring to him as 'the sacred warrior', Mandela said the Mahatma combined ethics and morality with a steely resolve that refused to compromise with the oppressor, the British Empire.

'In a world driven by violence and strife, Gandhi's message of peace and non-violence holds the key to human survival in the 21st century, said Mandela.

'He rightly believed in the efficacy of pitting the sole force of the satyagraha against the brute force of the oppressor and in effect converting the oppressor to the right and moral point.'

Gandhi, is revered by many around the world for his tolerance and peaceful approach that led millions of Indians to refuse to comply with colonial law, eventually forcing Britain to leave India after around 300 years of occupation.

Sonia Gandhi, president of Indian National Congress which leads the ruling coalition, joined Mandela and calls by former Polish President Polish Lech Walesa, former Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda and Bangladesh Nobel Laureate Mohammad Yunus to promote Gandhi's values.

She told the some 400 delegates, which include heads of government, senior officials, religious leaders and parliamentarians that the end of the Cold War had not seen peace as was hoped for.

It was natural to question whether Gandhi's philosophy was feasible in today's world, but that it was possible to use it as a tool and adapt to to conflict resolution. she said.

'Tt would be a grave error to write-off the Gandhian approach as irrelevant to our age,' she said.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20070129-0309-india-gandhi-mandela.html

[Russell Kanning]

Is "Just War" an Oxymoron?
Mark Weisenmiller

TAMPA, Florida, Jan 29 (IPS) - The author of a best-selling "biography" of cod and a world history of salt has taken on the weighty theme of nonviolence movements in his latest book -- why some thrive and others fail, and why the concept is so "profoundly dangerous" to the powers that be.

"Nonviolence: Twenty-Five Lessons From the History of a Dangerous Idea" by Mark Kurlansky (Modern Library Chronicles, September 2006), who also worked for many years as a journalist at the International Herald Tribune and other outlets, includes a foreword by the Tibetan Dalai Lama.

Kurlansky notes at the beginning of the book that "nonviolence" has "no word for it... while every major language has a word for violence, there is no word to express the idea of nonviolence except that it is not another idea, it is not violence."

As he guides the reader on a chronological tour of nonviolence movements from early Christianity (described as an "anti-war cult") through the activism against U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Kurlansky shows that, for a variety of reasons, human beings, and especially governments, tend to ultimately undermine pacifist systems.

Most of the notable people affiliated with nonviolence movements, "when they at first became prominent, were more interested in political causes than their religious beliefs," Kurlansky told IPS. "Two examples that immediately come to mind are (Mohandas) Gandhi, whose chief cause was the independence of India from the British, and (Reverend) Martin Luther King Jr., whose first priority was civil rights for blacks (in the United States)."

No one country or continent has been a leader in nonviolence, according to Kurlansky. Intentionally designed nonviolent states -- such as Quaker William Penn's colony in what is now the state of Pennsylvania in the U.S., and Kenneth Kuanda's dream of a peaceful South Africa free of the horrors of apartheid -- "have been undermined by outside influences," Kurlansky said.

"Because of the British Empire, regarding Pennsylvania, and the violent tactics of the ANC (African National Congress) in South Africa, these planned nonviolent states failed," he said.

Kurlansky presents a series of "lessons", such as once a state takes over a religion, the religion usually loses its nonviolent teachings; a propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings; and violence does not resolve problems -- it always leads to more violence.

Religion is usually thought of as being a necessary aspect of pacifism -- although "not always," Kurlansky noted -- and a discussion of how the four oldest of the world's religions stand on nonviolence is the main theme of the first chapters of the book.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism and Judaism are all examined by Kurlansky, who observes that "Hindus often repeat the aphorism 'ahimsa paramo dharmah,' nonviolence is the highest law, but this is not an unshakable principle of the religion."

"Nonviolence," the book, has in-depth examinations of the lives of Mohammad, Jesus and Buddha. Also given prominent mention as pacifists are the Quakers, which began in England, and the Anabaptists, whose land of origin was Switzerland.

Kurlansky argues that the United States' long history with violence and slavery derives from the fact that the country's early history is so closely tied to bellicose England.

Yet most countries have some type of violence in their histories. "Mexico has had an incredible history of violence and Canada was drawn into the violence of its early days by its colonialism with England. No country in Europe would qualify as having no violence," Kurlansky said.

Gandhi in the 1930s and Rev. King in the 1960s were the leading proponents of nonviolence in those decades. Who is the 'star leader' of nonviolence in the first decade of the 21st century? "Probably the Dalai Lama or Desmond Tutu," answered Kurlansky. "Currently, there are organisations for both the Israelis and the Palestinians that have large non-violent groups in them," he added.

Unlike most Western writers, Kurlansky does not beatify Gandhi in "Nonviolence." Gandhi, who was once memorably described by the late U.S. journalist John Gunther as "an incredible combination of Jesus Christ, Tammany Hall (the Manhattan building which became the headquarters of the New York Democratic Party), and your father", is presented as a man whose actions and beliefs do not comport to the mores of the century in which he lived. However, Gandhi's love of nonviolence is given due credit by Kurlansky.

The author told IPS that military veterans have had interesting reactions to his book.

"I have a lot of friends who are veterans and they agreed with many things in the book. Some of the strongest, most vocal organisations in the U.S. that are now protesting the American involvement in Iraq are Gulf War veterans groups and Vietnam War veterans groups. But veterans aren't the problem -- governments are," he said.

Kurlansky cited former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower as a rare case of a military man who condemned violence. "In 1959, he (Eisenhower) said 'I think people want peace so much that one of these days governments better get out of the way and let people have it.' That's an amazing statement, considering that the military was such an important part of Eisenhower's life," Kurlansky said.

What does the author foresee for the future of nonviolence? "That's tough to answer," admitted Kurlansky, "but I do know that all anti-war people agree that the next six months (of the U.S.'s current involvement in Iraq) are critical because if the Democrats in the new Congress don't start to try to stop the war, they may never do it."

[FrankChodorov]

I saw Kurlansky talking about his book (along with Tom Hayden talking about his new book) on CSPAN book events about a month ago...

[Michael Fisher]

Gandhi's influence was not total. Gandhi was a devout Hindu. He admired Jesus' teachings, but was not Jesus' follower.

King, on the other hand, was a born-again, committed Christian, an ordained Baptist minister. He had a doctorate in theology from Boston University, among several other accomplishments.

King's creative genius lay in the fact that he fused Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence with Jesus' love ethic and led millions of his followers toward making enormous constructive civil rights changes for people in the United States and other parts of the world. The practice of nonviolent love can be just as effective today. Think how many injustices could be eliminated if each individual practiced nonviolent love. The result would be more prosperous, safe and peaceful families and communities.

Thank you for posting this. Its content is excellent.

[Russell Kanning]

posting is easy .... living it is much more difficult ... but it changes everything.

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/841/81/

Marches, Protests, and Civil Disobedience?    
Click Name for Bio of Stuart Noble   
Tuesday, 30 January 2007
by Stuart Noble

The recent march on the Mall in Washington D.C. has produced a fair amount of publicity in the media and discussion around the blogosphere for, well, a couple of days.



Let me start by saying,

The streets are dead capital. There is nothing to be gained on the streets.

If there is nothing (don't read this in absolute terms) to be gained in the streets then where should political dissent be aimed? Some have suggested that online political activism represents a new form of civil disobedience. I tend to agree. In one sense, online political dissent is more effective than street marches and protests, primarily because the elite media doesn't have absolute dominion over the message. The blogosphere has real power because of the free flow of information and ideas. This last bastion of democratic free flowing communication is a critical element to the preservation of freedom and liberty in a post-industrial large-scale society. However, while the free flow of information and ideas can translate into political capital, it doesn't necessarily translate into political victory.

In order for civil disobedience to have any real effect it must be aimed at the power structure and it must disrupt that power structure in some meaningful way. The proud traditions of Gandhi, and King promoted civil disobedience through non-violence but that tradition was not one of mere protest alone. Gandhi and King both participated and promoted marches and protests. These activities served well to draw attention to their causes but their more powerful civil disobedience tools went right at the heart of the ruling economic structure. They understood that public attention alone wouldn't bring about any lasting or meaningful change.

Why are the streets dead capital today? Because there is nothing to be gained from owning the streets. There is no power on the streets, thus nothing to be disrupted. The most anyone could hope for is a little short lived media attention like what we've just witnessed. Am I suggesting that large-scale gatherings of public protest are entirely useless? No. I am suggesting however, that without an economic incentive tied to the protest the action becomes little more than a face-to-face "echo chamber" for folks who share the same views.

Some have criticized the so called 60's style protest activities as being nothing more than nostalgia clouded judgment which distracts us from meaningful activity. Perhaps some of that criticism is warranted. A Saturday afternoon peace march alone certainly isn't very lasting or convincing. However, much of that activity in the 60's was incredibly effective in that it combined protest with economic disruption. Companies were boycotted, business disrupted, military service evaded, university campuses shut down. Labor movements achieved success through similar tactics. A picket line alone never achieved much of anything. Unfortunately that's what the modern labor movement in America has been reduced to.

Already 70% of Americans are against the war in Iraq. No amount of main stream media covered demonstrations are likely to sway the other 30%, and frankly what difference would it make? An overwhelming majority is in favor of ending the war and the government is acting completely independent of the people (read authoritarian). Apparently, 80% or 90% or 95% of the country could be against the war and the government would continue as planned. The problem is not that there isn't enough media attention, or that the vast majority of Americans are against this illegitimate war and that they desire an immediate de-militarization of American foreign policy. The problem is that the government has no meaningful incentive to stop its illegal actions.

If the goal is an end to the war, then the tactics should focus on providing immediate incentives in the only language that elites understand; risk vs. return. Let's dispense with any false hopes in the government sanctioned "democratic process". American democracy has been hijacked by corporate royalists and they don't intend on simply returning power to the people on principal. The sooner "average" Americans begin to embrace this very simple but "radical" principal, the sooner any real action can be taken. Saturday marches on the Mall, while commendable, are ultimately useless because they miss the heart of the problem. It's like administering a treatment for the wrong disease.

Unfortunately, many Americans, (Westerners for that matter) operate under that same very rubric of risk vs. return, emotionally trapped within the confines of consumer comforts. Most of us live in a golden prison. Yet there are cracks in the prison system. Consumer sedation and ambiguity depended on a large enough self-absorbed "middle class" cut off from the lower classes and working poor. This "middle class" is both shrinking (joining the lower-classes) and becoming politically and socially engaged. Can the non-elite classes join together to effectively disrupt the economic foundation of power, thus providing the necessary incentives to bring the elites to the bargaining table? This was the strategy which finally brought about an end to segregation in America and independence for India. In fact, while not a non-violent revolution, the American revolution was largely a product of upper-middle class and working class colonists united against corporate elites and the British crown. The British royalists, while absolutely more economically and militarily powerful than the colonists, ultimately decided the risk of continuing war far outweighed the potential returns.

The 2006 congressional victories alone won't amount to much without forceful, careful, and well planned civil disobedience. The new congress at best merely represents a slightly more pliable body to the Will of the people, but that Will must be asserted effectively. It seems there are many who are stocking up all their political ammo in anticipation of a political Mosses coming to deliver them from Egypt (read DeNile). We may as well stock up on pork and beans and wait for the second coming of Jesus; both are about as likely.

-----------------------------------
Comments (1)
Subscribe to this comment's feed

a guest: Civil Obedience
America's walk in the park demonstrations are far too polite in influencing leaders who regularly violate the constitution and international law while deliberately deceiving the public. The civil disobedience of the 60s or today's Latin America are absent in this country today.

As noted in the article, civil disobedience required that

"Companies were boycotted, business disrupted, military service evaded, university campuses shut down. Labor movements achieved success through similar tactics. A picket line alone never achieved much of anything. Unfortunately that?s what the modern labor movement in America has been reduced to"

One wonders who organizes the demonstrations here: the people or the government. There is obviously no sense of urgency in the US population, despite this President and Congress mounting the greatest threat to US democracy and freedom since the Republic was founded (even if you ignore the barbaric foreign policy they practice).

Unfortunately, the internet has proved fairly toothless as well. We have our armchair football analysts writing for sites like this, reporting and analyzing events to death, but essentially making readers mere spectators of the unfolding disaster, rather than real participants in efforts to halt or reverse it. This has to change if the coming age of tyranny is to be prevented.

What is needed is "forceful, careful, and well planned civil disobedience".

Organize. Then have a real demonstration.

1
Blue

[Russell Kanning]

http://www.indypendent.org/?p=743

Escalating the Antiwar Movement: After four years of marching, Iraq War opponents look to ramp up resistance

longer article

[Russell Kanning]

"Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

[Russell Kanning]

Upholding freedom of press principles landed Josh Wolf behind bars. Wolf, a 24-year old freelance journalist and independent videographer, is currently in "coercive custody" at the Federal Detention Facility in Dublin, Calif. for resisting a subpoena to testify before a Federal Grand jury and for refusing to release video footage from a San Francisco anti-G8 Summit protest in July 2005. On Feb. 6,Wolf became the longest imprisoned journalist in U.S. history for his refusal to comply based on journalistic principles.  As of Feb. 21, Wolf has been imprisoned for 183 days.
"Many have asked me why I've chosen to sacrifice my personal freedom," wrote Wolf in his blog from prison Feb. 6. "Most pressing is the fact that a free press in a democracy cannot act as an extension of the justice department."
Wolf, who has been covering protests in San Francisco for more than two years, posted a video of the 2005 protest to his website and sold some of the footage to the local nightly news stations. Local and federal law enforcement agents, who were investigating clashes between police and demonstrators, tuned into Wolf's video and soon served him a federal subpoena demanding him to release copies of his unpublished video footage and to testify about the protesters seen on the tape.  Wolf has stated several times under oath that his unpublished material does not show video footage of any of the alleged crimes committed. "This case is not about a videotape and it's not about justice. This entire matter is about eroding the rights of privacy and those of a free press," Wolf wrote. "It is about identifying civil dissidents and using members of the news media to actively assist in what is essentially an anarchist witch hunt."
Many in the news media community have publicly issued statements supporting Wolf in the last year, and he was awarded the 2006 Society of Professional Journalists Freedom of Information Award as Journalist of the Year.  "The role of the media is to ask the questions, to point at those inconsistencies, and to demand answers from the powers that be," wrote Wolf. "This is why the media is under attack and this is why it is so urgent that we continue to fight back. Because without a free press we can never be free."
For more information on Josh Wolf or to see the video he published about the 2005 protest: www.joshwolf.net
Article:
http://www.indypendent.org/?p=825

[Spencer]

Josh Wolf is in jail because the feds are investigating damage to an SFPD police car that MAY have been purchased with federal grant money.  That moves it out of state court (where Mr. Wolf could rely on the media shield law) and into federal court (there is no federal media shield law).  It is bootstrapping of the worst kind -- the local and federal governments in cahoots to intimidate protesters and Mr. Wolf.

[Russell Kanning]

Here is a nice list of ideas

[attachment deleted by admin]

[error]

Here is a nice list of ideas

More than the list of ideas, is needed the will to implement them, and more than that, the wisdom to know what to do.

[Russell Kanning]

so which idea do you have the will to implement?

[error]

so which idea do you have the will to implement?

I could do almost anything on the list. But first, I seek the wisdom to know what needs to be done.

[KBCraig]

For more information on Josh Wolf or to see the video he published about the 2005 protest: www.joshwolf.net

A bunch of violent communists who think destroying private property and mob rule are "anarchy".

And yet, Josh Wolf is still right, and should be freed.