So I came across this story, in which a man burned himself to death on the steps of a court-house in America somewhere. Alleged last word:
Based on that last bit, you might think he was intending to set the court on fire and missed, but let’s ignore that for now.
And I’ve heard of it happening in Vietnam during the war there, and so on.
Basically,
Is it effective as a tactic? I can see that it might draw attention, but does it get sympathy and remedial political action, or just make you look like a flaming loonatic?
Is it heroic or wasteful? Obviously, in a sense, you’re sacrificing yourself for a cause, but it another sense you’re killing yourself with no obvious and immediate gain to be had, and will be too dead too appreciate any potential gains you might bring about in the distant future.
Not unrelated questions, I know. Didn’t seem to do much good in Vietnam, did it?
Well, not only are you dead, but since you are dead you’ll never know if it worked, and never be able to try a different strategy if it fails. It’s all or nothing, with an excellent change of “nothing”.
I wonder basically the same thing about most forms of non-violent protest. I don’t see why they are supposed to work at all. When people that I disagree with chain themselves to things, set themselves on fire, or starve themselves to death, I consider that entertaining at least and probably somewhat helpful to to me and my views in general. What is the downside for others supposed to be? I would be thrilled if lots of people that were against my goals just set themselves on fire but I don’t expect them to do that. Apparently some will under some circumstances however. Awesome.
I wasn’t sure either. Is fasting nonviolent if the person dies from it? I don’t get hung up on the technicalities if the person is just doing it to themselves.