Why are the methods of Gandhi and MLJ, Jr. being overlooked?

I facilitate a social justice class at my church. Tomorrow we will discuss MLK, Jr’s dedication to the concept of Christian love. Tonight I happened to read an excerpt from a sermon Dr. King gave 7 days after the US Supreme Court ruled against the Alabama bus segregation laws. It is entitled “The Most Durable Power”. (it’s short, so take the time to read it if you like) I also read “An Experiment in Love”, also written by King.

In the first he is virtually reciting the philosophy of Gandhi, and in the second he mentions Gandhi expressly.

He says Jesus gives the spirit and inspiration and Gandhi give the methodology.

In “The most Durable Power” he says (I’m paraphrasing) let your oppressor know that you are not trying to defeat him, but you are trying to win justice for you both. Let your oppressor know that you will not hate him, and want to win him as a friend, and remove any reason for you to be at odds so that you may live as brothers.

This is Gandhi.

Where are the leaders who espouse these values? Where are the leaders willing to look at the world in a whole new way - not trying to defeat our enemies, but trying to win them? Are they in the church? Are they in Congress? Are they running for President? Have they already been killed or silenced?

It just seems to me that this is a much more sane approach to living together on this little blue marble, and it is not even on the radar screen for anyone of serious influence anywhere. The prevailing opinions are simply differnt sides of the same coin.

Has no one noticed that the bloodletting by the powers that be over the millenia have simply created a dark night of chaos and revenge for later generations? Is no one willing to get off of the insane treadmill of oppressed gaining power only to become the oppressor…only to be overtaken (violently) eventually by the new-oppressed?

The template is there from Jesus (I am a Christian but well aware that we don’t have a corner on the market for being good or just) to Gandhi to King. Why won’t anyone pick it up?

Mammon.

Fair enough.

Because they are so hard. Almost inhumanly hard.

I don’t hold with absolute pacifism myself, I think true morality lies very much farther in that direction that we commonly observle, but I believe in the duty to resist evil. Absolutes are too easy, truth and choice are harder than that.

But they are not pacifists. They actively resist evils, just not with violence.

Unfortunately, it takes two sides to have a peace and only one to have a war. Gandhi and King were successful because they were opposing countries which had a sense of legal restraint. They forced these countries into a situation where they either had to cross that line to maintain the status quo or to negotiate a change. In both cases the change was negotiated.

But the tactics of Gandhi and King wouldn’t have worked against a government that was willing to use a higher level of force to suppress dissent. I think it was Ho Chi Minh who said that Gandhi’s tactics would have failed against the French.

Harry Turtledove did an excellent short story exploring this point - in an alternate history where the Germans won World War 2, they occupied India, and Gandhi led his nonviolent resistance against the German military government. He fails, badly. I’m not normally a fan of Turtledove’s stuff, but this story just plain works. Does anyone remember the title?

But war has proven to be a costly and temporary solution over and over again…a demonstrable failure.

The Last Article.

Oh I don’t know, WWII seems like a pretty big non failure.

But what if they were adopted by a more powerful country like the USA? Would it be possible for a leader to emerge that could demonstrate that the policies and continued hegemony of the USA may lead to temporary security, but will eventually lead to more and more violent actions by those we harm?

What if a powerful country modified the teachings of Jesus/Gandhi/King?

Thanks, askeptic.

You’re welcome, my google-fu is strong tonight…

But WW2 led to the Cold War which led to Korea and Vietnam, it led to the Balfore agreement which has led to all sorts of problems in the middle east… War may solve one problem, but it always creates more.

Yeah, life is messy that way. I mean one moment some guy is minding his own business and the next some Romans nail him to a cross bingo a thousand years later you get the Crusades. A little later you get the Spanish Inquisition, which NOBODY expected.

And I am not diminishing the impact of WW2 at all. My grandfather was a combat medic, and I love those WW2 guys…

But I wonder if along the way we missed opportunities to work for justice in ways that could have made the war unnecessary. The treaty ending WW1 was sufficiently unjust to the Germans to allow Hitler to come to power.

There was an interesting opinion piece in The Guardian about King and Gandhi the other day.

That was the Balfour Agreement. And being as it was written in 1917 I don’t think we can pin it on World War II.

And if you want to follow the trail of “this then that” then Gandhi led to the independance of India which led to the partition which led to the death of millions of people which led to the radicalization of Islam which led to Al Qaida blowing up the World Trade Center.

Yeah I shouldn’t post bleary eyed in bed, half asleep… Balfour…1917…

…my bad…

Hopefully someone more wise than me can come in and score a point or two for non-violence…

Whose this “we”, white man? English and the French diplomacy was stupid once again. No surprises there. And America came to work hard after the war to help Weimar Germany back on its feet. It didn’t help in the end, and maybe it was too little. The British and French simply not fought. They chose to defend Belgium in WW2. Should they all have simply surrendered to the Germans? To appease Kaiser Wilhelm’s rapaciousness?

Here’s the blunt end of the stick: Gandhi was a goofball.

Yes, he was.

This is the man who suggested that his fellow countrymen should just lay down and die so as not to inconvenience their murderers, who lectured the Jews on fleeing the Nazis. He had no idea what he was talking about and his success was built not on his goodness, but of the goodness of his “enemies”, the British.

The truth is, there are people put there - and not a few, either - who are not willing to live as brothers with anyone. They choose to either master everything and rule as tyrants and destroy what they cannot control. There are no toher options for them; and it is their choice. It was Hitler’s choice, Stalin’s choice, Mao’s choice. We must make them live with the consequences of their choices, because the alternative is to abandon all morality to whomever weilds the most power the most ruthlessly. Gandhi’s way is the way for evil to rule.

If you want to live according to these principles, then do so. However, you must accept the consequences of your actions. This may be the death of millions. It may be the . Yes, WW2 had terrible consequences. But whose fault is that? England and France and America? Or was it Hitler’s fault? Consider that question before you answer.

Finally, I don’t think this was MLK’s way at all. He used these tactics knowing they would not be applicablt to everyone in all circumstances.