208
submitted 2 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] calmblue75@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Just a small clarification, Gandhi's nonviolent protests were very much attacking the British. Non violence here only meant not to physically cause harm to humans. For example, the non cooperation movement involved boycott of British manufactured goods, returning titles and honours given by the British govt., and mass resignation of Indians from various offices and posts, strikes in factories. It was not a march for one day. It was specifically targeting the system and weakening it.

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Maybe I phrased it badly but that's the point I was trying to make the Indian resistance movement that Ghandi was the face of (both the sections he directly lead and the movement as a whole) was far more confrontational and active than the image canonised later by imperial powers of the hunger striking saint reaching freedom for India through moral appeals. Just like Mandela, MLK etc. the real movement was sanitised and laundered to curb future protests.

[-] calmblue75@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Oh, I misunderstood you. I get your point now. Our government too uses the image of 'non violent' protests by Gandhi to shut down protests here. The words they use went from non-violent protests to peaceful protests to protesting without disrupting public life (like don't strike, don't block roads etc.) What the hell is a protest if it does not disrupt?

[-] QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago

What the hell is a protest if it does not disrupt?

A parade

this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
208 points (99.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

9275 readers
178 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS