It wasn’t. The British were prepared to, and did, kill non-violent protesters, most notably at Jallianwala Bagh, where nearly 400 people (the official figure: other sources place it much higher) were shot dead in 10 minutes.
Britain left because, as @enkita pointed out, it was financially exhausted after six years of war, and because the population had made it plain they wanted the British out and would use violence to kick them out if necessary.
Check out the Quit India movement of 1942: dozens of bombings, thousands of people killed, 70 police stations destroyed, and 57 battalions deployed to restore order. Parts of Uttar Pradesh passed out of British control for weeks, and parallel governments in areas of Midnapore continued to function until 1944.
Then there was the Indian National Army, who took up arms against the British in alliance with the Japanese (many were recruited in Japanese PoW camps). In military terms they may have had little significance, but they captured the popular imagination, and the British attempts to try some of them for treason after the war had to be abandoned in the face of outcry from a public that regarded them as patriotic heroes. There’s a monument to them in Singapore (or at least there was 20 years ago).
Gandhi wasn’t a pacifist. He believed that non-violent resistance was practically and (more importantly to him) morally superior to violent resistance, but he realised that not everyone was capable of it, much as he might wish otherwise: those who could not resist non-violently had not only the option but the duty to resist violently. If you were not prepared to die, you had to be prepared to kill.
Not to mention that Ghandi’s protests disrupted infrastructure as well as breaking and stealing property - and in the US right now would be considered violent. BLM has their protests blocking roads called “riots” regularly. There was a push for Antifa to be labeled terrorists before widespread coverage of assaults.
My take on it is that all of the violence must be put on the shoulders of the Nazis marching. It was their rally to organize. They encouraged people to come armed to the gills and announced they would do so. So that has the effect of encouraging armed counterprotests as well. The Nazis wanted to spark a violent encounter and did what they could to make one.
If they came completely unarmed in an entirely peaceful protest, then one can bother to discuss ANTIFA and their (mis)deeds. But that isn’t what happened.
The point of the article is that if we are not then what moral authority to we have to criticize people who are actually willing to get into fights to save other people from violence? We’d like it to be principle that separates us from them, but there’s a good chance it’s really cowardice.
I don’t intend to, but my past experiences are that fascists are not that restrained so I had better be prepared to defend myself.
I keep repeating this, but I still have PTSD from being attacked by fascists back in 2004 for no reason other than I threatened their views on gender by existing.
Extending that, nonviolence worked well for MLK because most white Americans were avoiding realizing just how ugly and violent the hate was. When the hate spilled over into violence and it was clear it was one-sided, that forced overall white US society to rein in its fascists and proto-fascists through shame - and through the FBI and similar Federal force.
Let’s not forget that, with all the nonviolent action in place, it took the National Guard at JFK’s orders to physically pull the governor of Alabama out of the doorway blocking the entrance so a black girl could go to a formerly whites-only school.
But Nazis don’t care, and the KKK doesn’t care, and proto-fasicsts don’t care, and shame doesn’t work as well in the moment.
Sometimes a bully needs to be told no, and know that you are willing to match them before they’ll back down and pretend they meant something else.
Personally I don’t willingly put myself in situations where I could possibly be arrested or assaulted or both; as a single Black mom and sole income earner for my family, I can’t risk it.
But sometimes, like it or not, the fight comes directly to you, and then you have a choice; fight back, or flee.
Standing there and ‘just taking it’ rarely factors into the equation when it comes to survival instincts.
So while I may not ‘gear up’ and go marching with them, I don’t sit in judgment on the Antifa or hold them in the same regard as the fascists and nationalists they oppose.
I’m really glad to see this article on boingboing, especially at a time when the corporate media is universally smearing militant anti-fascists. From Fox to the Washington Post to MSNBC, everyone seems to be rushing to get in the best dig about how “antifa are the real fascists”, “black-clad anarchists want to shut down free speech”, and “they’re just discrediting the real opposition”. The talking points are so uniform it’s almost funny.
When looked at from afar, it’s strikingly similar to how governments responded last time to grassroots anarchist and communist anti-fascist resistance: they tolerated radical anti-fascists only up to the point that they started building real power independent of the political establishment, at which point the establishment abandoned them to be the first destroyed by ascendant fascism.
The political elites do not particularly want fascism, but they definitely don’t want us to have the power to protect ourselves and our communities outside their authority. Democrat, republican, liberal, conservative…if faced with the choice between “antifa” and “alt-right” gaining power, they will all choose “alt-right”.
“The only way to stop these thugs is violence right back at them” sounds like every low-level armed conflict (and human rights disaster) across the world. If anyone here truly thinks that’s the way forward, then you’ve lost me.
There were three armed nazi goons who went and stood in front of a synagogue full of families having a shabbat dinner. Mother’s and kids had to go out the back way terrified.
The rally was supposed to have been organized to protest the removal of statues they claimed were part of their history. Why did so many have guns? Why did they start talking about undesirables like Muslims and jews?
Naziism treats all of these folks as untermenschen (subhumans). Now combine this with Nazi philosophy which is “kill the untermenschen (subhumans)”. That is frighteningly goal-oriented and the goals are explicitly stated.
Klan philosophy is nearly the same as Naziism (just slightly more focused on racism than antisemitism, and less organized). They used to be really popular until they allied themselves with Naziism a few weeks before the USA joined WWII.
Treat both Klan and Nazis as if they would rape and kill a five year old child for fun. Many have. It’s not like they value humanity.
I’ve cleaned up this topic. Please refrain from personal insults or targeting other users. Flag posts that you feel violate policies, don’t engage or your well-written response may be eaten as collateral damage.
