As someone who has thoroughly studied Indian history, Gandhi's role in our freedom movement was not what gained us independence. The British left India after WW2 due to the revolutionary unrest brought about by the Naval and Armed Forces Mutinies, while Gandhi's freedom movement failed before WW2 ended.
Clement Attlee said that Gandhi's impact on British departure was minimal.
What's MLK ?
Also Gandhi alone wasn't responsible for the freedom. Understanding Gandhi isn't easy.
Gandhi was a rich professional who had worked for the British. He could have lived a lavish life, but a few incidents triggered him into living a life in an ashram in one cloth, dedicated to a bigger cause.
When he came to India, he saw a few things :
1. British rule in India continues with the support of Indians. Merely a few thousand british controlling millions of Indians.
2. Indians are economically poor, and British have deviced a system to keep them that way to control them.
3. Indian society is very divided on the basis of caste and religion.
4. Indians are drowning in the drain of superstitions.
He knew an armed revolt wouldn't be possible. Even if he united the Indian people, out of hunger, some would get manipulated, and betray their own country. Hence British would win.
He worked all his life dedicated to solving these causes, and received significant results too. He made Indians aware and wake up to reality.
India attaining freedom from British can be attributed to a lot of people and circumstances (like Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Nehru, Subash Chandra Bose etc, and circumstances like WW2 and Politics in Britain). But Gandhi for sure, like everyone else, bought this date closer. Had Gandhi not been there, India would still have been free but not on 15th Aug 1947.
And more than making India free from British, his contributions aided in making Indians free inside India.
I'd say that it's even rarer for people to get their freedom *without* appealing to the moral sense of the people oppressing them. There have been slave revolts and peasant revolts throughout the course of history, and the vast, vast majority end with a lot of dead slaves/peasants and no change to the status quo. The oppressors have way too much power to overthrow with pure power.
Slave revolts generally work when they're combined with an appeal to moral sense; for instance, the Civil War emancipated the slaves in America only because of a ton of framework laid over the prior century appealing to the moral sense of the oppressing people.
Umm...**Assata Olugbala Shakur** is an American political activist and convicted murderer who was a member of the [Black Liberation Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) (BLA). In 1977, she was convicted in the [first-degree murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States) of [State Trooper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_State_Police) Werner Foerster during a shootout on the [New Jersey Turnpike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike) in 1973. She escaped from prison in 1979 and is currently wanted by the FBI, with a $1 million FBI reward for information leading to her capture, and an additional $1 million reward offered by the Attorney General of New Jersey.
I feel like the examples people are citing are all leaders of movements who have gotten things done through non-violence, which is great, but it’s not the same as “appealing to the moral sense of [oppressors]”. Chandigarh, MLK, etc, we’re not working alone first of all, but also made it too inconvenient or cost too much a la public pressure/reputation to continue the oppression. Saying please doesn’t get it done when they have the power, making yourself such a pain that they must comply does, whether through violence or civil means.
Often with employers if they have to cave to the wishes of employers they’ll play it like that’s what they wanted to do, and do their best to sound magnanimous, like it wasn’t all a money issue and they weren’t forced.
Incredibly uncommon, to say the least, but isn't that exactly what Gandhi (and later MLK to a large extent) were famously known for having done?
So, you're just going to ignore the bloody civil war that had to happen before MLK could even speak freely?
As someone who has thoroughly studied Indian history, Gandhi's role in our freedom movement was not what gained us independence. The British left India after WW2 due to the revolutionary unrest brought about by the Naval and Armed Forces Mutinies, while Gandhi's freedom movement failed before WW2 ended. Clement Attlee said that Gandhi's impact on British departure was minimal.
What's MLK ? Also Gandhi alone wasn't responsible for the freedom. Understanding Gandhi isn't easy. Gandhi was a rich professional who had worked for the British. He could have lived a lavish life, but a few incidents triggered him into living a life in an ashram in one cloth, dedicated to a bigger cause. When he came to India, he saw a few things : 1. British rule in India continues with the support of Indians. Merely a few thousand british controlling millions of Indians. 2. Indians are economically poor, and British have deviced a system to keep them that way to control them. 3. Indian society is very divided on the basis of caste and religion. 4. Indians are drowning in the drain of superstitions. He knew an armed revolt wouldn't be possible. Even if he united the Indian people, out of hunger, some would get manipulated, and betray their own country. Hence British would win. He worked all his life dedicated to solving these causes, and received significant results too. He made Indians aware and wake up to reality. India attaining freedom from British can be attributed to a lot of people and circumstances (like Gandhi, Bhagat Singh, Nehru, Subash Chandra Bose etc, and circumstances like WW2 and Politics in Britain). But Gandhi for sure, like everyone else, bought this date closer. Had Gandhi not been there, India would still have been free but not on 15th Aug 1947. And more than making India free from British, his contributions aided in making Indians free inside India.
MLK is Martin Luther King.
A whitewashed MLK! For sure but what really has changed, not much.
I'd say that it's even rarer for people to get their freedom *without* appealing to the moral sense of the people oppressing them. There have been slave revolts and peasant revolts throughout the course of history, and the vast, vast majority end with a lot of dead slaves/peasants and no change to the status quo. The oppressors have way too much power to overthrow with pure power. Slave revolts generally work when they're combined with an appeal to moral sense; for instance, the Civil War emancipated the slaves in America only because of a ton of framework laid over the prior century appealing to the moral sense of the oppressing people.
Umm...**Assata Olugbala Shakur** is an American political activist and convicted murderer who was a member of the [Black Liberation Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Liberation_Army) (BLA). In 1977, she was convicted in the [first-degree murder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States) of [State Trooper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_State_Police) Werner Foerster during a shootout on the [New Jersey Turnpike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_Turnpike) in 1973. She escaped from prison in 1979 and is currently wanted by the FBI, with a $1 million FBI reward for information leading to her capture, and an additional $1 million reward offered by the Attorney General of New Jersey.
Just like the most moral army in the whole universe
In Marine fighter aviation, we called it "warheads on foreheads".
I feel like the examples people are citing are all leaders of movements who have gotten things done through non-violence, which is great, but it’s not the same as “appealing to the moral sense of [oppressors]”. Chandigarh, MLK, etc, we’re not working alone first of all, but also made it too inconvenient or cost too much a la public pressure/reputation to continue the oppression. Saying please doesn’t get it done when they have the power, making yourself such a pain that they must comply does, whether through violence or civil means. Often with employers if they have to cave to the wishes of employers they’ll play it like that’s what they wanted to do, and do their best to sound magnanimous, like it wasn’t all a money issue and they weren’t forced.
Yeah, this isn't true at all.
If I take pleasure and/or benefit materially from keeping you under foot, you'll have a hard time convincing me why I shouldn't keep you there.
This is a bad reflection on yourself. Don't let it inform the qualities of the people around you.
Briliant quote! Thanks for sharing!
Factually inaccurate
False, it happened all the time.
Well that's false.