I want to thank Joanna Lees for addressing student complacency and the topic of nonviolence in her column "Young adults too complacent" in the Friday edition of the Daily News. Her assertion though, that nonviolence only works if both parties are willing to participate, is incorrect and reflects an all too common misconception of the principles of nonviolence as developed by Adin Ballou, Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King.
Martin Luther King and his followers during the civil rights movement advocated strict adherence to nonviolence. Yet they were often seized upon by police with dogs and fire hoses. The "Freedom Riders" who intentionally violated the segregation laws at bus terminals had their busses bombed and burned. Black citizens were subject to lynching by the Ku Klux Klan, and several white activists were killed in drive-by shootings. Rosa Parks and others were jailed and King had his house fire-bombed. In the women's suffrage movement, Alice Paul and other suffragists were arrested, persecuted and imprisoned in their efforts to secure the passage of the suffrage amendment.
And the British didn't play by nonviolent rules either, particularly when General Reginald Dyer massacred over 400 innocent Indian civilians while wounding 1200 at Amritsar. Yet all three of these nonviolent movements succeeded in exposing social injustice so as to provoke reforms necessary to achieve their goals with far less loss of life than would have resulted from a violent revolution.
What people fail to realize is that nonviolence applied in the pursuit of social justice is not submission or complacency. Rather, it is a form of fighting. One chooses an issue the public will perceive as beyond compromise. Advocates then intentionally allow themselves to become a public victim of the injustice while seizing the "high moral ground," refusing to engage in the unethical and violent. Through such activism, they create a groundswell of public support, setting in motion political mechanisms that bring about reform.
Are democracy and a free press necessary for nonviolence to be successful? Freedoms such as we have in the First Amendment are priceless, but successful nonviolent movements such as the Dutch Resistance Movement, which thwarted the Nazi round-up of Jews in the Netherlands, and the solidarity movement in communist Poland, show that nonviolence can work, even when confronted with dictatorial regimes.
Is nonviolence always successful? No, but neither is violence or military action always successful. Violence may succeed in forcing reform, but it rarely results in reconciliation and often sows the seeds for future violent conflict.
Are there personal risks in pursing strategies of nonviolence? Absolutely. The risks are great and can even result in death, but the willful commitment and sacrifice necessary to take those risks and endure the abuse to which one is subjected leads to tremendous growth in both personal character and spirituality.
Lees is correct when she writes that young adults are complacent. But I challenge everyone to discover those heroes who have used nonviolence, fighting against incredible odds to make our world a more just and moral place.
Write to George atwmwolfe@bsu.edu
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
