Presentation Transcript

1. Nonviolence in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s

   Theories, critiques, movements, and the Gandhi film.
2. A little bit of background… Frantz Fanon was calling for anti-colonial liberation movements in Algeria, and other North African colonies, and spoke of the cathartic role of armed violence and terrorism. He purported that only violence would rid the oppressed of Western control; due to their insidious ability to weaken and control minds. This was paralleled by the violence deployed by the African National Congress in South Africa; the violent wing of the Congress called ‘The Spear of the Nation’ was co-founded by Nelson Mandela in 1961. Following the death of Martin Luther King (1968), and the ongoing racial conflict in the northern cities, the Civil Rights Movement was eclipsed by the Black Power Movement, led by Stokely Carmichael, and personified by Malcolm X. The Viet Cong were a violent and militarised political organisation that fought the South Vietnamese government and the United States armed forces between 1954 and 1976. They used guerilla attacks and terror tactics to intimidate government employees at local level, and Viet Cong squads were assigned monthly assassination quotas.
3. Why did so many activists and theorists condemn nonviolence with such virulence in the 1960s and 1970s? Look back to the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution to find the roots of these violent insurrections. The European model (internationalised by the Bolsheviks) of using bloodshed as a cleansing force which removes oppressors. ‘Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.’ Maximilien Robespierre, 1794 This idea was developed by Frantz Fanon who argued in The Wretched of the Earth that decolonisation necessitates ‘searing bullets and blood-stained knives’. Indeed, Fanon believed in the redemptive and developmental aspects of violently overthrowing the French in Algeria; it forced subjects to become men. Fanon’s ideas seemed exhilarating and liberating to the colonised nations fighting for emancipation from European powers in the 1950s and 1960s. As the Soviets provided both revolutionary rationale and supplied weapons (as seen in South Africa) violence increasingly became the main tool to taking political power. The success of the militant Viet Cong against the mighty forces of the American army in South Vietnam seemed to valourise and justify the horrific violence and death toll in the region. Guerilla warfare seemed dangerously heroic.
4. Che Guevara: king of the hopeless romantics… The shift of the 1960s and 1970s away from nonviolence was in accordance with the romanticisation of revolutionary violence. Figures such as Che Guevara become icons for young, left-wing campaigners. 1968 – a year of revolution, and attacks on power. What followed was a conservative backlash. The role of the mass media meant that violent insurrections acted as a call for arms, triggering a spate of nationalist movements such as the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Palestine Liberation Army and the Irish Republican Army. This new style of fighting for independence was extremely macho, and largely dominated by men. Indeed, the shift back to alternative conflict resolution in the 1970s also saw the development of the women’s movement who developed alternative, non-hierarchical structures in which to protest and invoke political change.
5. American History X. A history of nonviolence? Hannah Arendt’s On Revolution purports that the American Revolution was successful. There is a notion that American’s have a nonviolent heritage (think about the history of the Quakers and Thoreau’s essay, Civil Disobedience). Do we believe this is true, or is Arendt viewing American history through rose-tinted glasses? Kosek, in his book Acts of Conscious, focuses on the link between American nonviolence and Christian beliefs. He charters pacifism as having a unique tie to American Christians. Kosek places particular focus on Richard Gregg and Gandhism in America.
6. How influential and innovative was Gene Sharp? Sharp’s central argument that dictators require the consent of the people to maintain their regime, and his clarity about the ways in which the people can withdraw their support and therefore bring down the ruling elite is both innovative and extremely influential. His work has been cited across the globe, in nations fighting for liberation such as Burma, Egypt, Estonia and Georgia. Sharp’s various publications, in particular From Dictatorship to Democracy, are still drawn upon in contemporary conflicts. This demonstrates the innovative style and relevance of Sharp’s work, that translates into successful political action. Sharp’s ideas have recently been used by the Ukrainian youth organisation PORA, during the electoral fraud during the Iranian elections, and in the protest movement that toppled President Mubarak of Egypt during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution.
7. Q: What message did Attenborough’s film on Gandhi convey? A: Ben Kingsley is excellent. Parallels were made as the film reached a global audience. At the time when the film was released, 1982, there were mounting conflict around the globe. Certainly in Poland, there were parallels drawn between the Polish leader Lech Walesa during a period when the military government imposed martial law (December 1981 – July 1983). The film offered a secular source of inspiration to fight against the reduced rights of the Polish people following the establishment of the Solidarity movement. The effect of the Gandhi film was also felt in the fight against the kleptocrat Ferdinand Marcos. The main opposition leader, Benigno Aquino, saw the film and voiced his desire for nonviolent and reconciliatory ends to the Marcos regime, gained through open and democratic elections. The assassination of Aquino was the catalyst for the Filipino people to rise up and defeat Marcos, nonviolently. The ideas of using soul force and virtuous methods of achieving democratic outcomes were also being using in Chile. Protestors against Pinochet shouted out in the streets, ‘We have clean hands’. The students and other members of the opposition to the government separated themselves from the violent left-wing insurrectionists.