With Black History Month coming to a close, let’s seriously consider the nature of non-violent protest in today’s America. Some who currently claim the moniker of “non-violent protestor†betray the very concept of the originators. They have subverted an ideal and distorted it into a form of protest that encourages the perpetration of violence.
Although Henry David Thoreau is considered the originator of this movement, Mahatma Gandhi receives accolades for raising the practice to new levels. One who truly embraces Gandhi’s form of non-violent protest understands he espoused satyagrha – social action based on truth, courage and non-violence. He believed it was more important the way people behaved, than what they achieved. Although he firmly believed in non-violence, Gandhi held that violence was better than cowardice.
Let’s look at the present-day non-violent protestors and see how they compare to the ideals. Some protestors actually encourage the use of violence against them. Groups from the interminable World Bank protests fall into this category. They endanger the health and livelihood of others – many of which have no ties to that which they are protesting. They chain themselves across streets and building entrances. The authorities have no choice but to remove them forcibly. They have invented methods which make their removal more difficult by using special handcuffs and PVC pipes. How can this be considered as a non-violent goal? To be arrested has become a badge of honor within such organizations.
This is not at all what Gandhi advocated. In fact, his reaction to arrest was: “When any person in authority seeks to arrest a civil resister, he will voluntarily submit to the arrest, and he will not resist the attachment or removal of his own property, if any, when it is sought to be confiscated by authorities.â€
And, the “truth†– that which Gandhi thought was crucial to his practice — has been lost in the noise. Many protestors resort to yelling inflammatory statements or bearing inflammatory signs. Somehow “Death to Pigs,†seen in a recent California protest against the shooting of a young criminal by police, fails to convey a true belief. It is a message of hate designed to illicit a visceral response – and does not embody the true intent of non-violent protest. Another interesting sign from an IMF protest said: “I Am Here, I Am Queer, And I Hate the IMF.†Now, I’m not sure what the purpose of this sign was. Is it this guy’s international “coming out†party, or is his sexual preference somehow related to IMF activities?
There are Web sites dedicated to the how, what and where of non-violent protest. It has become a religion, in its own rite. It is often no longer a method to achieve a particular goal; it is a way of life searching for an object, practice or organization on which to focus. Practitioners of this new form of non-violent protest become enamored of the ideal – the David against Goliath fantasy. Do they truly believe in a cause; or, do they just enjoy in the ritual?
The militant “non-violent†protestors (to use an oxymoron) often refuse to allow protestors with opposite viewpoints to stand near them. Apparently, First Amendment rights are only available for the like-minded. I have included a link below which provides a first-person account of such an event.
In fairness, many non-violent protestors still conform to the original principles advocated by Gandhi and practiced by Martin Luther King. These idealists are passionate about a specific cause. However, they are becoming increasingly overshadowed by those embracing the act of civil disobedience in lieu of the cause.