Training for Change. George Lakey, director; Daniel Hunter, program director.  Helping groups stand up for justice, peace, and the environment through strategic non-violence.

border border border border
border border
 Home
 About Us
 Workshops
 Publications
 Articles
 Field Reports
 Books & Manuals
 TFC News Archive
 Tools
 People
 Links
 Site Map
 - - - - - - -

Login Form
Username
Password
Remember me    
Forgotten your password?
Want more tools and handouts? If you are a graduate of a TFC workshop: Create an account

Related Items

Tools

Workshops

Articles & Reports

Books & Manuals

border
border border border border
border border

Glossary of
direct education
terminology
sociogram: an exercise in which participants arrange their bodies to show something about themselves or to stimulate a new awareness. For example, participants are asked to range themselves along a line that shows how long they've been active with a particular cause. See also "spectrum."
Read more...

1744198 Visitors

border
border
Home arrow Publications arrow Articles arrow Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals


Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals   PDF  Print  E-mail 
JUMP TO:
Nonviolent Action as the Sword that Heals
Where can I agree?
Strategy for violent revolution?
Is pacifism axiomatic among progressives?
Were the Jews in the Holocaust nonviolent?
Does nonviolent action depend on threats of violence?
Can\'t governments crush nonviolent movements?
Isn\'t violence advisable for self-defense?
Is nonviolent action a white thing?
Is there a racist division between street actions and alternative building?
Doesn\'t a pragmatic activist want to be open?
Isn\'t nonviolent revolution a contradiction?
How can a pragmatic revolutionist decide?
How can we choose while strategies are getting created?
Footnotes
Page 8 of 15
Isn't violence advisable for self-defense, in combination with other tactics?

It seems only common sense, with the state out to get you, that you supplement community organizing and nonviolent action tactics with armed self-defense. While I know of instances when individual violent self-defense paid off pragmatically, the track record of organizations that have tried that policy is sobering.

The best-known case in the U.S. is the Black Panther Party, which did community organizing, ran educational programs, created breakfast programs for poor children, and adopted a policy of armed self-defense. The Panthers were not developing an armed struggle for social change. That choice enabled them to stay close to the people they were organizing, in contrast to the experiment by the Weather Underground to try to create an armed revolution that resulted in their isolation from the people and political irrelevance.

Even though the Panthers claimed a right to self-defense that many fair-minded U.S. citizens would say is part of our tradition, they were cut down. Their effort to create the capacity for armed self-defense gave the racist federal government the opening it needed to destroy at least one of its enemies.

The government would have liked to destroy the nonviolent Black freedom organizations as well, and F.B.I. chief J. Edgar Hoover did try to destroy the influence of Dr. King, but the government could only go so far in acting against explicitly nonviolent organizations. That's why governments repeatedly pay spies to join nonviolent movements and try to turn them violent. The government often needs movements to be violent in order to be able to repress them effectively.

In a strange twist, there are times when violent forces actually need to be protected by nonviolent action.

When the Black Panther Party wanted to have a national convention in Philadelphia, they had difficulty getting a venue. Quakers gave them the use of their largest Meetinghouse. Police chief Frank Rizzo saw this as an opportunity to swagger and threaten, and no one could be sure what the provocation might lead to. So Quakers circled the Meetinghouse and stood shoulder to shoulder to create a protective shield between the police and the Panthers.

On a larger scale this was repeated in the Philippines during the 1986 overthrow of dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Toward the end of the struggle a part of the army, led by General Ramos, went over to the people's side. Marcos still controlled the larger part of the army, which he ordered to attack Ramos' camp and subdue the rebellion. Catholic radio stations working with the people power movement sounded the alarm. Many thousands of Filipinos rushed to the site, intervened between the Marcos loyalists and the rebels, and nonviolently immobilized the loyalist troops, thereby saving the outgunned rebel soldiers.





go to top Go to Top go to top
powered by mambo open source
border
border
  
[Training]

Training for Change was founded on Martin Luther King's birthday in 1992, a carefully chosen birthday for a group that spreads the skills of democratic, nonviolent social change. Read more about our approach and history.

Above: The Creative Workshop Design, part of the Super-T.

 
MAKE A DONATION

Join us for the long-term success of social movements!

Donate On-Line

You can also send a check to: Training for Change
3241 Columbus Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55407

 


 
Training for Change     3241 Columbus Avenue, South Minneapolis, MN 55407 USA     peacelearn@igc.org     ph:612-827-7323