Yeah they left because the British empire was collapsing during and after WWII and they knew they would be unable to sustain their presence in India, especially with the rising violence and massive population.

Gandhi had been campaigning for 20 years, but it didn’t have any effect until the British quite literally ran out of steam with zero other options.

If Churchill had won a reelection, it’s likely he would have gripped the remaining colonies for longer which probably would have ended more bloody.

Jinnah saw all the sectarian violence go unresolved under British rule and pushed for an independent Pakistan knowing it wouldn’t just magically disappear after the British left.

Gandhi ironically was assassinated by Hindu extremists for “allowing” Jinnah to succeed in making Pakistan, and now those same extremists make up the current party in power in India.

The joke is that no nonviolent movement ever really succeeded because of the non violence. India and Pakistan gained independence because the British couldn’t control the onslaught of uprisings in their colonies. The civil rights movement succeeded because the government was afraid of violent public outbursts if they didn’t start making serious law changes. Even more irony, MLK was also assassinated.

Both of those events were taken out of historical context and then presented as if nonviolent action was the major cause of change when in reality it was just one part of a much bigger picture.

Exactly my point.

I think the only time “Black Panthers” was mentioned in my 13 years of public education was when somebody asked a random question about Forest Gump.

Agreed, but with a few provisos.

Turning a peaceful protest (march etc) violet is a big no no. If there is seen to be a risk of this, the popularist section will rapidly hemorrhage members. The radicals can use the events as cover/meeting new members, but not go hot on the march. The exception to this is if the government/police go violent. Defensive counter violence is then acceptable. The goal should be to get the “civilian” supporters (think families etc) clear. Then, it’s down to them whether they bolt too, or play whack a mole with the police.

The other proviso is that the radical groups actions should be proportional. The IRA walked this line. When they set major bombs, they gave the authorities enough warning to clear the area of civilians. They were mostly aiming for property damage and disruption, not mass casualties. The times the IRA went past that line did severe damage to their reputation. They need to act to reinforce the position of the other 2 groups, not undermine it.

Yup, exactly like that. Be sure to ask them literally anything else about Indian Independence. For example, when it happened with the followup of when did Gandhi’s high profile protests happen.

The first quote you pulled requires the preceding sentence for context.

Despite these assumptions, from 2000 to 2006 organized civilian populations successfully employed nonviolent methods including boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation to challenge entrenched power and exact political concessions in Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003) and Ukraine (2004–05), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006). The success of these nonviolent campaigns—especially in light of the enduring violent insurgencies occurring in some of the same countries—begs systematic investigation.

The second quote you pulled merely precedes an explanation of how the authors attempted to address the difficulty of separating violent campaigns from nonviolent campaigns.

In many cases, both nonviolent and violent campaigns exist simultaneously among different competing groups… To address these difficulties, we established some standards of inclusion for each of these categories. The list of nonviolent campaigns was initially gathered from an extensive review of the literature on nonviolent conflict and social movements. Then we corroborated these data using multiple sources, including encyclopedias, case studies, and a comprehensive bibliography on nonviolent civil resistance by April Carter, Howard Clark, and Michael Randle. Finally, the cases were circulated among experts in nonviolent conflict who were asked to assess whether the cases were appropriately characterized as major nonviolent conflicts, and also which notable conflicts had been omitted. Where the experts suggested additional cases, the same corroboration method was used. The resultant data set includes major resistance campaigns that are primarily or entirely nonviolent.

Other examples:

• Chat Control in the EU (passed the parliament after numerous failed attempts even though a majority voted against it)
• The SAVE Act in the US (passed the House after numerous failed attempts through an unrelated “must-pass” budget bill)
• Canada’s Bill C-22 (hasn’t passed yet, but the mass surveillance apparatus wants to push it through)
• Not putting Trump and his co-conspirators in prison after the January 6th violent coup attempt
• Not prosecuting anyone from the Panama Papers (which seems to have been almost entirely forgotten in the public view)
• Not prosecuting or arresting any of the Epstein criminals in the US

And those are just very recent examples.

As usual, nonviolence only works if enough of the opposing force is not ruthless and unscrupulous.

Basically the ones in control of the violence agreed with the public, meanwhile the American brass has been getting shuffled around like nobodys buisness.

they kinda tried tough.

there is a lot of unpack here, a lot of it is kinda quite untrue.

Pinochet died in house arrest in 2006 while on trial, yes, justice wasn’t really made he died of old age before being jailed by his crimes, thanks to the scumbag of Frei Jr.

But the thing is that Pinochet did wanted to claw onto power, at least up to 1997, he tought he gathered legitimate support amongst the poppulation and decided to try to win cleanly to appease the international pressure, (it wasn’t so far fetched, in the 1988 plebiscite he got 42% of the votes, and won in places like araucania).

And when the old guard managed to defeat Pinochet on it’s own game, history records that Pinochet wanted to do a self coup d’etat and not to recognize the results, but the other junta generals, seeing the writhing on the wall, moved faster, and that’s how you have General Matthei telling the press that the NO had won to the press, while on it’s way to the meeting on wich Pinochet supposedly wanted to plan the coup.

Democracy came back, Chileans were free once again, and the leader of the Opposition, old guard politician, Mr Aylwin, became president.

At the very beginning of democracy there was a strong desire for national reconciliation (see protestors/No victory celebrators hugging cops image), Chilean society was torn apart and people wanted to reunite (remember a 40% still supported Pinochet at the time), but as the truth started to came out, of the heinous crimes that happened during Pinochet, the desire for justice became way more important, but it took a long time, all the politica and legal infraestructure they set up to protect themselves had to be dismantled, but it was, and they started to be prosecuted See this hilarious clip of the director of the secret police being arrested (to wich they reacted by threatening the Aylwin’s govt with a new coup), wich added to the fact that the, now opposition, right wing, still tried to defend many of them, made it slow.

The international support never existed outside the US, there always was international solidarity for the Chilean cause for freedom and democracy, and even in the US, the support went away fast after they impeached Nixon, by 1988, when the plebiscite was, the regime was already accustomed to being an international pariah, something the NO’s campaign even mocked him for.

But overall, there is nothing i love the most in this world than the NO’s campaign, and how they promised chile that they could vote without fear, and that they could dream for a future in wich people could be free, A joy that would come, if they voted NO.

Aaanyways, Greetings from chile, a country where i was fortunate to be born, and to be born free and in democracy because my grandparents and parents voted NO that day.

It definitely feels risky giving unsolicited feedback, because maybe it’s not wanted.

I also wonder how much of my fear was shaped by r/comics somewhat brutal and arbitrary moderation. I think there was an explicit rule about not saying anything negative, as if the sub were a site to encourage women to take photos of themselves.