Support NeoGAF

[maharg]

Those can gain you a lot of sympathy, but not necessarily action. The UN is pretty much paralyzed by the very countries a lot of these smaller countries feel trampled by, which doesn't leave a lot of avenues of diplomatic action.

And not to diminish Gandhi's achievements, because what he did was amazing and terribly rare, but that is exactly the problem. It is *rare*. And the British Empire was not exactly at its height at the time. Would peaceful protest have saved the United States from unfair taxation?

 

[KingV]

Hmmm, point taken. I'll have to think about that some more.

 

[Saturnman]

Diplomatic means, peaceful protest. See also, Gandhi http://www.engagedpage.com/gandhi.html

Do you hear a peep out of Chechnya? I haven't in years. No journalists are allowed there except on very rare occasions and in controlled circumstances (last time was when the Russia-selected president of Chechnya was assassinated). Russia is free to do whatever it wants there. Peaceful protests are useless if the rest of the world is not there to listen. Those peaceful Chechen protesters, if there are any, are either in jail, missing or dead.

 

[videogamer]

Those can gain you a lot of sympathy, but not necessarily action. The UN is pretty much paralyzed by the very countries a lot of these smaller countries feel trampled by, which doesn't leave a lot of avenues of diplomatic action.

And not to diminish Gandhi's achievements, because what he did was amazing and terribly rare, but that is exactly the problem. It is *rare*. And the British Empire was not exactly at its height at the time. Would peaceful protest have saved the United States from unfair taxation?

What exactly is "unfair taxation"? It has been asked if the United States even wanted taxation from Britain at all, even with representation. The colonies were used to a life without British taxation, and the British had spent money and troops defending the colonies during the 7 Years War. It might have been a case of whiny colonists chafing under a suddenly attentive parent country.

 

[maharg]

Ahem, rather beside the point.

 

[videogamer]

Ahem, rather beside the point.

I thought that everything you post here is subject to criticism.

 

[RiZ III]

Apparently, they wanted to start a new war across the Caucasus.

Appearing on Russian state television, the unidentified man said the attack was ordered by Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov and Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev.

"They gathered us in the woods and 'The Colonel' said that we should take over a school in Beslan. That was our order," he said.

"When we asked why we were doing this, what our goal was, 'The Colonel' answered us, 'Because we need to start a war across the Caucasus."

He said the hostage-takers included Uzbeks, Arabs and Chechens

 

[KingV]

I think that settles the "They'd do it peacefully if they could" meme.

 

[Phoenix]

Diplomatic means, peaceful protest. See also, Gandhi http://www.engagedpage.com/gandhi.html

While I think that it is possible for that to work, I think that more often than not it doesn't work out that cleanly. Take a look at all of the marches before the Iraq invasion, as an example. You had considerable protests, but that didn't lead to any change at all in the positions of the parties preparing to go to war. Pundits around the world were talking about 'regime change' in the US and Britain as a result of all the protests - yet here we are.

As powerful as protest is, we live in societies where the decisions are not up to the majority. Once those leaders are appointed, they can do (most) anything they want whether it is contrary to popular opinion or not.

While war/uprisings/conflicts don't necessarily solve problems they does one thing - allow darwinian evolution of cultural ideals and norms. Only though all of this conflict (which is a natural and normal part of the human condition IMO) do societies evolve. They are forced to change for a new breed of citizen. This is a good thing.

 

[videogamer]

Do you hear a peep out of Chechnya? I haven't in years. No journalists are allowed there except on very rare occasions and in controlled circumstances (last time was when the Russia-selected president of Chechnya was assassinated). Russia is free to do whatever it wants there. Peaceful protests are useless if the rest of the world is not there to listen. Those peaceful Chechen protesters, if there are any, are either in jail, missing or dead.

I think it also kind of has to do with Russia's zachistki operations in Chechnya over the past few years. The reported tortures and the egregious lack of respect for civil rights is sure to breed resentment in the population. The Chechens went through a lot, and the presence of "black widows" suggests that some in the population do not want a peaceful independence... perhaps they want justice for whom they perceive as dead innocents.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/europe/1480159.stm

 

[FightyF]

Bizarro, turns out you were right!

What about human nature or the world has changed to the point where now, all of a sudden and contrary to 3000 years of history, things "will never end" in these sorts of situations? They "ended"-- or at least subsided for substantial periods of time-- dozens of times in the past, and yet now these situations are sources of endless and perpetual violence-- virtual tinderboxes in many cases.

Well, how many of these recent conflicts have lasted more than 100 years? Many of them started at the end of colonialism, which for nations such as India and Pakistan (the Kashmir crisis), they became independant from the British only a little over 50 years ago.

As these countries gain independance, they go through a whole lot of problems. The US itself is no exception.

I'm honestly asking this, because personally I have no explanation for it. I'd like to say that people nowadays have a fuller understanding of their rights as human beings, except for the tiny fact that the majority of the world still exists under systems which are not democratic in nature, and, further, many of the agitators are not beholden to democratic, humanistic ideologies; so I ask how they would even have a conception of what they are owed and what they deserve?

No, I don't think so personally. Many people don't know their rights as human beings because they haven't been given it. If you grew up in a country like Pakistan, which is rife with corruption, you're understanding of justice would be different that growing up here. Over here, you understand that if a policeman gives you a ticket, you can fight it in a court of law. In Pakistan, you have to pay off the Police officer a good amount to avoid going to jail. So you would not have been showed what you deserve, so you don't even think it exists, or it is unachievable and impossible.

Secondly, many of the agitators come from democratic countries that supposedly hold humanistic ideologies. Let's take a look at this specific situation, Russian soldiers are known to rape Chechen women. Just because the Russian are currently a democratic nation doesn't mean that they aren't capable of commiting widespread atrocities.

Certainly western culture is not so omnipresent as to have infiltrated every corner of the globe and caused such a radical shift in people's mentalities to this end, right? I dunno...but I would love to hear other people's opinions.

Western culture is a mix of different feelings. Some Westerners feel that all others should die, and that the solution is to kill all foreigners. Some Westerners think that diplomacy and dialogue is the best way to solve problems. Western culture is a mix of differing ideologies and the rest of the World sees this gradient of ideologies. Take a look at Canada's foriegn policy, and compare it to the US's. There is a huge difference, and the way the World perceives both countries features a similarily sized difference.

Just some things to think about...

As far as why this situation that just occurred in Russia would occur, people have to realize one phrase to understand why. "An eye for an eye".

This concept is held within the Abrahamic traditions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) and the problem is that it is misinterpreted, especially when these people feel that they are under duress. The Torah/Bible/Koran speak of 2 different yet related topics. Justice and Revenge. An eye for an eye is supposed to be a topic of Justice, but in most recent cases, it looks to be simply petty revenge (which as we all know makes the situation worse). There is a fine line, which is why we see a lot of problems. When is "an eye for an eye" acceptable? When isn't it? Why does God say on one hand, "an eye for an eye" and then on the other, "turn the other cheek"? It's not a contradiction, but 2 different situations where different solutions must be applied. Do these people who claim to fight for God realize this? Well, they should but it's obvious that they don't. A Godly solution makes the situation better, not worse. The Torah/Bible/Koran is clear that it's better for people to forgive...and while it's harder, it's better. Why don't they reach a whole other level of piety and practice some patience? It goes back to my earlier point, it's all about revenge, fueled by hate and anger.

 

[KingV]

While I think that it is possible for that to work, I think that more often than not it doesn't work out that cleanly. Take a look at all of the marches before the Iraq invasion, as an example. You had considerable protests, but that didn't lead to any change at all in the positions of the parties preparing to go to war. Pundits around the world were talking about 'regime change' in the US and Britain as a result of all the protests - yet here we are.

As powerful as protest is, we live in societies where the decisions are not up to the majority. Once those leaders are appointed, they can do (most) anything they want whether it is contrary to popular opinion or not.

While war/uprisings/conflicts don't necessarily solve problems they does one thing - allow darwinian evolution of cultural ideals and norms. Only though all of this conflict (which is a natural and normal part of the human condition IMO) do societies evolve. They are forced to change for a new breed of citizen. This is a good thing.

While yes, there were large Iraq protests, I don't think you can directly compare them to the civil rights movement or Indian Independence. The nonviolence just wasn't there. Anti-Iraq War protesters lent the impression of an unruly mob. Many of their slogans were nonsensical, at best. Many of the protests took part in countries not affiliated with the War in Iraq. Why would the American government listen to protesters in France, or Belgium, or wherever else?

Where did the protestors go after 1 week? Where are they now? They only show up to throw rocks and chant nonsense every time there's a RNC, WTO meeting, or G8 summit. Last time I checked, the civil rights movement took several years. There's no clear goal or unity behind the protests. The Civil Rights Movement was organized, with clear leaders, clear goals, and followed a multi-tiered approach to achieving their goals peacefully, including boycott, protest, judicial, and political measures. The Anti-Iraq War protests take place for 1 week every 6 months (estimated), are primarily an unruly mob, and range from wanting everything from withdrawal from Iraq to total Anarchy the world over, depending on who you talk to. I think that directly comparing the two is a stretch, there's just too many differences.

One last thing, anybody that believed that there would be an armed overthrow of the government due to the Iraq War Protests is seriously delusioned.

 

[FightyF]

While yes, there were large Iraq protests, I don't think you can directly compare them to the civil rights movement or Indian Independence. The nonviolence just wasn't there. Anti-Iraq War protesters lent the impression of an unruly mob. Many of their slogans were nonsensical, at best. Many of the protests took part in countries not affiliated with the War in Iraq. Why would the American government listen to protesters in France, or Belgium, or wherever else?

Where did the protestors go after 1 week? Where are they now? They only show up to throw rocks and chant nonsense every time there's a RNC, WTO meeting, or G8 summit. Last time I checked, the civil rights movement took several years. There's no clear goal or unity behind the protests. The Civil Rights Movement was organized, with clear leaders, clear goals, and followed a multi-tiered approach to achieving their goals peacefully, including boycott, protest, judicial, and political measures. The Anti-Iraq War protests take place for 1 week every 6 months (estimated), are primarily an unruly mob, and range from wanting everything from withdrawal from Iraq to total Anarchy the world over, depending on who you talk to. I think that directly comparing the two is a stretch, there's just too many differences.

You have a point about the different types of people there, marching for different reasons, but for the most part they haven't been violent at all. I'm guessing that less than 1% ever posed a problem.

Compare that to the situation in India where Indians were attacking the British, amid Ghandi's protest. The British were smart enough to see 2 different movements...I guess some Americans didn't want to see a difference between the violent and the non-violent protesters.

Protesting works in a situation where the conflict isn't violent to begin with. In cases like Russia/Chechya, there is constant violence and political moves that really hurt the situation.

Let's assume that Chechens decided to protest the new Pro-Russian leader, they would be instantly labelled as terrorists, arrested overnight and God-knows-what will happen to them. In this situation it just doesn't make sense.

 

[maharg]

I thought that everything you post here is subject to criticism.

It certainly is, but I did not exactly state a detailed opinion about whether the US had a right or responsibility to succeed. Only that they did so through armed revolt, and that probably peaceful marches would not have done much (in 1776) to change things, whether they objectively needed changing or not.

Hence, a tangent, and one that I have no strong opinions about and so do not want to argue.

 

[videogamer]

It certainly is, but I did not exactly state a detailed opinion about whether the US had a right or responsibility to succeed. Only that they did so through armed revolt, and that probably peaceful marches would not have done much (in 1776) to change things, whether they objectively needed changing or not.

Hence, a tangent, and one that I have no strong opinions about and so do not want to argue.

Sorry.

kingv: The protests are more organized than you give credit. The NY protests were organized by United for Peace and Justice. Not everyone throws rocks and "chant nonsense". Also, the protests were going on with a much greater frequency than every six months. Perhaps the larger marches, but there were many, many smaller protests that occured all over the country practically every week. I don't think you've looked too hard into protesting yourself and thus unfamiliar with what is going on in the protests.

 

[KingV]

Sorry.

kingv: The protests are more organized than you give credit. The NY protests were organized by United for Peace and Justice. Also, not everyone throws rocks and "chant nonsense". I don't think you've looked too hard into protesting yourself and thus unfamiliar with what is going on.

edit: Actually, what I mean to say is, while yes there is some over-arching group organizing the protests who is the Anti-Iraq "leader" who makes the speeches that people listen to? Who sets the clear overarching goal? There's hundreds of groups with hundreds of pet causes protesting the war for hundreds of reasons. Even if there is a group that organized the protests, what is the actual "goal" of the war protesters. Clearly, originally it was not to attack Iraq, but what now? From what I've seen, there are no national interviews with intelligent protest leaders laying out a clear case for why the War on Iraq is counter productive, further, while a 100,000 person protest in one city is big, it's by no means a majority or even necessarily reflective of popular public opinion. The politicis of the Iraq war, being a relatively evenly split issue, shows this.

I embellished by saying rock throwing, but the most noticed protesters are also the craziest. What about that cracked out looking chick that broke in to the RNC and tried to rush the stage, or the numerous reports of the protestors verbally harassing convention-goers, or the people during the Iraq War in S.F. that staged a "puke in" as a protest. Who wants to be associated with that? How does that change people's minds? Puking on the steps of City Hall is not intelligent political discourse. I realize that this is a small minority, but it ruins it for the great majority.

 

[KingV]

You have a point about the different types of people there, marching for different reasons, but for the most part they haven't been violent at all. I'm guessing that less than 1% ever posed a problem.

Compare that to the situation in India where Indians were attacking the British, amid Ghandi's protest. The British were smart enough to see 2 different movements...I guess some Americans didn't want to see a difference between the violent and the non-violent protesters.

Protesting works in a situation where the conflict isn't violent to begin with. In cases like Russia/Chechya, there is constant violence and political moves that really hurt the situation.

Let's assume that Chechens decided to protest the new Pro-Russian leader, they would be instantly labelled as terrorists, arrested overnight and God-knows-what will happen to them. In this situation it just doesn't make sense.

I'll admit that I still have no clue what the "right" answer is for the Chechens, and I feel their plight to some degree. I'll say that whatever groups that are murdering children for this cause are doing their cause a great disservice, as well as the Muslim community as a whole. They done little but dehumanize themselves, and other Chechens as inhuman savages. I can't say what the "right" answer is, but I certainly know that blowing up schoolhouses is not it.

 

[videogamer]

You're right, I know mostly what I saw on the news and at college. I embellished somewhat as well. I still insist that these protests are not directly comparable to the civil rights movement.

I think that there was also a negative impression on some viewers when they saw black people protesting and not being in their place. Also, many student protesters didn't have a good reputation back during that time either.

 

[KingV]

I think that there was also a negative impression on some viewers when they saw black people protesting and not being in their place. Also, many student protesters didn't have a good reputation back during that time either.

Civil Rights movements also enacted change over several decades, not one week.

 

[videogamer]

Civil Rights movements also enacted change over several decades, not one week.

Did I ever say anything about the current protest movement's efficacy over time? I was talking about the protests/protesters themselves, issues that you brought up.

The civil rights movement was done in about one decade (not several), if you start with Rosa Parks and end with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Also, I assume that the current style of protests started around Seattle WTO in 2000. It's been about 4 years already. Perhaps the current style of protests started earlier... I have a hazy memory... I remember ealier protests, but Seattle was the big one.

 

[PS2 KID]

Article about the reaction in the Arab media regarding this tragedy. Good read.

Self-criticism in Arab media follows school siege

 

[Phoenix]

While yes, there were large Iraq protests, I don't think you can directly compare them to the civil rights movement or Indian Independence. The nonviolence just wasn't there. Anti-Iraq War protesters lent the impression of an unruly mob.

Not sure where you got that impression from because the press that I observed didn't present that impression. Those protesters were very organized and non violent for the most part. I think your view of the civil rights movement is a bit skewed as well. While some of the movements were organized, focussed, and non-violent there were plenty of parts of the civil rights movement that were violent (black panther, no justice - no peace, etc). Any movement has its violent and non-violent side. There will be those willing to let the system work, and those who don't believe in the system and believe that whatever action must be taken is justified.

In my view, this is human nature and its going to happen. Cultural/sociological evolution is just as important as physical evolution.

One last thing, anybody that believed that there would be an armed overthrow of the government due to the Iraq War Protests is seriously delusioned.

Again you poison your position by making assumptions. The protesters wanted to be heard and felt that since we did these things ANYWAY that they were ignored - and for all intents and purposes, they were.