←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
program_whiz ◴[] No.21125050[source]
Sure, the kid was swinging at the officer, and I suppose that warrants the officer acting in self-defense. But another question is, what are the protesters supposed to do? The government has all the power, and can simply snuff out any resistence. If you just stand in the streets, they really don't care, they are going to take your freedom. Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator that just decided they were going to take all property rights and freedoms like that -- I think taking to the streets, and even resorting to violence might be necessary (otherwise the powers-that-be have no reason to listen to a bunch of people standing in a street hundreds of miles away).
replies(21): >>21125109 #>>21125130 #>>21125159 #>>21125323 #>>21125359 #>>21125396 #>>21125728 #>>21125946 #>>21126113 #>>21126194 #>>21126243 #>>21126597 #>>21128682 #>>21129125 #>>21129256 #>>21129285 #>>21129663 #>>21130428 #>>21131160 #>>21131429 #>>21140974 #
mav3rick ◴[] No.21129663[source]
Do you know about Gandhi's nonviolence and civil disobedience movement ? Not saying this is what's required right now. But ultimately it was that that turned the British public opinion and the Crown was forced to withdraw from the colonies.
replies(3): >>21130215 #>>21132954 #>>21133783 #
flukus ◴[] No.21133783[source]
Civil disobedience worked because it became unprofitable for Britain to stay in the short to medium term, for China it's a territorial claim and they're happy to wait out any lost profits.

Gandhi's first stint at civil disobedience also landed him in jail for 6 years and there was a lot of violence that also played it's role in Indian independence.

Even with an Afghanistan style insurrection it's hard to see China bleeding enough money to give in, so I'm not sure violent means are much of an answer either.

replies(1): >>21200675 #
1. mav3rick ◴[] No.21200675[source]
The public opinion completely turned on the British because of Gandhi and that movement. Colonization was seen for what it was...slavery. Having a whole other continent to supply and feed your country was never unprofitable.