I would disagree with that. Unless you are willing to kill and die yourself, you aren’t much into revolution. But rather just paying lip service to an ideal while doing nothing.
Gandhi gets all the credit because he was an easy sell for historical purposes. But the Indian people had a long history of violence and armed rebellion against the British. And during Gandhi’s time, the constant threat of from armed rebellion from the INA, before, during, and after WW2, scared the British more than Gandhi did. The INA, much like the Malcolm X and Black Panthers did for Dr. Martin Luther King, made those in charge more fearful and far more willing to deal with the “more reasonable peaceful side”.
But make no mistake, it was violence and the threat of it that brought the oppressive side to the table to concede rights and equality.
Lemmy is with revolution
I would disagree with that. Unless you are willing to kill and die yourself, you aren’t much into revolution. But rather just paying lip service to an ideal while doing nothing.
And the status quo remains intact.
Like that worthless Mahatma Gandhi.
Gandhi gets all the credit because he was an easy sell for historical purposes. But the Indian people had a long history of violence and armed rebellion against the British. And during Gandhi’s time, the constant threat of from armed rebellion from the INA, before, during, and after WW2, scared the British more than Gandhi did. The INA, much like the Malcolm X and Black Panthers did for Dr. Martin Luther King, made those in charge more fearful and far more willing to deal with the “more reasonable peaceful side”.
But make no mistake, it was violence and the threat of it that brought the oppressive side to the table to concede rights and equality.