I'm not entirely convinced by rule 2. For example, the counter example he gives of the IRA prisoners fasting against the British I would argue had a crucial positive effect. It undermined the message of the British government that the IRA were just terrorists without legitimate grievances, and was an important step in the demands of the Irish Republican movement being seen as legitimate in Britain. I'd say it sowed the seeds for the negotiations a decade later.
@camipco As an Irish person I would have to disagree. Those people on hunger strike had set bombs that murdered children. There weren't too many who would have cared if they died. All that their hunger-strike proved was that they were willing to die for ruler-ship of a small piece of land, not only to kill children for it. I think most of us would prefer to die before killing a child, but they would only choose death for themselves when there were no children around to kill.
You may disagree that they were worthy of empathy and many people agree with you, but the fact is that a lot of people were moved think of the IRA differently by the strikes.
The violence in Northern Ireland has all but stopped, and the reason it stopped was that all parties, the leaders of the Republican and Unionist movements and the British government, were willing to sit down together, drop the kind of rhetoric you employ here, and treat each others' grievances as legitimate.
@camipco The second part of the comment is absolutely true, but this has nothing to to with the hunger strikers. They were not nonviolent and no one saw them that way.
All they did was take legitimacy from the whole action of hunger striking, because now when people here hear "hunger strike" that's what they think of.
If the first thing they ever did for their cause was to hunger strike then you would be right. But first they murdered, only when they could not murder anymore did they strike.
I'm open (and ignorant to the field at the moment) - my initial issue of dispute with pacs so far is, 2:47 'positive can not be brought about by negative means' But current human existence is based on past negative conflicts. Also his examples of women saving Muslim, that positive came from that negative situation So without conflict the positive inspiration could not have come about?.
I think the answers to the question lays in this lecture too. When you say "past negative conflicts", do you mean over evolutionary time-scales (millions of years) or political time-scales (thousands of years). In the former case, I would argue that early humans were not fully capable of violence for the same reasons as Duffy, there is the lack of intention and the intellect to foresee the consequences.
In the latter case, who is to say that we might not have a far better current existence if violence (and/or the intention of violence) had not been used in the past? Furthermore, in the example with the women saving the Muslims, if structural violence had not existed, and positive energy had been inputted in the situation right from the very beginning, then the two ethnic groups might have already lived happily together in the same region.
The actions of the women, a demonstration of the "non-violence arsenal", were only used as a "last resort" (note how well the other rules for successful non-violence action are satisfied in this example). Well applied non-violence should more often than not avoid this "last resort" situation.
gbhgfhgfj
julbasur 2 years ago
Great video...more lectures on BigGyan.
lohdeepak 2 years ago
I'm not entirely convinced by rule 2. For example, the counter example he gives of the IRA prisoners fasting against the British I would argue had a crucial positive effect. It undermined the message of the British government that the IRA were just terrorists without legitimate grievances, and was an important step in the demands of the Irish Republican movement being seen as legitimate in Britain. I'd say it sowed the seeds for the negotiations a decade later.
camipco 4 years ago
@camipco As an Irish person I would have to disagree. Those people on hunger strike had set bombs that murdered children. There weren't too many who would have cared if they died. All that their hunger-strike proved was that they were willing to die for ruler-ship of a small piece of land, not only to kill children for it. I think most of us would prefer to die before killing a child, but they would only choose death for themselves when there were no children around to kill.
Rabbitthat 1 year ago 2
@Rabbitthat
You may disagree that they were worthy of empathy and many people agree with you, but the fact is that a lot of people were moved think of the IRA differently by the strikes.
The violence in Northern Ireland has all but stopped, and the reason it stopped was that all parties, the leaders of the Republican and Unionist movements and the British government, were willing to sit down together, drop the kind of rhetoric you employ here, and treat each others' grievances as legitimate.
camipco 1 year ago
@camipco The second part of the comment is absolutely true, but this has nothing to to with the hunger strikers. They were not nonviolent and no one saw them that way.
All they did was take legitimacy from the whole action of hunger striking, because now when people here hear "hunger strike" that's what they think of.
If the first thing they ever did for their cause was to hunger strike then you would be right. But first they murdered, only when they could not murder anymore did they strike.
Rabbitthat 1 year ago
I have setup a facebook group for all interested to join and share ideas.
Simply search for keyword "PACS 164A" in facebook should be able to take you there. (Youtube does not allow naked url in comment)
bundarapapa 4 years ago
I'm open (and ignorant to the field at the moment) - my initial issue of dispute with pacs so far is, 2:47 'positive can not be brought about by negative means' But current human existence is based on past negative conflicts. Also his examples of women saving Muslim, that positive came from that negative situation So without conflict the positive inspiration could not have come about?.
perspectual 4 years ago
lecture 05A 25mins helps to anwser my ignorance, just wish 'truth' was addressed in it properly and not pushed aside til a later date
perspectual 4 years ago
I think the answers to the question lays in this lecture too. When you say "past negative conflicts", do you mean over evolutionary time-scales (millions of years) or political time-scales (thousands of years). In the former case, I would argue that early humans were not fully capable of violence for the same reasons as Duffy, there is the lack of intention and the intellect to foresee the consequences.
KKKKKDAWG 4 years ago
In the latter case, who is to say that we might not have a far better current existence if violence (and/or the intention of violence) had not been used in the past? Furthermore, in the example with the women saving the Muslims, if structural violence had not existed, and positive energy had been inputted in the situation right from the very beginning, then the two ethnic groups might have already lived happily together in the same region.
KKKKKDAWG 4 years ago
The actions of the women, a demonstration of the "non-violence arsenal", were only used as a "last resort" (note how well the other rules for successful non-violence action are satisfied in this example). Well applied non-violence should more often than not avoid this "last resort" situation.
KKKKKDAWG 4 years ago
Beeindruckende Vorlesung!
Brenrhad 4 years ago 4
That story about Gandhi and sugar was really impressive.
It also was a true eye-opener for me that he never fasted against the British but only his own people who loved him.
goldenhind1 4 years ago