RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Nonviolence Begets Nonviolence

by Barry Clemson 01-08-2009

The dynamics of “violence begets violence” are simple and probably understood by everyone who has ever been in a fight. Unfortunately, the dynamics of “nonviolence begets nonviolence” are not as simple and are not widely understood.  Jesus told us to love our enemies and, when struck, to turn the other cheek. Most people and all nations consider these admonitions to apply only to saints or God. Even the institutional church, with its “just war” doctrine and its cheerleading for particular wars, does not take Jesus’ words seriously in this respect. If we understood the dynamics of “nonviolence begets nonviolence,” we might see what Jesus meant by turning the other cheek.

The USSR sent 300,000 troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968 to stop a process of  democratization. A protracted struggle of nonviolent resistance ensued with the labor unions eventually spearheading the opposition to the invasion. Large numbers of the initial invasion troops had to be replaced within four days because they became so sympathetic to the Czech nonviolent resisters. Such a rapid loss of previously reliable troops is a very high price for an invader.

In 1940 Germany was vastly stronger than Denmark and occupied Denmark with hardly a shot fired. The Danes resisted in subtle ways but mostly gritted their teeth and tolerated the Germans. This largely passive acceptance of Germany ended in 1943 when the Germans tried to arrest the Danish Jews, and the Danes rose up as one and actively, but nonviolently, resisted. More than 95 percent of the Danish Jews were spirited away overnight. In the next six months, almost all of the Jews were smuggled across the bay into neutral Sweden. The Danes reacted heroically, but the German army’s role in all this was most curious.

The German Schutzstaffel (SS), originally formed as Hitler’s bodyguards, was a fanatical and ruthless elite. They were tireless and effective in pursuing the Jews and persecuting the Danes. On the other hand, the Wehrmacht were the ordinary soldiers, the draftees, and these soldiers were a far different story. A number of high-ranking Wehrmacht officers actively helped the Jews escape, and many more looked the other way. Similarly when the Nazis tried to starve Copenhagen into submission, the Wehrmacht basically ignored the large-scale smuggling of food occurring right under their noses. Since there were only a few of the SS in Denmark and the Wehrmacht had become sympathetic to the Danes, the Nazis were severely constrained in what they could do to punish the Danes. The Danish nonviolence begat nonviolence by subverting the Wehrmacht to the point that it would not use violence against the Danes.

My ten months in Mississippi in 1964-65 with the Mississippi Freedom Summer provided a personal perspective on nonviolence begetting nonviolence. Prior to that summer the Klan, often supported by the sheriffs and other parts of the local governments, terrorized and killed local blacks who refused to accept the rigid system of segregation. Mississippi Freedom Summer brought almost a thousand upper class Northern students into the struggle. Before all of us were even in Mississippi, three of our number (Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman) were killed. Between these deaths and a thousand upper class families lobbying the media and the government, a veritable firestorm of publicity engulfed Mississippi and lasted all summer.

The Klansmen, the hard-core haters, were not converted. They were enraged and attempted more violence. Several things happened. First, the moderate citizens of Mississippi, especially the business owners, were alarmed. All this negative publicity was very bad for business. Others simply took a hard look at the evils of segregation. For the first time in their lives they could not pretend that everything was okay with their communities. The moderate citizens, the ones who were basically decent folks, had to act. And they acted to try to restrain the haters.

Second, the federal government sent a small army of FBI agents to try and find the killers who murdered Chaney, Schwerner, and Goodman. The Klan realized that they could no longer kill with total impunity; they would actually have to be careful about it. And since their modus operandi was to kill in large mobs, the Klan members could never be sure that there wasn’t a weak link who might squeal.

Finally, the publicity generated by the Mississippi Freedom Summer and King’s march from Selma to Montgomery pushed the federal government into passing the 1965 voting rights act. This act, which finally allowed large numbers of blacks to vote, resulted in many blacks being elected to office all across the Old South, thus irrevocably changing the entire system of segregation.

Barry Clemson spent 10 months working with SNCC in Mississippi Freedom Summer, June 1964 to April 1965. He is currently a writer (mostly fiction) whose  work  explores themes of nonviolence, and has had careers in software development, university teaching and  research, community development, and construction.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • SisterMarie
    Mr Clemson,

    If you were working to promote equal rights during the 1964-65 time frame, then by now you are well into your 60s. You may have never thought that you'd see the progress that has been achieved. Thank you for your commitment during what was a very dangerous era in the struggle.
  • Ringer
    I remember reading Philip Yancey's similar discussion in What's So Amazing About Grace? I was struck by the possibilities that could follow from grace being extended on a national or international scale. (If I recall correctly, Yancey talks about Civil Rights in the U.S. and about the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa.)

    This was in 2003, and I remember wondering what might have happened had the U.S. not responded to violence (i.e., 9/11) with more violence. What if, instead of bombing Afghanistan and then invading Iraq, we had pledged not to produce more violence? We wouldn't have solved every problem we have now, but I think we (meaning the global community) would be in a much different place.

    Thanks, Mr. Clemson, for your courage.
  • That was such a wonderful, can I say blessed, opportunity. Unfortunately, we were not up to it.
  • In fact, Yancey spoke from personal experience -- he admitted that he himself was a racist to whom King showed the error of his ways.
  • nuclearferret
    "The Klansmen, the hard-core haters, were not converted. They were enraged and attempted more violence. Several things happened. First, the moderate citizens of Mississippi, especially the business owners, were alarmed. All this negative publicity was very bad for business."

    Perhaps if Israel allowed shelling from Hamas to continue and pursued negotiations, the world media would correctly identify the reality of hard-core hate they have for innocent Palestinians and Israelis.
  • You miss the pont. Nonviolence is supposed to go both ways -- and in fact, a recently-published commentary noted that Israel broke cease-fires over 95 percent of the time. Furthermore, Israel has the upper hand, politically and economically, and you better believe that the Palestinians understand that (not so with African-Americans in the South). For that reason Palestinian militants themselves evoke considerable sympathy with the Arab "street" despite their self-destructive actions.
  • RE: Nonviolence is supposed to go both ways
    huh? I missed that memo.
    I think I understand nuclearferet.
    I don't think I understand your comment. "and in fact" seems to link something that went before with something that follows, but I don't see what you are connecting.
  • The goal of nonviolence is not victory but reconciliation. If we're serious about suggesting nonviolence in that part of the world we need to encourage both sides to see its efficacy, and in truth some Palestinians and Israelis have done just that over the decades. Unfortunately, conservative Muslims and Christians have ignored these efforts.

    I wrote what I did because nuclearferret seems to think the violence on Israel's part is purely defensive while the Palestinians hate Israelis because of their religion. Both are categorically false.
  • servantofALLhumanity
    I believe he was saying hamas would be shown as hating Israelis and doing sevier harm to the Palestinians. If that happend it would allow a time that both sides could see the value in peace over arms.
  • Exactly. But, as I was saying, Hamas was voted in by the Palestinians themselves because 1) it was seen as standing up to Israel and 2) probably more importantly, Fatah, the more secular party of which Yassir Arafat was the honcho, was shown to be corrupt. If Hamas was seen as more interested in power than anything else it too will go down; however, it also was a humanitarian organ.
  • I thought the goal of nonviolence was nonviolence.
  • No, the goal of nonviolence is true justice, which is impossible when you're continually at each other's throats.
  • We disagree.
  • You would then disagree with Gandhi, who conceived it in the first place; and King, who borrowed heavily from him, as a way to attain justice. Nonviolence should never be confused with pacifism, which I define as peace at any price for its own sake. After all, by that definition the pre-civil-rights South was peaceful but still dangerous.
  • Good point. I still disagree.
  • On what basis?
  • impossible
  • Elaborate.
  • no room
  • I still don't get what you're saying.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008