On activism

I was listening to a community radio station recently, while going to get the cat litter our cat likes (the local supermarket doesn’t stock it anymore, and results when using what cat litter they do have in stock, have been . . . unsatisfactory – especially with regards to olfactory outcome . . . ). The radio station often has what can be described as specialist human rights programmes. I missed the start of the programme I was listening to, but the speaker (this sounded like a recorded public talk) was addressing the surprising and horrifying history of nazism in Australia. When discussing an event in the 1970s, she described – breathless with passion – how anti-fascists had gone to a suburban house that was (allegedly?) going to become a headquarters of that rightly despised group to demonstrate, but then invaded the house and trashed it – at which point the audience cheered.

I missed the end of the programme as I had arrived at the shop, but I began to wonder.

Let’s assume that the house was going to be used as claimed, and that it was owned by those involved, not rented, perhaps unknowingly: even given that, the actions then, and the reactions now, were major problems – they were, in fact, morally, spiritually, ethically, in every way, WRONG.

My first reaction was that it all sounded immature – like the sort of puerile nonsense on too many high school yards – which is particularly aggravating to those teenagers who are more mature. Those sorts of attitudes can persist, and, as an example, I know of one situation where a taxi driver swore at some passengers, but because one of the young passengers swore back, no action - legal or otherwise -could be taken. The law does not permit or accede to vigilantism, revenge, or getting even in any way – it may make allowances for being human, such as the man who bashed the man he found raping his wife, but it does not do so for immaturity.

Immaturity and limited life experience also restrict choice of action. As an example, I know many people who like, enjoy, and think street marches and demonstrations are a “good thing” - and they can be, there is no question of that, especially given, for instance, the people power that unseated the dictator Marcos in the Philippines, or brought down the Wall in Berlin, or started the Arab Spring (although that went one, maybe two nations too far, given what happened in Syria and Egypt – which is also an indication to study and know these techniques and their limits).

But more importantly, the means shape the end.

The evils of nazism include robbing people of their choice and freedom: imposing another worldview by force not so much repeats, as recycles that error in a slightly different form – but, at its heart, it is still the same error.

Discussion and persuasion and education are the tools for changing people’s hearts, and, noting the great Dr Martin Luther King Jr.’s words that “The law may not change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless”, where that does not work, use discussion and persuasion and education to get fair, just and good laws in place to protect people against the heartlessness of nazism and its adherents and proponents.

All these struggles for a better, fairer, more caring world are connected, and imposing one misguided attempt at a solution to one evil by force harms the other struggles – especially the struggle for peace.

From Paul K Chappell's book “The Art of Waging Peace” (pub. Prospecta Press, reprint 2015, ISBN 978-1632260314 [Amazon]):

“Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that peaceful ends require peaceful means, and if we want to be effective at creating peace in the world, we must first strive to create peace within ourselves.”

The passion of that young woman I heard was undoubted: it was also misguided, or possible naïve or uninformed.

I could speculate about what caused it, perhaps frustration that the world is such a hard place to change, possibly fear that he life would be less because of others hates and fears and sundry flaws, or maybe she simply knew no other way to be or act in this cause, but those are speculations, as I do not know her. The point about knowing no other way to be or act in this cause merits further consideration, and it should also be noted that Dr Martin Luther King Jr. begged US President Johnson for some change, any small change, to give African Americans hope before the wave of race riots in the 1960s, as the situation of African-Americans had become so bereft of any hope.

Before I delve into the point of ways to act, I want to set the scene with a few other sayings.

Let’s begin with more of the great Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.”

(Note that last part: that they will be judged by their character – this is not a call to “let anything go”.)

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral. Returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, add deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”

(A very eloquent summation of the problems of violence. One qualification I would add to this is that emotional and psychological violence, as is actively and often deliberately practised by many of the –isms is also violence.)

Next, US President Harry Truman’s response to McCarthyism, probably the most famous right wing version of the “antifa” movement, and very appropriate in view of my concerns above:

“We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat.”

Going back to Dr Martin Luther King Jr.:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Now, Dr Martin Luther King Jr. was not an advocate for mildness – nor, for that matter, was Mohandas K. “Mahatma” Gandhi (who had some serious personal flaws). For a more nuanced view of Dr King and the changes he made in his life, see here (“there is probably no way, even eliminating violence, for Negroes to obtain their rights without upsetting the equanimity of white folks”) and here (“Despite President Lyndon Johnson’s shepherding of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, ending legal apartheid in the United States, King became even more radical as the decade went on. As he put it in 1967: ‘We aren’t merely struggling to integrate a lunch counter now. We’re struggling to get some money to be able to buy a hamburger or a steak when we get to the counter.’ ”).

Paul K. Chappell writes, in “The Art of Waging Peace”:

“If we compare how much the average twenty-five-year-old army officer knows and waging war and how much the average twenty-five-year-old activist knows about waging peace, there is a big difference. Although I admire their deep commitment to waging peace, many activists have not had enough training in the nonviolent methods that lead to positive change. Many activists have not thoroughly studied the brilliant techniques of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and others who have so much to teach us. . . . Civil rights leader James Lawson, whom Martin Luther King Jr. called “the leading theorist and strategist of nonviolence in the world,” said, “The difficulty with nonviolent people and efforts is that they don’t recognize the necessity of fierce discipline, and training, and strategizing, and planning, and recruiting.”

As an example of the application of that, the US journalist Webb Miller wrote of the amazing discipline of those applying Gandhi’s techniques (for Ahimsa) in his reports, and again in his autobiography “I Found No Peace” (pub. Decoubertin Books, 2013, ISBN 978-0956431318, [Amazon]). In the chapter “They That Turn the Other Cheek”, Miller writes, of the Dharasana (Salt Works) Satyagraha, which was one of the key events in India’s struggle for independence:

“Mme Naidu . . . exhorted them: “Gandhi’s body is in jail but his soul is with you. India’s prestige is in your hands. You must not use any violence under any circumstances. You will be beaten but you must not resist; you must not even raise a hand to ward off blows.”

And that is what happened. Miller continues:

“I could detect no signs of wavering or fear, They marched steadily with heads up, without the encouragement of music or cheering or any possibility that they might escape serious injury or death. . . . Several times the leaders nearly lost control of the waiting crowd. They rushed up and down, frantically pleading with and exhorting the intensely excited men to remember Gandhi’s instructions. . . . The leaders managed to calm the crowd.”

In a much smaller scale, when helping to lobby for changes to my home state’s anti-discrimination legislation in the late 90s, we had a network of people writing letters and emails, but we used the contacts we had inside each party room to direct those people on what topics to focus on and, when our contacts said we were verging on irritating those we were seeking to change, when to stop.

Discipline, and understanding and focusing on those who you are seeking to influence (don't preach to the choir!) is utterly crucial.

Remember always as well: the means shape the end – you cannot defeat a violent repression with another violent repression, no matter how well meant.

As a final thought, if you impose a solution without changing people’s hearts, you also risk having to face a backlash a decade or two later, just as activists who only work with one side of politics risks seeing a change of government undo their work at the next election.