"Nonviolent resistance becomes a “force more powerful” to the extent that it takes away a regime’s capacity to assert control. To succeed, a nonviolent movement cannot simply take a principled stand for “nonviolence.” It has to devise a strategy for action. In turn, this strategy must broadly communicate goals, mobilize people and select sanctions to punish opponents. To shift the momentum of conflict in their favor, nonviolent resisters must diversify the scope and variety of these sanctions, defend their popular base against repression and exploit their opponents’ weaknesses and concessions. In this way they undermine the regime’s claim to legitimacy."
"Those who lead an authoritarian or unjust system will then lose support inside and outside the country. When they see they can no longer count on repression to maintain control, they will begin to realize that their prospects for staying in power are no longer favorable. The result may be that they surrender, or compromise with the nonviolent movement, or even forswear oppression and cede power to the resisters. Any outcome will ultimately have to be confirmed by the nonviolent movement."
"Many times in the twentieth century, movements that spoke for the people had occasion to choose between violent insurrection and nonviolent resistance as the way to seek power. Many were seduced by the romance of revolutionary violence, believing (in Mao Zedong’s famous words) 'power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' Although violence can instill fear for a time or destroy lives and property, it cannot force people to give its users their consent — something they need to maintain their position.
In the stability and endurance of democracies, the political philosopher Hannah Arendt saw a superior notion of power: 'when...the Romans spoke of the civitas as their form of government, they had in mind a concept of power and law whose essence did not rely on the command-obedience relationship.' In the eighteenth century, the leaders of the political revolutions in America and Europe resurrected this same idea in their republics, 'where the rule of law, resting on the power of the people, would put an end to the rule of man over man.'"
"By dissolving the people’s consent to authoritarian rule, nonviolent resisters throughout the twentieth century not only neutralized repression. They also established democratic rule in country after country. Thanks to their efforts, a robust alternative to violence as a way to advance great causes and overturn injustice exists in the twenty-first century."
Those words are spoken by those involved with the documentary. These words enforce what Gandhi taught in the early 1900s, what he taught to influence the next generation of nonviolent resistance. In the readings for class, we discussed the difference between violence and nonviolence and the process of a successful nonviolent resistance campaign. In the film, one gentlemen states that "nonviolence means fighting back. But you are fighting back with other weapons." In the documentary, these other weapons were protests, strikes, and noncooperation, something that both the readings and the discussions have discussed and viewed as a very successful method of nonviolent resistance. The documentary and the readings I have completed in the class have shown that nonviolent resistance can take power from authority and can bring the power back to the people. This documentary successfully showed how a variety of people in a variety of situations have been able to take power back and take back their countries.
This documentary not only helped to enforce my knowledge of nonviolent resistance, but opened my eyes to the variety of methods and the variety of possibilities that can be achieved by denouncing violence and adopting those methods that both Gandhi and King so deeply believed in.
7.19.2010
A Q&A with the Producer of the documentary
The following question and answer is featured on aforcemorepowerful.org. It provides an inside look at the documentary and the opinions of those involved with the conflict.
Filmmaker Steve York and series editor Peter Ackerman talk about nonviolent conflict and the making of A Force More Powerful.
Q: How did A FORCE MORE POWERFUL get started?
Ackerman: In a sense, the project germinated a quarter century ago with my doctoral dissertation: "Strategic Aspects of Nonviolent Resistance Movements." This served as the starting point for a book I co-authored with Christopher Kruegler in 1994, Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. Jack DuVall brought the book to Steve York's attention; Steve believed these stories would offer gripping material for a documentary.
As a graduate student at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the late sixties and early seventies, I was interested in "asymmetric conflicts," where one side had the preponderance of military power but still lost. New factors were in play that were more psychological and political than material. Guerrilla warriors like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara were, for many in liberation movements, the heroes then. At that time, I began to wonder about conflicts in which the asymmetry was total - that is to say, when one side fighting for their lives, freedom, or rights had no viable military option whatsoever. What did they do? In many places, they used nonviolent strategies, including strikes, noncooperation, and an infinite variety of protests and even nonviolent sabotage.
In the 1980s, these nonviolent techniques came increasingly into play as country after country was transformed into a working democracy, culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the victory over apartheid in South Africa. To my way of thinking there was not enough acknowledgment by foreign policy elites that these were not isolated events. These were successful "wars," but the brilliant part was that the winning sides weren't fighting with guns and bombs but with innovative nonviolent methods. Sure there was violence happening all over the world in the 20th century, but nonviolent power was prevailing too.
Q: How do you put all that scholarship and strategy on screen - and do people want to see that?
York: What you put on screen are stories and people. You show ideas personified. The drama is in the history. When I was in India, I walked along the dusty road leading to the beach where Gandhi broke the salt law. It looks about the same as it did in 1930 and it's nothing special, but what Gandhi did there is remarkable, and it gives the place a quiet sense of power. I'm not talking about the kind of power we associate with presidents or prime ministers; I mean the power of moral courage, and personal action.
I'm still amazed at what James Lawson, at the age of 30, was able to accomplish in Nashville in 1960, and what Mkhuseli Jack accomplished in South Africa in the early 1980s at the age of 27. They're not considered "powerful" people, even today, but they understood the power of ideas. Being in the presence of people like that is an incredible reminder that ideas matter, and that human intelligence and ingenuity can prevail.
Q: Why does nonviolent conflict work?
Ackerman: Part of the underlying force of nonviolent resistance is that people who undertake it believe wholeheartedly in what they're doing, because they deeply feel the justice of their cause. In contrast, conventional warfare is often waged for greedy, aggressive purposes and fought by persons who have been conscripted into the fight by their government.
Nonviolent action always has the potential to prevail against ruthless opponents because it can be conducted on a huge scale and involves every citizen who wants to play a part. Its techniques flow from the disruption of the everyday normalities that the tyrant counts on to maintain power. You see it time and again, in India, in Poland, in Chile, in South Africa - millions of people became part of these movements as much as by what they refused to do as by what they did.
That is not to say that nonviolent conflict is easy to wage. It involves willingness to suffer and to be hurt but not to retaliate and cause others to hurt. Gandhi often said there were many things he was willing to die for, but nothing he was willing to kill for. In nonviolent conflict, people are willing to be beaten, or jailed, or even killed, and they will only defend themselves with their convictions, their willingness to persevere and the force of their strategy. The result of this discipline, over time, is to make the aggressor see that what he wins militarily or through terror he cannot keep for very long without massively increasing the resources required to suppress all aspects of civil society.
York: Nonviolent movements often form in response to out-and-out tyranny, but rather than subduing people, repression often energizes them. It rouses public sentiment from the center, the core, that moderate middle that won't act until the extremes are cast into dramatic relief. The tide turned in Nashville, for example, when the home of a prominent black lawyer was bombed. Such acts of violence fueled the nonviolent ranks of the civil rights movement, rallied the African-American community, engaged the white community, and caught the attention of media and government, because the contrast was devastating.
Q: So why, as you claim, is nonviolent action so misunderstood and under appreciated?
Ackerman: Several reasons, but I think the main one is that government wages war, or some organized authority uses violence, whereas nonviolent action is a diffused people's action, and so it's not easily seen and followed. And because, in small groups, people can be brought out to protest almost anything, there's a "fringe element" that taints some of these ideas. For example, I heard recently that certain animal rights activists protested an episode of the Survivor TV show because someone on the program roasted a rat for dinner, and these protestors were defending the rights of rats. Now the animal rights people have actually waged a very successful campaign over the past 20 years to get people to stop wearing fur, to lessen cruelty to animals in mean and gratuitous ways, to make people more sensitive to the feelings and lives of other creatures besides humans, and that's a good thing. But then you get a bunch of people marching in front of CBS screaming "Save the Rats," the media jump on it and people think: "Aha! crazy activists." So there's this impression that the only bona fide power struggles are those that are fought militarily and that nonviolent strategy can only be used by powerless fringe groups, which are barely tolerated in benign societies.
Another important aspect of why nonviolent conflict is misunderstood and under-appreciated is because it's so diverse in its practice and methods and participants. The media (much less historians) don't know how to recognize where it is operating. If country A sends troops into country B, the sides are clearly defined and, literally, the battle lines are drawn. If you're not dealing with international conflict between huge armies, but rather with efforts to undermine the entrenched power of the autocrat or invader, and you combine that with cumulative action by many people on many fronts - a boycott here, a demonstration there, a petition, a work-slowdown - the location is no longer clear. Where do the media send the cameras, or how does a historian frame a simple narrative?
Q: The media often focus on leaders. Is that a good way to delve into nonviolent movements?
Ackerman: There are two important things about leadership in these conflicts. One is that the leaders themselves are often reluctant leaders and even more reluctant heroes. They're not power mad, they're not looking for glory -- some of them don't especially want to be leaders; they just want to stop the tyranny or the inequity, whatever. Which brings us to the second point, which is that when there is no clear leadership, movements lose their focus and momentum.
York: The American civil rights movement has become identified with Martin Luther King Jr., who was a phenomenal leader - but the fact is, he wasn't alone. In Nashville, Jim Lawson and Bernard Lafayette were central to the Nashville protests. Lawson was, in fact, one of the architects of the civil rights movement, because he trained students and other demonstrators in nonviolent tactics that he himself learned from Gandhi's people in India. But in many nonviolent conflicts, a paramount leader may not be necessary, because ordinary people on their own initiative can take nonviolent action.
Q: Both of you speak exclusively of nonviolent conflict, nonviolent action, but you never use the terms "nonviolence" or "passive resistance." Why?
Ackerman: This is something I feel strongly about. It's not a semantic distinction; it's the critical difference between action and inaction. What Gandhi did and what the people in Chile did and what Lech Walesa did was anything but passive. They didn't just sit there. They went out and did pro-active things. They held strikes and they organized boycotts and they put themselves in harm's way precisely because their actions punished their military oppressors. You can attach the word "nonviolent" to all kinds of initiatives, including unorthodox techniques of seeking influence in a parliamentary setting. But the term, nonviolent conflict makes it clear that you're talking about using nonviolent weapons, nonviolent activism, in the most serious battles for fundamental human rights.
Confusion can sometimes be created with the term nonviolence. For example, UNESCO has designated this as the Decade of Peace and Nonviolence, which is about people being good to each other, changing personal behavior to reflect lifestyle choices that acknowledge the common good, defining one's own ethical positions. Now that's fine, good work. But we're talking about strategic nonviolent conflict, the use of nonviolent strategies, whether people have access to violent weapons or not. There have been many cases of people who have chosen nonviolent approaches even when they had military options, and this is very important to understand. People in nonviolent struggles are not unarmed - they are simply not armed with violent weapons, but make no mistake, they have formidable resources that flow from the fabric of their society. They are not necessarily principled advocates of nonviolence or other forms of peacemaking. Nonviolence seeks to make the conflict go away by virtuous behavior, while nonviolent strategists seek to win by aggressive engagement with an opponent.
York: Absolutely. Most people think of Gandhi as a saint. Perhaps he was, but that was only one facet of the man. He was much more. Our film shows that he was a brilliant political strategist. He understood power, the source of power, and how to exercise power. If we do nothing more than add this dimension to how Gandhi is perceived -- that will have been worth our effort.
Q: What about Tiananmen Square in China? Street protests in America? Can these be considered examples of strategic nonviolent conflict?
Ackerman: Not really. First, successful nonviolent resistance reflects strategy, which implies a cumulative series of nonviolent actions or tactics intended to effect change. One kind of sanction, such as the demonstrations in Beijing, no matter how forceful or dramatic, cannot produce permanent change. But a strategic, well-managed campaign of nonviolent events can. Nonviolent strategy may include protests, but it will also include boycotts, strikes, noncooperation, and other tactics knitted together over time. Secondly, when we talk about strategic nonviolent conflict, we're using the same context as we are when we talk about strategic violent conflict -- that is, action directed against oppressors or invaders. So far the latest street demonstrations in America, such as in Seattle, haven't shown that a real movement with a real strategy has formed.
Q: What do you want viewers to take away from watching this series?
York: A sense of hope and a sense of appreciation for what's been accomplished, and what they themselves can do. We know from activists around the world, whom we've spoken to in the course of making this series, that many leaders, many participants, saw Attenborough's film about Gandhi and it inspired them to embark on nonviolent campaigns of their own. I hope that people will see that not every leader has to be a Gandhi or a King, but that they can help effect change on a small or local scale and succeed. One of the other things Gandhi said is that what we do at a particular time may seem insignificant, but eventually it can have an effect, and so it's very important to do it.
There's a feeling, in this country and elsewhere, that problems are so great and the powers so mighty, that nothing that one person, or even a group of people, can do will change things. A FORCE MORE POWERFUL is a reminder that violence is the weapon of choice of the frightened, the unimaginative, the self-serving; while nonviolent weapons represent human power in its mightiest and most noble form. I think if our series can help send that message, it will in itself be a powerful nonviolent weapon, and we'd be very proud.
Filmmaker Steve York and series editor Peter Ackerman talk about nonviolent conflict and the making of A Force More Powerful.
Q: How did A FORCE MORE POWERFUL get started?
Ackerman: In a sense, the project germinated a quarter century ago with my doctoral dissertation: "Strategic Aspects of Nonviolent Resistance Movements." This served as the starting point for a book I co-authored with Christopher Kruegler in 1994, Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. Jack DuVall brought the book to Steve York's attention; Steve believed these stories would offer gripping material for a documentary.
As a graduate student at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in the late sixties and early seventies, I was interested in "asymmetric conflicts," where one side had the preponderance of military power but still lost. New factors were in play that were more psychological and political than material. Guerrilla warriors like Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara were, for many in liberation movements, the heroes then. At that time, I began to wonder about conflicts in which the asymmetry was total - that is to say, when one side fighting for their lives, freedom, or rights had no viable military option whatsoever. What did they do? In many places, they used nonviolent strategies, including strikes, noncooperation, and an infinite variety of protests and even nonviolent sabotage.
In the 1980s, these nonviolent techniques came increasingly into play as country after country was transformed into a working democracy, culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the victory over apartheid in South Africa. To my way of thinking there was not enough acknowledgment by foreign policy elites that these were not isolated events. These were successful "wars," but the brilliant part was that the winning sides weren't fighting with guns and bombs but with innovative nonviolent methods. Sure there was violence happening all over the world in the 20th century, but nonviolent power was prevailing too.
Q: How do you put all that scholarship and strategy on screen - and do people want to see that?
York: What you put on screen are stories and people. You show ideas personified. The drama is in the history. When I was in India, I walked along the dusty road leading to the beach where Gandhi broke the salt law. It looks about the same as it did in 1930 and it's nothing special, but what Gandhi did there is remarkable, and it gives the place a quiet sense of power. I'm not talking about the kind of power we associate with presidents or prime ministers; I mean the power of moral courage, and personal action.
I'm still amazed at what James Lawson, at the age of 30, was able to accomplish in Nashville in 1960, and what Mkhuseli Jack accomplished in South Africa in the early 1980s at the age of 27. They're not considered "powerful" people, even today, but they understood the power of ideas. Being in the presence of people like that is an incredible reminder that ideas matter, and that human intelligence and ingenuity can prevail.
Q: Why does nonviolent conflict work?
Ackerman: Part of the underlying force of nonviolent resistance is that people who undertake it believe wholeheartedly in what they're doing, because they deeply feel the justice of their cause. In contrast, conventional warfare is often waged for greedy, aggressive purposes and fought by persons who have been conscripted into the fight by their government.
Nonviolent action always has the potential to prevail against ruthless opponents because it can be conducted on a huge scale and involves every citizen who wants to play a part. Its techniques flow from the disruption of the everyday normalities that the tyrant counts on to maintain power. You see it time and again, in India, in Poland, in Chile, in South Africa - millions of people became part of these movements as much as by what they refused to do as by what they did.
That is not to say that nonviolent conflict is easy to wage. It involves willingness to suffer and to be hurt but not to retaliate and cause others to hurt. Gandhi often said there were many things he was willing to die for, but nothing he was willing to kill for. In nonviolent conflict, people are willing to be beaten, or jailed, or even killed, and they will only defend themselves with their convictions, their willingness to persevere and the force of their strategy. The result of this discipline, over time, is to make the aggressor see that what he wins militarily or through terror he cannot keep for very long without massively increasing the resources required to suppress all aspects of civil society.
York: Nonviolent movements often form in response to out-and-out tyranny, but rather than subduing people, repression often energizes them. It rouses public sentiment from the center, the core, that moderate middle that won't act until the extremes are cast into dramatic relief. The tide turned in Nashville, for example, when the home of a prominent black lawyer was bombed. Such acts of violence fueled the nonviolent ranks of the civil rights movement, rallied the African-American community, engaged the white community, and caught the attention of media and government, because the contrast was devastating.
Q: So why, as you claim, is nonviolent action so misunderstood and under appreciated?
Ackerman: Several reasons, but I think the main one is that government wages war, or some organized authority uses violence, whereas nonviolent action is a diffused people's action, and so it's not easily seen and followed. And because, in small groups, people can be brought out to protest almost anything, there's a "fringe element" that taints some of these ideas. For example, I heard recently that certain animal rights activists protested an episode of the Survivor TV show because someone on the program roasted a rat for dinner, and these protestors were defending the rights of rats. Now the animal rights people have actually waged a very successful campaign over the past 20 years to get people to stop wearing fur, to lessen cruelty to animals in mean and gratuitous ways, to make people more sensitive to the feelings and lives of other creatures besides humans, and that's a good thing. But then you get a bunch of people marching in front of CBS screaming "Save the Rats," the media jump on it and people think: "Aha! crazy activists." So there's this impression that the only bona fide power struggles are those that are fought militarily and that nonviolent strategy can only be used by powerless fringe groups, which are barely tolerated in benign societies.
Another important aspect of why nonviolent conflict is misunderstood and under-appreciated is because it's so diverse in its practice and methods and participants. The media (much less historians) don't know how to recognize where it is operating. If country A sends troops into country B, the sides are clearly defined and, literally, the battle lines are drawn. If you're not dealing with international conflict between huge armies, but rather with efforts to undermine the entrenched power of the autocrat or invader, and you combine that with cumulative action by many people on many fronts - a boycott here, a demonstration there, a petition, a work-slowdown - the location is no longer clear. Where do the media send the cameras, or how does a historian frame a simple narrative?
Q: The media often focus on leaders. Is that a good way to delve into nonviolent movements?
Ackerman: There are two important things about leadership in these conflicts. One is that the leaders themselves are often reluctant leaders and even more reluctant heroes. They're not power mad, they're not looking for glory -- some of them don't especially want to be leaders; they just want to stop the tyranny or the inequity, whatever. Which brings us to the second point, which is that when there is no clear leadership, movements lose their focus and momentum.
York: The American civil rights movement has become identified with Martin Luther King Jr., who was a phenomenal leader - but the fact is, he wasn't alone. In Nashville, Jim Lawson and Bernard Lafayette were central to the Nashville protests. Lawson was, in fact, one of the architects of the civil rights movement, because he trained students and other demonstrators in nonviolent tactics that he himself learned from Gandhi's people in India. But in many nonviolent conflicts, a paramount leader may not be necessary, because ordinary people on their own initiative can take nonviolent action.
Q: Both of you speak exclusively of nonviolent conflict, nonviolent action, but you never use the terms "nonviolence" or "passive resistance." Why?
Ackerman: This is something I feel strongly about. It's not a semantic distinction; it's the critical difference between action and inaction. What Gandhi did and what the people in Chile did and what Lech Walesa did was anything but passive. They didn't just sit there. They went out and did pro-active things. They held strikes and they organized boycotts and they put themselves in harm's way precisely because their actions punished their military oppressors. You can attach the word "nonviolent" to all kinds of initiatives, including unorthodox techniques of seeking influence in a parliamentary setting. But the term, nonviolent conflict makes it clear that you're talking about using nonviolent weapons, nonviolent activism, in the most serious battles for fundamental human rights.
Confusion can sometimes be created with the term nonviolence. For example, UNESCO has designated this as the Decade of Peace and Nonviolence, which is about people being good to each other, changing personal behavior to reflect lifestyle choices that acknowledge the common good, defining one's own ethical positions. Now that's fine, good work. But we're talking about strategic nonviolent conflict, the use of nonviolent strategies, whether people have access to violent weapons or not. There have been many cases of people who have chosen nonviolent approaches even when they had military options, and this is very important to understand. People in nonviolent struggles are not unarmed - they are simply not armed with violent weapons, but make no mistake, they have formidable resources that flow from the fabric of their society. They are not necessarily principled advocates of nonviolence or other forms of peacemaking. Nonviolence seeks to make the conflict go away by virtuous behavior, while nonviolent strategists seek to win by aggressive engagement with an opponent.
York: Absolutely. Most people think of Gandhi as a saint. Perhaps he was, but that was only one facet of the man. He was much more. Our film shows that he was a brilliant political strategist. He understood power, the source of power, and how to exercise power. If we do nothing more than add this dimension to how Gandhi is perceived -- that will have been worth our effort.
Q: What about Tiananmen Square in China? Street protests in America? Can these be considered examples of strategic nonviolent conflict?
Ackerman: Not really. First, successful nonviolent resistance reflects strategy, which implies a cumulative series of nonviolent actions or tactics intended to effect change. One kind of sanction, such as the demonstrations in Beijing, no matter how forceful or dramatic, cannot produce permanent change. But a strategic, well-managed campaign of nonviolent events can. Nonviolent strategy may include protests, but it will also include boycotts, strikes, noncooperation, and other tactics knitted together over time. Secondly, when we talk about strategic nonviolent conflict, we're using the same context as we are when we talk about strategic violent conflict -- that is, action directed against oppressors or invaders. So far the latest street demonstrations in America, such as in Seattle, haven't shown that a real movement with a real strategy has formed.
Q: What do you want viewers to take away from watching this series?
York: A sense of hope and a sense of appreciation for what's been accomplished, and what they themselves can do. We know from activists around the world, whom we've spoken to in the course of making this series, that many leaders, many participants, saw Attenborough's film about Gandhi and it inspired them to embark on nonviolent campaigns of their own. I hope that people will see that not every leader has to be a Gandhi or a King, but that they can help effect change on a small or local scale and succeed. One of the other things Gandhi said is that what we do at a particular time may seem insignificant, but eventually it can have an effect, and so it's very important to do it.
There's a feeling, in this country and elsewhere, that problems are so great and the powers so mighty, that nothing that one person, or even a group of people, can do will change things. A FORCE MORE POWERFUL is a reminder that violence is the weapon of choice of the frightened, the unimaginative, the self-serving; while nonviolent weapons represent human power in its mightiest and most noble form. I think if our series can help send that message, it will in itself be a powerful nonviolent weapon, and we'd be very proud.
The most unsuccessful campaign, in my opinion
Out of the six campaigns discussed in "A Force More Powerful," the least successful campaign would be the Chilean campaign against General Augusto Pinochet. This campaign definitely went haywire and was a little off. Though extremist may exist in other campaigns as well, I feel like the extremists in this situation got a hold of the public and incited violence and the violent action that was brought against the other, peaceful opposition groups. Unlike the campaign held in Nashville, these members did not take the time to prepare. In fact, for their first campaign, they only took four days of preparation, allowing participants to learn by simply reading a paper telling them what to do and what not to do. This is probably why extremists got a foothold in Chile. The people were not prepared to take the brutality but not raise a hand in retaliation. The readings for class say that nonviolent resistance campaigns are defined as "an organized, purposeful action designed to use nonviolence to accomplish process, achievement and ultimate goals. They are usually organized on a geographic or issue oriented basis." Though the Chilean campaign had ultimate goals, the removal of the dictatorship, they lacked organization and lacked the ability to take minor steps to reach their larger goal.
The campaign would have been much more successful if they were better organized, choosing achievement goals that would slowly lead them to achieving their ultimate goal while maintaining the values of a nonviolent campaign. The campaign was focused on the ultimate goal, and while yes, this is an important step, it is not the only step in a nonviolent campaign. Those participating in the campaign should have been better prepared for the violence that would obviously be brought their way. They needed to understand better the philosophies of Gandhi and King before leaping into such a campaign.
The campaign would have been much more successful if they were better organized, choosing achievement goals that would slowly lead them to achieving their ultimate goal while maintaining the values of a nonviolent campaign. The campaign was focused on the ultimate goal, and while yes, this is an important step, it is not the only step in a nonviolent campaign. Those participating in the campaign should have been better prepared for the violence that would obviously be brought their way. They needed to understand better the philosophies of Gandhi and King before leaping into such a campaign.
The most successful nonviolent campaign, in my opinion
On the "A force more powerful" website, I think the author of the page puts why this campaign was successful in better words than I possibly could.
"The American civil rights campaigners of the 1960s contributed one other thing to the power of nonviolent resistance in the final third of the twentieth century. Because they were conscious that nonviolent sanctions had been successful earlier in history, and because they were convinced that the use of these sanctions had intrinsic advantages in resisting oppression, their success conferred on nonviolent action a new aura of effectiveness that it had never before possessed. Not only did the mass media popularize the story of what was done in the American South – they universalized the impression that nonviolent force could be more powerful."
"In the United States, that force transformed the social fabric and political direction of the nation. In Nashville and in other southern communities, the sit-ins separated white leaders who had no deep interest in preserving segregation from those who did; the most ambivalent elements of the old order were detached from the most intransigent. The Freedom Rides played out on a larger stage – the riders destabilized the balance of interests that kept the American system of apartheid in place, by provoking the national government to act against its institutions and practices. The quickest way for civil rights activists to make headway in the Deep South was to nationalize the struggle by igniting crises that would draw federal intervention. 'The key to everything,' Martin Luther King declared in the early 1960s, 'is federal commitment.'"
"The civil rights movement followed a simple logic: It mobilized black people behind nonviolent sanctions that compelled the nation to change. Martin Luther King's declaration on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 that he had a dream of racial equality capped the largest nonviolent demonstration of the postwar period in America, the March on Washington. In the wake of President Kennedy's assassination later that year, a white southerner, Lyndon Johnson, moved into the White House and drove the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 into the annals of human liberation – as Dr. King and his legions drove their spirit outward to the world."
The sit-ins in Nashville didn't just desegregate Nashville, they were the catalyst to a slew of other nonviolent civil rights movements. It was their ability to prepare extensively and peacefully, even in the face of danger and violence, protest and earn their rights that makes this campaign, in my opinion, the most successful.
photo courtesy of: nyu.edu
Episode 6: Chile "Defeat of a Dictator"
Episode six focuses on the nonviolent protest of General Augusto Pinochet and his terror regime in Chile.
For 10 years, General Augusto Pinochet was the unchallenged leader of Chile. He came to power after a coup against elected government, which left the Chilean Socialist President dead. Pinochet promises a return to civilian rule, but their actions told another story. During the first months, the number of people detained in prisons reached more than 40,000 and more than 3,000 people were assassinated or disappeared all together. Pinochet's rule cast fear into everyone and every day life, and this led to control. People were too afraid to stand up to him. For 10 years, the fear kept the dictatorship in power.
By 1983, an economic crisis pushed unemployment to 30% and Chileans begin to feel that they have nothing left to lose. Opposition begins to become a possibility. The first sign came at the heart of the economy, in the copper mines of the Andes mountains. Rodolfo Seguel was voted President of the National Labor Congress and began to urge a nationwide strike. The goal was to open peoples eyes and let them know it was possible to overthrow the Dictatorship. A week before the strike was to begin, Pinochet's troops surrounded the copper mines. So, they changed their plan from a strike to a day of protest.
They only had four days to prepare. They gave instructions to citizens on how to protest, such as walking slowly, driving slowly, not taking kids to school, etc. Everything was running so slow that the city had to close down. At exactly 8pm on the day of the protest, Chileans flooded the streets banging their pots and pans.
For the next nine or ten months, they would protest one day each month. Each one growing larger. Soon though, the protests turned violent. The government shot people and brutally repressed the people and tried to repress the movement.
Pinochet hires Sergio Jarpa as Interior Minister to begin discussions with protesters, but also deploys, on the same day, troops into the capital. When the protest begins, the troops end the protest with unprecedented force. Though the police statement says 17 people died, the actual number was much higher. The violence was too much, and the protesters knew that they needed to change their methods. Jarpa offers to hold the discussions that Pinochet promised, but Pinochet stops the discussions between Jarpa and the protesters.
In late November 1985, 500,000 attend the largest political rally in Chilean history. Gabriel Valdez speaks for 11 opposition groups and the Catholic church. The National Accord formed to lead a nonviolent transition to Democracy. Valdez warns that if they don't support the national accord, they are heading for civil war. In poor neighborhoods, however, the idea of violence is popular. The regime sees the poor neighborhoods as enemies. Young men in the plablaceons are rounded up, questioned, hauled off to jail without trail, and many are not seen again.
The Church begins to join in and preaches nonviolent methods to end the disappearances and the violence. Monthly protests turn violent thanks to extremists, and Piochet is given an excuse to use extreme violence to come down on all opposition. Groups focused on nonviolence are greatly criticized for their use of nonviolent means by those who believe violence can only be met with violence.
Guerillas attack Pinochet's motorcade in 1986 and four guards are dead. Pinochet survives. He now believes he is invincible by being able to avoid assassination. Pinochet's own constitution requires a plebiscite in 1988, where Chileans had the right to vote for or against to another eight years of military government. His ego made him assume that he would always win, but after five years of organizing, the nonviolent opposition sees an opportunity. Opposition groups take to the countryside encouraging Chileans to vote against Pinochet. To create the appearance of a fair vote, Pinochet passes new voting laws that state that any opposition group that can gather 35,000 signatures will be allowed to have poll watchers and 15 minutes of television time every night for four weeks before voting.
"Led by Genaro Arriagada, the "Command for No" movement coordinates an army of volunteers to register voters and persuade fearful citizens to participate. Also crucial is an influx of foreign funds that pays for opinion polls, media consultants, poll watchers, and computers, which allow the opposition to conduct its own vote count and circumvent electoral fraud by the regime.
Despite relentless harassment against 'No' campaign operatives, on October 5, 1988, 55 percent of voters cast ballots to end Pinochet's reign of terror. Victorious, the "Command for No" movement evolves into a multiparty coalition that wins parliamentary elections the next year, completing the restoration of democracy in Chile after 15 authoritarian years."
CHILE TIMELINE:
September 11, 1973 Military junta comes to power in coup against elected government
May 11, 1983 First widespread public protests against Augusto Pinochet's regime.
August 1983 The government talks with members of the opposition and offers concessions.
September 1983 Monthly "days of protest" turn violent; middle-class support weakens.
September 7, 1986 Assassination attempt on President Pinochet fails.
October 5, 1988 Plebiscite ends in victory for those opposing a continuation of Pinochet's dictatorship.
photos courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
For 10 years, General Augusto Pinochet was the unchallenged leader of Chile. He came to power after a coup against elected government, which left the Chilean Socialist President dead. Pinochet promises a return to civilian rule, but their actions told another story. During the first months, the number of people detained in prisons reached more than 40,000 and more than 3,000 people were assassinated or disappeared all together. Pinochet's rule cast fear into everyone and every day life, and this led to control. People were too afraid to stand up to him. For 10 years, the fear kept the dictatorship in power.
By 1983, an economic crisis pushed unemployment to 30% and Chileans begin to feel that they have nothing left to lose. Opposition begins to become a possibility. The first sign came at the heart of the economy, in the copper mines of the Andes mountains. Rodolfo Seguel was voted President of the National Labor Congress and began to urge a nationwide strike. The goal was to open peoples eyes and let them know it was possible to overthrow the Dictatorship. A week before the strike was to begin, Pinochet's troops surrounded the copper mines. So, they changed their plan from a strike to a day of protest.
They only had four days to prepare. They gave instructions to citizens on how to protest, such as walking slowly, driving slowly, not taking kids to school, etc. Everything was running so slow that the city had to close down. At exactly 8pm on the day of the protest, Chileans flooded the streets banging their pots and pans.
For the next nine or ten months, they would protest one day each month. Each one growing larger. Soon though, the protests turned violent. The government shot people and brutally repressed the people and tried to repress the movement.
Pinochet hires Sergio Jarpa as Interior Minister to begin discussions with protesters, but also deploys, on the same day, troops into the capital. When the protest begins, the troops end the protest with unprecedented force. Though the police statement says 17 people died, the actual number was much higher. The violence was too much, and the protesters knew that they needed to change their methods. Jarpa offers to hold the discussions that Pinochet promised, but Pinochet stops the discussions between Jarpa and the protesters.
In late November 1985, 500,000 attend the largest political rally in Chilean history. Gabriel Valdez speaks for 11 opposition groups and the Catholic church. The National Accord formed to lead a nonviolent transition to Democracy. Valdez warns that if they don't support the national accord, they are heading for civil war. In poor neighborhoods, however, the idea of violence is popular. The regime sees the poor neighborhoods as enemies. Young men in the plablaceons are rounded up, questioned, hauled off to jail without trail, and many are not seen again.
The Church begins to join in and preaches nonviolent methods to end the disappearances and the violence. Monthly protests turn violent thanks to extremists, and Piochet is given an excuse to use extreme violence to come down on all opposition. Groups focused on nonviolence are greatly criticized for their use of nonviolent means by those who believe violence can only be met with violence.
"Led by Genaro Arriagada, the "Command for No" movement coordinates an army of volunteers to register voters and persuade fearful citizens to participate. Also crucial is an influx of foreign funds that pays for opinion polls, media consultants, poll watchers, and computers, which allow the opposition to conduct its own vote count and circumvent electoral fraud by the regime.
Despite relentless harassment against 'No' campaign operatives, on October 5, 1988, 55 percent of voters cast ballots to end Pinochet's reign of terror. Victorious, the "Command for No" movement evolves into a multiparty coalition that wins parliamentary elections the next year, completing the restoration of democracy in Chile after 15 authoritarian years."
CHILE TIMELINE:
September 11, 1973 Military junta comes to power in coup against elected government
May 11, 1983 First widespread public protests against Augusto Pinochet's regime.
August 1983 The government talks with members of the opposition and offers concessions.
September 1983 Monthly "days of protest" turn violent; middle-class support weakens.
September 7, 1986 Assassination attempt on President Pinochet fails.
October 5, 1988 Plebiscite ends in victory for those opposing a continuation of Pinochet's dictatorship.
photos courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
Episode 5: Poland "We've caught God by the arm"
Episode six focuses on the Polish struggles with a communist regime after WWII.
For over 30 years since WWII ended, Poland has been under the one-party rule of Soviet forces that originally liberated Poland from the Nazis. The communist regime does not allow workers cannot organize or represent themselves before the state-owned employers.
In December of 1970, employees at the Lenin Shipyard decide to strike and march on Communist party headquarters to voice their grievances. The marchers were met with force; six were killed and 900 were injured.
In July 1980, the government increases meat prices by almost double, and a series of strikes across the nation begin. Workers learned from the strike in 1970 what an army with weapons could do to them, and they realized that they would be safer if they took their own shipyards and factories hostage. Lech Walesa, a former shipyard electrician, is voted by workers to lead the strike. He decides and plans carefully, saying that the strike would be nonviolent and they would not give the communist regime any reason to shoot at them. By the second day, the strike wides to include public transportation, the port, and 22 factories are on strike; 50,000 workers in all. Government has cut phone lines in fear that the strike would spread, but all over Poland, people know about the Gdansk Strike. The strikers soon present a list of demands.
By day three, Soviets are ready to negotiate with strikers. The shipyard offered better pay and working conditions, everything but independent unions.When the vote is taken, though, it is packed with party officials and the deal is expected. Thousands went home, but some are persuaded to stay and keep the strike alive.
On Sunday morning, day four, a catholic mass takes place inside the gates. The citizens supported the strikers, decorating the gate with flowers and a picture of the Pope who was Polish. They decided to form a Inter-Factory Strike Committee, and presented a list of 21 demands, listed as follows:
The Tasks of the Factories and Institutions on Strike, Represented by the Inter-Factory Strike Committee at the Gdansk Shipyard
1. Acceptance of free trade unions independent of the Communist Party and of enterprises, in accordance with convention No. 87 of the International Labor Organization concerning the right to form free trade unions, which was ratified by the Communist Government of Poland.
2. A guarantee of the right to strike and of the security of strikers and those aiding them.
3. Compliance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, the press and publication, including freedom for independent publishers, and the availability of the mass media to representatives of all faiths.
4. A return of former rights to: 1) People dismissed from work after the 1970 and 1976 strikes, and 2) Students expelled from school because of their views. The release of all political prisoners, among them Edward Zadrozynski, Jan Kozlowski, and Marek Kozlowski. A halt in repression of the individual because of personal conviction.
5. Availability to the mass media of information about the formation of the Inter-factory Strike Committee and publication of its demands.
6. The undertaking of actions aimed at bringing the country out of its crisis situation by the following means: a) making public complete information about the social-economic situation, and b) enabling all sectors and social classes to take part in discussion of the reform programme.
7. Compensation of all workers taking part in the strike for the period of the strike, with vacation pay from the Central Council of Trade Unions.
8. An increase in the base pay of each worker by 2,000 zlotys a month as compensation for the recent raise in prices.
9. Guaranteed automatic increases in pay on the basis of increases in prices and the decline in real income.
10. A full supply of food products for the domestic market, with exports limited to surpluses.
11. The abolition of 'commercial' prices and of other sales for hard currency in special shops.
12. The selection of management personnel on the basis of qualifications, not party membership. Privileges of the secret police, regular police and party apparatus are to be eliminated by equalizing family subsidies, abolishing special stores, etc.
13. The introduction of food coupons for meat and meat products (during the period in which control of the market situation is regained).
14. Reduction in the age for retirement for women to 50 and for men to 55, or after 30 years' employment in Poland for women and 35 years for men, regardless of age.
15. Conformity of old-age pensions and annuities with what has actually been paid in.
16. Improvements in the working conditions of the health service to insure full medical care for workers.
17. Assurances of a reasonable number of places in day-care centers and kindergartens for the children of working mothers.
18. Paid maternity leave for three years.
19. A decrease in the waiting period for apartments.
20. An increase in the commuter's allowance to 100 zlotys from 40, with a supplemental benefit on separation.
21. A day of rest on Saturday. Workers in the brigade system or round-the-clock jobs are to be compensated for the loss of free Saturdays with an increased leave or other paid time off.
15,000 workers, after seeing the demands, return to the shipyard in Gdansk and the strike was spreading across Poland again. While they wait for a response from the Communist party, more and more workers join in on the strike, staying inside their work places to be safe.
During the second week of strike, the strikers are publishing a daily bulletin called "Solidarity" and preparing for a long struggle. By the ninth day, the Inter-factory strike committee represents nearly 500,000 workers.
Day ten, negotiators arrive at the shipyard to try and end the strike. The strikers knew not to push too hard and too far, they made sure to take things slow and go over point by point. They knew that military intervention was a possibility and they had to be careful. Discussion went on for two weeks. The idle factories cause economic strain on Poland. The regime, desperate to begin work again, starts to accept some of the demands.
By August 31, an agreement was ready to sign. Strikers have won pay raises, a five day work week, relaxed press censorship, free trade unions and the right to strike.
In the next four months, "Solidarity" expands its charter to nearly 10 million members. However, their mere existence challenges the Soviet party. They knew they had to expand fast to be more powerful and be ready when the Soviets strike back. Soon, union activists were being harassed, newspapers were being censored, offices raided and workers are ordered to work two Saturdays a month, an open breech of the agreement. Solidarity comes back, threatening strikes.
Soviets began locking up union activists and banned the union, but support still exists. For seven years, it seems that there is stability, but it is only the cover of repression. Solidarity still has underground resistance. In 1988, the surface collapses after price increases, food lines, and rationing paralyze the country. A new wave of strikers is beyond the Soviet's ability to control. Communists invite Solidarity to help them reconstruct Poland on the basis of a different, multiparty democratic model.
POLAND TIMELINE:
December 1970 Workers in Gdansk and other Baltic Coast cities strike. Strikers clash with Government troops.
September 23, 1976 KOR (Workers' Defense Committee) is formed by dissidents to help families of workers in jail or on trial.
July 1980 Polish leaders announce food price hikes, triggering strikes.
August 14, 1980 Workers at Lenin Shipyard strike.
August 16, 1980 Inter-factory Strike Committee forms at Lenin Shipyard, representing strikers from different enterprises across Poland.
August 23, 1980 Communist Party negotiators arrive at Lenin Shipyard to begin talks with the strike committee.
August 31, 1980 Agreement is signed, giving workers the right to form unions independent from government control.
September 17, 1980 A nationwide independent trade union, Solidarity, is established.
December 13, 1981 The government declares a "state of war" and suspends Solidarity.
February 6, 1989 The Polish government convenes roundtable talks, which include Solidarity, to discuss Poland's future.
June 4, 1989 Solidarity wins control of the government in free elections.
photos courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/5400838/Poland-forced-to-move-democracy-celebrations.html
For over 30 years since WWII ended, Poland has been under the one-party rule of Soviet forces that originally liberated Poland from the Nazis. The communist regime does not allow workers cannot organize or represent themselves before the state-owned employers.
In December of 1970, employees at the Lenin Shipyard decide to strike and march on Communist party headquarters to voice their grievances. The marchers were met with force; six were killed and 900 were injured.
By day three, Soviets are ready to negotiate with strikers. The shipyard offered better pay and working conditions, everything but independent unions.When the vote is taken, though, it is packed with party officials and the deal is expected. Thousands went home, but some are persuaded to stay and keep the strike alive.
On Sunday morning, day four, a catholic mass takes place inside the gates. The citizens supported the strikers, decorating the gate with flowers and a picture of the Pope who was Polish. They decided to form a Inter-Factory Strike Committee, and presented a list of 21 demands, listed as follows:
The Tasks of the Factories and Institutions on Strike, Represented by the Inter-Factory Strike Committee at the Gdansk Shipyard
1. Acceptance of free trade unions independent of the Communist Party and of enterprises, in accordance with convention No. 87 of the International Labor Organization concerning the right to form free trade unions, which was ratified by the Communist Government of Poland.
2. A guarantee of the right to strike and of the security of strikers and those aiding them.
3. Compliance with the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, the press and publication, including freedom for independent publishers, and the availability of the mass media to representatives of all faiths.
4. A return of former rights to: 1) People dismissed from work after the 1970 and 1976 strikes, and 2) Students expelled from school because of their views. The release of all political prisoners, among them Edward Zadrozynski, Jan Kozlowski, and Marek Kozlowski. A halt in repression of the individual because of personal conviction.
5. Availability to the mass media of information about the formation of the Inter-factory Strike Committee and publication of its demands.
6. The undertaking of actions aimed at bringing the country out of its crisis situation by the following means: a) making public complete information about the social-economic situation, and b) enabling all sectors and social classes to take part in discussion of the reform programme.
7. Compensation of all workers taking part in the strike for the period of the strike, with vacation pay from the Central Council of Trade Unions.
8. An increase in the base pay of each worker by 2,000 zlotys a month as compensation for the recent raise in prices.
9. Guaranteed automatic increases in pay on the basis of increases in prices and the decline in real income.
10. A full supply of food products for the domestic market, with exports limited to surpluses.
11. The abolition of 'commercial' prices and of other sales for hard currency in special shops.
12. The selection of management personnel on the basis of qualifications, not party membership. Privileges of the secret police, regular police and party apparatus are to be eliminated by equalizing family subsidies, abolishing special stores, etc.
13. The introduction of food coupons for meat and meat products (during the period in which control of the market situation is regained).
14. Reduction in the age for retirement for women to 50 and for men to 55, or after 30 years' employment in Poland for women and 35 years for men, regardless of age.
15. Conformity of old-age pensions and annuities with what has actually been paid in.
16. Improvements in the working conditions of the health service to insure full medical care for workers.
17. Assurances of a reasonable number of places in day-care centers and kindergartens for the children of working mothers.
18. Paid maternity leave for three years.
19. A decrease in the waiting period for apartments.
20. An increase in the commuter's allowance to 100 zlotys from 40, with a supplemental benefit on separation.
21. A day of rest on Saturday. Workers in the brigade system or round-the-clock jobs are to be compensated for the loss of free Saturdays with an increased leave or other paid time off.
15,000 workers, after seeing the demands, return to the shipyard in Gdansk and the strike was spreading across Poland again. While they wait for a response from the Communist party, more and more workers join in on the strike, staying inside their work places to be safe.
During the second week of strike, the strikers are publishing a daily bulletin called "Solidarity" and preparing for a long struggle. By the ninth day, the Inter-factory strike committee represents nearly 500,000 workers.
By August 31, an agreement was ready to sign. Strikers have won pay raises, a five day work week, relaxed press censorship, free trade unions and the right to strike.
In the next four months, "Solidarity" expands its charter to nearly 10 million members. However, their mere existence challenges the Soviet party. They knew they had to expand fast to be more powerful and be ready when the Soviets strike back. Soon, union activists were being harassed, newspapers were being censored, offices raided and workers are ordered to work two Saturdays a month, an open breech of the agreement. Solidarity comes back, threatening strikes.
Soviets began locking up union activists and banned the union, but support still exists. For seven years, it seems that there is stability, but it is only the cover of repression. Solidarity still has underground resistance. In 1988, the surface collapses after price increases, food lines, and rationing paralyze the country. A new wave of strikers is beyond the Soviet's ability to control. Communists invite Solidarity to help them reconstruct Poland on the basis of a different, multiparty democratic model.
POLAND TIMELINE:
December 1970 Workers in Gdansk and other Baltic Coast cities strike. Strikers clash with Government troops.
September 23, 1976 KOR (Workers' Defense Committee) is formed by dissidents to help families of workers in jail or on trial.
July 1980 Polish leaders announce food price hikes, triggering strikes.
August 14, 1980 Workers at Lenin Shipyard strike.
August 16, 1980 Inter-factory Strike Committee forms at Lenin Shipyard, representing strikers from different enterprises across Poland.
August 23, 1980 Communist Party negotiators arrive at Lenin Shipyard to begin talks with the strike committee.
August 31, 1980 Agreement is signed, giving workers the right to form unions independent from government control.
September 17, 1980 A nationwide independent trade union, Solidarity, is established.
December 13, 1981 The government declares a "state of war" and suspends Solidarity.
February 6, 1989 The Polish government convenes roundtable talks, which include Solidarity, to discuss Poland's future.
June 4, 1989 Solidarity wins control of the government in free elections.
photos courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/5400838/Poland-forced-to-move-democracy-celebrations.html
7.18.2010
Episode 4: Denmark "Living with the enemy"
Episode four focuses on Denmark and the occupation of German forces.
In 1940, Adolf Hitler's army took over most of continental Europe, including Denmark. The Nazis occupy Denmark in six hours, as Denmark had declared neutrality in the war. Peter Munch, the minister of foreign affairs, is given an ultimatum: cooperate with the Third Reich or else. According to his son, the minister had believed that cooperation was the least harmful mode for the people.
"Under a unified government, Munch initiates a "negotiation under protest" strategy with the Germans that is designed to protect Danish lives and salvage cultural identity. Dane's goal is to buy time with the Germans while projecting the appearance of cooperation."
The Germans are using Danish farms to use to feed German troops and use the resources to supply their own needs. The challenge for the Danish was to create ways to undermine the Germans while not provoking violence. Things like work slowdowns, slowed the extraction of resources. The Danish were told to build ships and never finished them. They had to be dragged down to Germany for completion. The country felt a sudden swell in pride, singing songs in public and holding festivals.
In 1943, Danish government received orders from the German occupancy. Strikes must be banned, curfews imposed and saboteurs executed. The parliament debated for six hours on how to proceed with the demands. The Danish government refused the orders. "Germany puts it out of business and quickly places troops at railroad stations, power plants, factories, and other key facilities. New rules are brutally enforced." The population became hostile and rebellion.
In September, word leaks out that the Nazis are about to round up Danish Jews for exportation, following Germany's racial laws in Denmark. The citizens are faced with their first emergency. They began to actively resist the German government. Danish resisters take Jews to neutral Sweden or are hidden in attics, churches, basements and homes of Danish. "In a testament to human determination, only 472 out of roughly 8,000 Danish Jews are lost to Hitler's 'final solution.'"
In 1944, following a declared state of emergency, the entire city of Copenhagen goes on strike. Shipyard workers state that they must tend to their gardens early because the German curfew prevents them from working in the evening. Most didn't go to their gardens. They gathered in the streets and set bonfires. Infuriated, Germany floods the city with troops, cuts off water and electricity, and establishes a blockade. Though troops are ordered to shoot large groups, the population gets water from a nearby lake, they cook over fires and follow the orders of resistance leaders. Eventually, the Germans waved the white flag, lifting the curfew and pulling troops out of the city. The Dutch saw this as a great success, and found that strikes were their best weapon against the German occupation. During the next months, they ordered two minute stoppages and strikes around Denmark.
"In May 1945, war-ravaged Berlin succumbs to advancing Allied forces, prompting Germany to abandon Denmark altogether. Thanks to civic unity and non-cooperation, the Danes have denied the Germans much of the value of occupation and emerge largely unscathed from the war."
DENMARK TIMELINE:
April 9, 1940 Germany invades Denmark.
Early 1942 Anti-German sabotage within occupied Denmark begins.
July 1943 Anti-German strikes begin in Odense and spread across Denmark.
August 28, 1943 The Danish government rejects the German ultimatum to crack down on resistance; Danish ministers resign in protest.
October 1943 Germans begin the round-up of Jews in Denmark; helped by other Danes, almost all the Jews escape to Sweden.
September 16, 1943 The Freedom Council is established.
June 26, 1944 Copenhagen workers start leaving work early; a general strike begins.
July 3, 1944 German officials give in to the strikers' demands.
May 4, 1945 Germany capitulates to Allies.
In this video, Esben Kjeldbaek from the Museum of Danish resistance discusses how the Danish helped save Jews from persecution during the German occupancy.
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
video courtesy of: wonderfulcopenhagen via youtube.com
In 1940, Adolf Hitler's army took over most of continental Europe, including Denmark. The Nazis occupy Denmark in six hours, as Denmark had declared neutrality in the war. Peter Munch, the minister of foreign affairs, is given an ultimatum: cooperate with the Third Reich or else. According to his son, the minister had believed that cooperation was the least harmful mode for the people.
"Under a unified government, Munch initiates a "negotiation under protest" strategy with the Germans that is designed to protect Danish lives and salvage cultural identity. Dane's goal is to buy time with the Germans while projecting the appearance of cooperation."
The Germans are using Danish farms to use to feed German troops and use the resources to supply their own needs. The challenge for the Danish was to create ways to undermine the Germans while not provoking violence. Things like work slowdowns, slowed the extraction of resources. The Danish were told to build ships and never finished them. They had to be dragged down to Germany for completion. The country felt a sudden swell in pride, singing songs in public and holding festivals.
In 1943, Danish government received orders from the German occupancy. Strikes must be banned, curfews imposed and saboteurs executed. The parliament debated for six hours on how to proceed with the demands. The Danish government refused the orders. "Germany puts it out of business and quickly places troops at railroad stations, power plants, factories, and other key facilities. New rules are brutally enforced." The population became hostile and rebellion.
In September, word leaks out that the Nazis are about to round up Danish Jews for exportation, following Germany's racial laws in Denmark. The citizens are faced with their first emergency. They began to actively resist the German government. Danish resisters take Jews to neutral Sweden or are hidden in attics, churches, basements and homes of Danish. "In a testament to human determination, only 472 out of roughly 8,000 Danish Jews are lost to Hitler's 'final solution.'"
"In May 1945, war-ravaged Berlin succumbs to advancing Allied forces, prompting Germany to abandon Denmark altogether. Thanks to civic unity and non-cooperation, the Danes have denied the Germans much of the value of occupation and emerge largely unscathed from the war."
DENMARK TIMELINE:
April 9, 1940 Germany invades Denmark.
Early 1942 Anti-German sabotage within occupied Denmark begins.
July 1943 Anti-German strikes begin in Odense and spread across Denmark.
August 28, 1943 The Danish government rejects the German ultimatum to crack down on resistance; Danish ministers resign in protest.
October 1943 Germans begin the round-up of Jews in Denmark; helped by other Danes, almost all the Jews escape to Sweden.
September 16, 1943 The Freedom Council is established.
June 26, 1944 Copenhagen workers start leaving work early; a general strike begins.
July 3, 1944 German officials give in to the strikers' demands.
May 4, 1945 Germany capitulates to Allies.
In this video, Esben Kjeldbaek from the Museum of Danish resistance discusses how the Danish helped save Jews from persecution during the German occupancy.
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
video courtesy of: wonderfulcopenhagen via youtube.com
Episode 3: South Africa "Freedom in our Lifetime"
Episode 3 focuses on the struggles of South Africans suffering under the system of apartheid.
In 1985, unrest began to sweet across the black townships in South Africa against apartheid. Security forces tried to control the unrest by enacting a containment policy that, instead of maintaining order, incited violence. The policy caused impatient youths and others initiate violence while black leaders are often harassed and thrown into jail.
In the city of Port Elizabeth, Mkhuseli Jack, a 27-year-old youth leader, stresses the importance of cohesion and coordination, "forming street committees and recruiting neighborhood leaders to represent their interests and settle disputes. Nationally, a fledgling umbrella party, the United Democratic Front (UDF), asserts itself through a series of low-key acts of defiance, such as rent boycotts, labor strikes, and school stayaways."
The idea of nonviolence is particularly appealing to black parents who want peace to return to their neighborhoods. The black community of Port Elizabeth come together and agree to boycott the city's white-owned buisnesses. By doing this, the group is hoping to bring their situation into more focus with the white community and "sensitize white citizens to the blacks' suffering."
In the same year, the government is forced to declare a state of emergency in an attempt to scare blacks into submission by performing random arrests and imposing curfews on citizens. However, this is a sign that the resistance is working, as the country is becoming harder to govern.
UDF continues to ask for its demands, especially for the removal of security forces from communities and the release of jailed African National Congress leader Nelson Mandela. The boycott of white business has greatly harmed white retailers, and they demand a stop to the stalemate in order to save their businesses. This gave Jack powerful white comrades in his fight against apartheid.
"The movement also succeeds in turning world opinion against apartheid, and more sanctions are imposed on South Africa as foreign corporations begin to pull out many investments. In June 1986, the South African government declares a second state of emergency to repress the mass action that has paralyzed the regime."
"By 1989, the stand-off between the black majority and the government impels the new prime minister, F.W. de Klerk, to lift the ban on illegal political organizations and free Mandela. In 1994, South Africa's first truly democratic national election elects Mandela to the nation's presidency."
SOUTH AFRICAN TIMELINE:
June 1976 The township of Soweto riots; mass opposition to apartheid begins.
August 20, 1983 The United Democratic Front – a coalition of trade unions, women's groups, and youth organizations – is established.
September 1984 Riots in Vaal Triangle; beginning of township rebellion.
July 21, 1985 The first state of emergency is imposed.
June 12, 1986 The second state of emergency is imposed; thousands are arrested.
October 1989 The government begins releasing imprisoned leaders of the African National Congress (ANC).
February 11, 1990 After 27 years in prison, black leader Nelson Mandela is released.
August 26-29, 1994 South Africans vote in fair and free elections; the ANC government is voted into power.
photos courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org and takusahrisau.wordpress.com/
In 1985, unrest began to sweet across the black townships in South Africa against apartheid. Security forces tried to control the unrest by enacting a containment policy that, instead of maintaining order, incited violence. The policy caused impatient youths and others initiate violence while black leaders are often harassed and thrown into jail.
The idea of nonviolence is particularly appealing to black parents who want peace to return to their neighborhoods. The black community of Port Elizabeth come together and agree to boycott the city's white-owned buisnesses. By doing this, the group is hoping to bring their situation into more focus with the white community and "sensitize white citizens to the blacks' suffering."
In the same year, the government is forced to declare a state of emergency in an attempt to scare blacks into submission by performing random arrests and imposing curfews on citizens. However, this is a sign that the resistance is working, as the country is becoming harder to govern.
"The movement also succeeds in turning world opinion against apartheid, and more sanctions are imposed on South Africa as foreign corporations begin to pull out many investments. In June 1986, the South African government declares a second state of emergency to repress the mass action that has paralyzed the regime."
"By 1989, the stand-off between the black majority and the government impels the new prime minister, F.W. de Klerk, to lift the ban on illegal political organizations and free Mandela. In 1994, South Africa's first truly democratic national election elects Mandela to the nation's presidency."
SOUTH AFRICAN TIMELINE:
June 1976 The township of Soweto riots; mass opposition to apartheid begins.
August 20, 1983 The United Democratic Front – a coalition of trade unions, women's groups, and youth organizations – is established.
September 1984 Riots in Vaal Triangle; beginning of township rebellion.
July 21, 1985 The first state of emergency is imposed.
June 12, 1986 The second state of emergency is imposed; thousands are arrested.
October 1989 The government begins releasing imprisoned leaders of the African National Congress (ANC).
February 11, 1990 After 27 years in prison, black leader Nelson Mandela is released.
August 26-29, 1994 South Africans vote in fair and free elections; the ANC government is voted into power.
photos courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org and takusahrisau.wordpress.com/
Episode 2: India "Defying the Crown"
Episode two focuses on British rule over India and the methods to free Indians from the rule.
This episode begins with the famous Salt March put on by Gandhi and Indian followers. The Salt March of 1930 is one of the most famous and successful nonviolent marches in nonviolent history.
Gandhi leads a 250-mile march to the sea from his ashram, where he and thousands of protesters violate the law by making their own salt. Many compare the Indian Salt March to the American Boston Tea Party. Once Gandhi breaks the salt law, many follow him to the sea to break the law themselves and follow in his footsteps. His action had indeed sparked an entire country to follow him. Though Gandhi was arrested, civil disobedience spread, and the campaign grew to include the boycott of British cloth and the resignations of Indian officials that work for the British in government.
The boycotting put a great strain on the British, but the boycotting also welcomed brutal reprisals from the British rule. Indians were clubbed, arrested and had their land seized by the government.
"A mass of demonstrators approaching a salt depot in Dharasana is viciously beaten; thousands are arrested, the number of participants swells, and resistance stiffens. Overcrowding the country's jails is part of Gandhi's strategy to put a strain on British civil services, and the barbarism at Dharasana elicits worldwide support for the Indian cause. With India's infrastructure under strain, and world opinion turning against the Crown, Lord Irwin agrees to one-on-one negotiations with Gandhi in February 1931. While the social and legal concessions that he grants are more symbolic than concrete, the great Indian resistance of 1930-31 mobilizes the nation as never before to pursue independence, which it finally achieves in 1947...Although the campaign does not dislodge the British from India, it shatters the legitimacy of British control and rallies the Indian people to the cause of independence, which eventually comes in 1947." (aforcemorepowerful.org)
Though some thought that Gandhi had compromised and went out of his way and were not satisfied with the compromise, Gandhi stood by his belief that the movement wasn't in vain. He knew that you couldn't have everything in one try, that it would take many steps to reach the final goal. He had, in fact, given people the power to achieve their own independence and made them realize that they had the power to make change.
1915 Gandhi returns to India from South Africa.
1920 Gandhi leads first of his all-India campaigns against the British Empire.
March 12, 1930 Gandhi and his followers begin salt march, which launches the civil disobedience campaign for independence.
April 6, 1930 Marchers arrive at coast and make salt; civil disobedience begins to spread across India.
May 4, 1930 Gandhi is arrested.
January 1931 Gandhi and other Indian leaders are released from prison.
February 17, 1931 Gandhi-Irwin talks begin, resulting in "truce" and suspension of civil disobedience.
January 1, 1932 Civil disobedience resumes.
August 1947 India gains independence from British Empire.
Below is a video from Jorge Gidi from the World March for Peace and Nonviolence in Canada and the Vishnu Mandir Temple, who meet for the Gandhi Walk in commemoration of the anniversary of the 1930 Salt March.
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
video courtesy of: jorgegididelgadillo via youtube.com
Gandhi leads a 250-mile march to the sea from his ashram, where he and thousands of protesters violate the law by making their own salt. Many compare the Indian Salt March to the American Boston Tea Party. Once Gandhi breaks the salt law, many follow him to the sea to break the law themselves and follow in his footsteps. His action had indeed sparked an entire country to follow him. Though Gandhi was arrested, civil disobedience spread, and the campaign grew to include the boycott of British cloth and the resignations of Indian officials that work for the British in government.
The boycotting put a great strain on the British, but the boycotting also welcomed brutal reprisals from the British rule. Indians were clubbed, arrested and had their land seized by the government.
"A mass of demonstrators approaching a salt depot in Dharasana is viciously beaten; thousands are arrested, the number of participants swells, and resistance stiffens. Overcrowding the country's jails is part of Gandhi's strategy to put a strain on British civil services, and the barbarism at Dharasana elicits worldwide support for the Indian cause. With India's infrastructure under strain, and world opinion turning against the Crown, Lord Irwin agrees to one-on-one negotiations with Gandhi in February 1931. While the social and legal concessions that he grants are more symbolic than concrete, the great Indian resistance of 1930-31 mobilizes the nation as never before to pursue independence, which it finally achieves in 1947...Although the campaign does not dislodge the British from India, it shatters the legitimacy of British control and rallies the Indian people to the cause of independence, which eventually comes in 1947." (aforcemorepowerful.org)
INDIA TIMELINE:
1906 Gandhi leads nonviolent campaign against anti-Indian laws in South Africa.1915 Gandhi returns to India from South Africa.
1920 Gandhi leads first of his all-India campaigns against the British Empire.
March 12, 1930 Gandhi and his followers begin salt march, which launches the civil disobedience campaign for independence.
April 6, 1930 Marchers arrive at coast and make salt; civil disobedience begins to spread across India.
May 4, 1930 Gandhi is arrested.
January 1931 Gandhi and other Indian leaders are released from prison.
February 17, 1931 Gandhi-Irwin talks begin, resulting in "truce" and suspension of civil disobedience.
January 1, 1932 Civil disobedience resumes.
August 1947 India gains independence from British Empire.
Below is a video from Jorge Gidi from the World March for Peace and Nonviolence in Canada and the Vishnu Mandir Temple, who meet for the Gandhi Walk in commemoration of the anniversary of the 1930 Salt March.
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
video courtesy of: jorgegididelgadillo via youtube.com
Episode 1: Nashville "We were warriors"
Episode one of the series focuses on the heavily segregated city of Nashville, TN.
Students attending Fisk University and American Baptist didn't have to worry about segregation on campus, but when they ventured into Downtown Nashville, they were met with heavily segregated stores, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. Students knew that action was being taken against segregation and wanted to participate. They were given that chance by a young minister from Ohio, James Lawson. Lawson had spent time in India studying the nonviolent methods of Gandhi and began to teach students nonviolent action in workshops. His workshops attracted some of the brightest students from the surrounding area. Lawson was encouraged to come south by Martin Luther King Jr., who wanted someone who was very influenced by Gandhi and nonviolence. The workshops focused on nonviolent action, and the first step was to desegregate the lunch counters.
Lawson prepared students by insulting them and teaching them to fight the impulse to fight back or run away. The preparation took months and once the preparations were complete, the sit-ins at the lunch counter began. The first sit-in was on a Saturday when they were sure to be noticed. The members of the sit-in were denied service and the dining areas were closed, but the students stayed reading and doing homework. There is no violence and no arrests. The white citizens who read about the story on page 10 reacted with shock and a sense of comedy almost, thinking they are a passing fad.
The third sit-in targeted six restaurants. They were told in advance to be prepared to be beaten and arrested. They had 600 people ready to be arrested and even back-up groups. Once the first group was arrested, the second and third waves would move in. The police were taken aback by the constant filling of seats by the minority. 75 students were arrested, though they were peaceful. This was a victory for the students. At the trials for their civil disobedience, they were told to pay a $50 fine or work in the workhouse. They refused to pay the fee and chose to work instead.
These students inspired the entire African-American community in Nashville to join in their strife. They couldn't stand that well-behaved, well-dressed, students were being so ill treated and beaten. They began to boycott the downtown businesses. Black clergy encouraged their patrons to stay away from the downtown shopping district all together, delivering an economic blow to the businesses.
After the bombing of Attorney Z. Alexander Looby, the students write a letter to the mayor asking for a meeting, and begin a silent march to city hall. They begin with 1500 marchers and along the way, their number doubles. When this march gets to city hall, the mayor was waiting for them. After answering Diane Nash, a student at Fisk University, questions about if he felt it was morally right to discriminate against someone just because of their color or race, Mayor Ben West said that he did not agree and agreed to desegregate the lunch counters. His admittance that discrimination was wrong would put things in motion for the Civil Rights Movement.
Stores told the students privately that they also wanted to desegregate, but chose not to publicize this fact. Instead, they would be served quietly and whites were to simply observe the action happening. The students continued to desegregate other restaurants and stores around the area.
TIMELINE FOR NASHVILLE:
December 1955 Bus boycott begins in Montgomery, Alabama.
September 1959 Rev. James Lawson begins nonviolent action training workshops in Nashville.
February 13, 1960 Nashville students hold first sit-in.
February 27, 1960 Students at lunch counters are assaulted, then arrested.
March 1960 Boycott of Nashville department stores begins.
April 19, 1960 The home of a black lawyer, Z. Alexander Looby, is bombed. After protesters march on city hall, the mayor calls for desegregation of the lunch counters.
May 10, 1960 Lunch counters begin to serve African-Americans.
2010 is the 50th anniversary of the Nashville sit-in movement. Below is a video from Dr. James Haney, Host and Executive Producer of Comments With Dr. James Haney. Dr. Haney interviews two participants of the Nashville sit-ins, who discuss some of their challenges and experiences during that time.
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
video courtesy of: Dr. James Haney via youtube.com
Students attending Fisk University and American Baptist didn't have to worry about segregation on campus, but when they ventured into Downtown Nashville, they were met with heavily segregated stores, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. Students knew that action was being taken against segregation and wanted to participate. They were given that chance by a young minister from Ohio, James Lawson. Lawson had spent time in India studying the nonviolent methods of Gandhi and began to teach students nonviolent action in workshops. His workshops attracted some of the brightest students from the surrounding area. Lawson was encouraged to come south by Martin Luther King Jr., who wanted someone who was very influenced by Gandhi and nonviolence. The workshops focused on nonviolent action, and the first step was to desegregate the lunch counters.
Lawson prepared students by insulting them and teaching them to fight the impulse to fight back or run away. The preparation took months and once the preparations were complete, the sit-ins at the lunch counter began. The first sit-in was on a Saturday when they were sure to be noticed. The members of the sit-in were denied service and the dining areas were closed, but the students stayed reading and doing homework. There is no violence and no arrests. The white citizens who read about the story on page 10 reacted with shock and a sense of comedy almost, thinking they are a passing fad.
These students inspired the entire African-American community in Nashville to join in their strife. They couldn't stand that well-behaved, well-dressed, students were being so ill treated and beaten. They began to boycott the downtown businesses. Black clergy encouraged their patrons to stay away from the downtown shopping district all together, delivering an economic blow to the businesses.
After the bombing of Attorney Z. Alexander Looby, the students write a letter to the mayor asking for a meeting, and begin a silent march to city hall. They begin with 1500 marchers and along the way, their number doubles. When this march gets to city hall, the mayor was waiting for them. After answering Diane Nash, a student at Fisk University, questions about if he felt it was morally right to discriminate against someone just because of their color or race, Mayor Ben West said that he did not agree and agreed to desegregate the lunch counters. His admittance that discrimination was wrong would put things in motion for the Civil Rights Movement.
Stores told the students privately that they also wanted to desegregate, but chose not to publicize this fact. Instead, they would be served quietly and whites were to simply observe the action happening. The students continued to desegregate other restaurants and stores around the area.
TIMELINE FOR NASHVILLE:
December 1955 Bus boycott begins in Montgomery, Alabama.
September 1959 Rev. James Lawson begins nonviolent action training workshops in Nashville.
February 13, 1960 Nashville students hold first sit-in.
February 27, 1960 Students at lunch counters are assaulted, then arrested.
March 1960 Boycott of Nashville department stores begins.
April 19, 1960 The home of a black lawyer, Z. Alexander Looby, is bombed. After protesters march on city hall, the mayor calls for desegregation of the lunch counters.
May 10, 1960 Lunch counters begin to serve African-Americans.
2010 is the 50th anniversary of the Nashville sit-in movement. Below is a video from Dr. James Haney, Host and Executive Producer of Comments With Dr. James Haney. Dr. Haney interviews two participants of the Nashville sit-ins, who discuss some of their challenges and experiences during that time.
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
video courtesy of: Dr. James Haney via youtube.com
A Force More Powerful
For this blog, I will be viewing and discussing the PBS documentary titled "A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict."
According to the official documentary website, "A Force More Powerful explores how popular movements battled entrenched regimes and military forces with unconventional weapons like boycotts, strikes, and demonstrations. Acts of civil resistance helped subvert the operations of government, and direct intervention in the form of sit-ins, nonviolent sabotage, and blockades frustrated many rulers' efforts to suppress people. The historical results were massive: tyrants toppled, governments overthrown, occupying armies impeded, and political systems shattered. Entire societies were transformed, suddenly or gradually, as nonviolent resistance destroyed the repressor's ability to control events."
For educational purposes, I will also be including links, pictures and videos to support and enhance the theories I discuss. The documentary I found and viewed was the educational version, which is split into 6 episodes, each 32 minutes. Both documentaries are still the same; the educational version is just split up more than the home version. In the following posts, I will address the main points of each episode, taking at the end a comparative look at each nonviolent approach explaining why I felt some were effective and some were not.
I hope you enjoy the upcoming entries on nonviolence and nonviolent resistance!
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
This site is for Ohio University's T3 480M class on Gandhi and King: Nonviolence as Philosophy and Strategy taught by Professor Michael J. Nojeim, Summer 2010. There is no attempt to infringe on any copyright laws and credit is given to the film and website for any quotes, pictures or video used from "A Force More Powerful: A century of nonviolent resistance."
For educational purposes, I will also be including links, pictures and videos to support and enhance the theories I discuss. The documentary I found and viewed was the educational version, which is split into 6 episodes, each 32 minutes. Both documentaries are still the same; the educational version is just split up more than the home version. In the following posts, I will address the main points of each episode, taking at the end a comparative look at each nonviolent approach explaining why I felt some were effective and some were not.
I hope you enjoy the upcoming entries on nonviolence and nonviolent resistance!
photo courtesy of: aforcemorepowerful.org
This site is for Ohio University's T3 480M class on Gandhi and King: Nonviolence as Philosophy and Strategy taught by Professor Michael J. Nojeim, Summer 2010. There is no attempt to infringe on any copyright laws and credit is given to the film and website for any quotes, pictures or video used from "A Force More Powerful: A century of nonviolent resistance."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)