160
the us has no conscience
(quokk.au)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2026
160 points (99.4% liked)
Memes of Production
1396 readers
1170 users here now
Seize the Memes of Production
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the “ML” influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.
Other Great Communities:
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
Amm.. That means British Monarch in India had conscience, when Mahathma Gandhi was promoting non-violence and hunger strike. Which I don't think is true.
In India it worked because British was sure that if they use force against someone promoting non-violence the retaliation will be uprising of a violent mob. Atrocities in India reached a high were majority of the people were affected by it and fed up by it. Like the modern times it was not possible to sway the public opinion through media of any kind.
Gandhi was a saint in practice, but more than that he was shrewd politician, who identified the weakness of British monarchy in India.
I don't know much about American History. But I believe that America not having a conscience could be one of the reason why the non-violence will not have worked. I am not sure if that is the primary reason. Can someone with more knowledge in American History provide an elaboration on this point? I feel there will be some missing context.
Non-violence was successfully used in the US during the civil rights protests. The quote feels correct for those protesting because change is slow and there are certainly some people without conscious. The non-violence movement displayed very clearly the oppressor and the oppressed and it eventually swayed public opinion enough to lead to lasting political change.
I don't think the civil rights movement was at all "non-violent". just not "mass violence".
outside the white washing it's gotten. there was lots of violent and "silent violence"(using paint "bombs") to disrupt and force attention to the needs of the many. from the desires of the few.