Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote:
Not necessarily in that order, no, and your second question leads me to think "probably not" but the Great Oracle of Truthiness, Wikipedia, suggests "yes." Certainly, non-violence was part of his means in South Africa:
|
The word I used was "goal". Not "means".
Quote:
Matthew Gano wrote:
And I would guess the hierarchy I suggested wouldn't have been fixed for every circumstance, particularly earlier on in his life/"development", but it does seem to be a kind of rule of thumb, doesn't it? It seems to have become more important to him later in his life.
|
IMO, later in life -- after he had succeeded in his goal of revolution -- non-violence was the means to a different goal, that of the survival of the new nation as a pluralistic state.
Let's also not forget that Gandhi's opponent was arguably the most formidable military power of its time. Using violent means against a stronger opponent...well, sometimes it works, for some definition of "works". But contrast India with Ireland, if you will. Gandhi went up against the same empire and came to a different conclusion about what would be the most effective technique. Again, modern fuzzy-thinkers put Gandhi in a nice warm-fuzzy basket with all the people we're taught to admire without knowing anything about their actual history, but why does the Indian flag has a spinning wheel on it. Why did Gandhi wear homespun? Think about it...