Tesco backdated pay issue - n/g
- Thread starter GillsBluenose
- Start date
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Lol, cannot agree with rioting or physical action where there is no end game or strategy to accomplish some improvement for people. Sometimes the last resort is violence but generally Organisation and steady persistence takes more effort and sacrifice than a bit of violence.
I believe the physical nature of Cable street and the 1970s anti fascist struggle on the streets of London was justified as people's lives were being threatened but non violence worked in the case of Gandhi and ML King.
I believe the physical nature of Cable street and the 1970s anti fascist struggle on the streets of London was justified as people's lives were being threatened but non violence worked in the case of Gandhi and ML King.
Buddha
Vital Football Hero
Gandhi and Martin Luther King were important to their own peoples' struggles but their importance is overplayed by the establishment precisely because they were non-violent. As a consequence the popular opinion is that the achievements of their people were accomplished using only non-violence.
Their actions would have had less impact if not also accompanied by those who were prepared to use violence against their oppressors. The struggle against colonial rule in India was often violent and it is arguable that without this accompanying violence Gandhi would not have achieved what he did. This article is worth reading, jerry:
http://www.independent.co.uk/world/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-a7409066.html
Similarly, ML King is the civil rights campaigner who is championed but would the (relative) change in circumstance for black people in the US have been achieved if the struggle had been only non-violent? I think not and believe that the Black Panthers (and others) deserve to take some of the credit.
Basically, when change is required ALL methods and approaches are important. By the ballot or by the brick.
Their actions would have had less impact if not also accompanied by those who were prepared to use violence against their oppressors. The struggle against colonial rule in India was often violent and it is arguable that without this accompanying violence Gandhi would not have achieved what he did. This article is worth reading, jerry:
http://www.independent.co.uk/world/the-forgotten-violence-that-helped-india-break-free-from-colonial-rule-a7409066.html
Similarly, ML King is the civil rights campaigner who is championed but would the (relative) change in circumstance for black people in the US have been achieved if the struggle had been only non-violent? I think not and believe that the Black Panthers (and others) deserve to take some of the credit.
Basically, when change is required ALL methods and approaches are important. By the ballot or by the brick.
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Agree with that to an extent, but there was a strategic aim.
I believe you can argue that the us civil rights struggle was strengthened by some of the more violent resistance but could not have been done without King as the violence was gladly met with violence from the government. When the black panthers exercised the right to bear arms the constitution was changed and most of the black panthers leaders were killed/murdered (some evidently when ?escaping from prison with a gun? ! ). The whole movement was heavily infiltrated and paid off by the FBI who supported the violence so that counter violence could be used.
Malcolm x was tollerated when he was a violent black separatist but as soon as he had gone to mecca and realised that black and white were equally disadvantaged and called for joint action against oppression he was also murdered.
King realised that only by following Gandhi?s philosophy that the way forward was to trouble the conscience of people who although on one hand hated blacks also were troubled on the other hand by seeing innocent hymn singing people being brutalised in the media.
In the case of india I believe that the violent elements held the cause back as Gandhi?s policies were against the economic and religeous interests of the Raj and indian religeous fanatics. It has to be remembered that Ganghi had already had success with this cvil disobedience process in South Africa and Natal. When the religious fanatics joined the british in the devide and rule policy resulting in most of the violence only Gandhi stood in the way and he thad to be killed otherwise there would have been peaceful independence without partition.
A caveat here though is that Gandhi himself admitted that this non violent approach could never have worked if the Japanese had invaded India. So it?s horses for courses.
Oh, yes - definitely non gills lol.
I believe you can argue that the us civil rights struggle was strengthened by some of the more violent resistance but could not have been done without King as the violence was gladly met with violence from the government. When the black panthers exercised the right to bear arms the constitution was changed and most of the black panthers leaders were killed/murdered (some evidently when ?escaping from prison with a gun? ! ). The whole movement was heavily infiltrated and paid off by the FBI who supported the violence so that counter violence could be used.
Malcolm x was tollerated when he was a violent black separatist but as soon as he had gone to mecca and realised that black and white were equally disadvantaged and called for joint action against oppression he was also murdered.
King realised that only by following Gandhi?s philosophy that the way forward was to trouble the conscience of people who although on one hand hated blacks also were troubled on the other hand by seeing innocent hymn singing people being brutalised in the media.
In the case of india I believe that the violent elements held the cause back as Gandhi?s policies were against the economic and religeous interests of the Raj and indian religeous fanatics. It has to be remembered that Ganghi had already had success with this cvil disobedience process in South Africa and Natal. When the religious fanatics joined the british in the devide and rule policy resulting in most of the violence only Gandhi stood in the way and he thad to be killed otherwise there would have been peaceful independence without partition.
A caveat here though is that Gandhi himself admitted that this non violent approach could never have worked if the Japanese had invaded India. So it?s horses for courses.
Oh, yes - definitely non gills lol.
Razorpound
Vital Squad Member
Violence rarely achieves anything but suffering - and then mainly on those protesting with violence.
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
Always an issue when calling for or causing regime change to a strong government that is keeping a lid on ethnic violence. In the name of human rights or some perceived threat thousands upon thousands of people killed or displaced into suffering in places like Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Syria, Yemen etc and these are only the latest.
Strange we don't seem to have any moral outrage or talk about regime change in Myanmar where they are ethnically cleansing at least 600,000 people of which 200,000 are in grave danger when the annual floods come causing land slides in the refugee camp.
Strange we don't seem to have any moral outrage or talk about regime change in Myanmar where they are ethnically cleansing at least 600,000 people of which 200,000 are in grave danger when the annual floods come causing land slides in the refugee camp.
Straightbat
Vital Reserves Team
Deary me I thought this was about Tesco. Who wrote "a slightly hire wage rate in order to encourage people to apply"? Exactly. How does a points system factor in supply and demand?
Jerryattrick
Vital Football Hero
The Russians are interfering with the board!
NedFlanders
Vital Newbie
You're absolutely right about that. But i was making a more general point about cases where human interaction is needed. Such as waiting staff, store assistants who help us find items etc. These people are the face of the companies they work for and whilst i don't think they should be paid fortunes for what they do, they certainly shouldn't be looked down upon by a society that would complain the instant they weren't 100% smiley and friendly.
