We offered a practical definition of nonviolent struggle earlier in this series. We now turn to "civil resistance", a term often used as a synonym of nonviolent action. Is there a difference between the two? Why use one over the other? Drawing from a new release on the subject, find out what the rationale is for using "civil resistance" as a term that covers most of the ground associated with nonviolent action, without some of its unwanted aura of ascetic faith or doctrine.

From the 1960's to this day, the Sharpeville massacre under apartheid
South Africa has been regularly cited as a clear-cut example of why nonviolent action doesn't work. As part of our series on nonviolent struggle, we take a closer look at what happened on that fateful day when women, children and men were shot dead by police, and its aftermath. Was the only possible conclusion that armed struggle was going to be the only option? What might such levels of repression mean
for the relevance of unarmed methods of fundamental change?

“An apostle of nonviolence.” “Preaching nonviolence”. We hear these
expressions so often, we don’t question them. But there is a crucial
difference between soporific preachifying and nonviolent action. So
let's clear this up.

The choice of nonviolent action is sometimes ridiculed, often misunderstood, always in need of explanation. Second in our popularization series on the core dynamics of nonviolent action, we offer a basic definition of nonviolent struggle. We are in the process of putting together a resource that you and anybody will be able to use, to share with others a basic understanding of what non-military means of fighting can offer this world in its thirst for justice and the full enjoyment of comprehensive human rights. You can help this project.

How can this thing called "nonviolent action" work?
Over the last 100 years, against seemingly insurmontable odds and
always to the surprise of official analysts and media pundits, unarmed
civilans have prevailed over the power and weapons of some of the
world's worst human rights abusers and most brutal dictatorships.
There's a long list, but highlights include the Shah of Iran, Poland's
Jaruzelski, Marcos in the Philippines, Pinochet in Chile, P.W. Botha
and apartheid rule in South Africa, not to mention a few Soviet-style
regimes behind the Berlin wall.
Now how did THAT happen?
Does power not come from the barrel of a gun? Is violence not the most
potent arbitrer of human conflict? How could unarmed populations win
against ruthless opponents equiped with the most sophisticated
weaponry, intelligence networks, and trained police and armies?
In this series of blog posts, I'd like you to join me in an experiment.

The use of humor in human rights activism is no new phenomenon with examples of it dating back to Norwegian popular resistance in World War II. Ranging from thought-provoking to humiliating, comical to satirical, humor can be manifested in such a multitude of ways that it has often been the venue of action for many human rights practitioners. Although at first thought it may seem that organizations using humor in their advocacy are doing so only for attention and publicity, this is certainly not true. The experiences of numerous years of humor have brought a deeper understanding of the effects it can have in advocacy.

Related New Tactics Resources

Related Groups: 

Advocates of Humor

Photo: mell242 

The cycle of violence can be broken. On interTactica this week, we get acquainted with two people, featured in our "Healing of Memories" dialogue, who haven't given up on hope.

White-supremacist graffitis were found at Colgate University on the same day the United States elected its first African American president. It's been less than a week, and I am standing in front of an overflowing chapel on this all-American "Hidden Ivy" campus, with over a thousand people who have congregated here to denounce the symbols of a deep, ongoing strand of racism. The midday sun is as dim as the air is crisp, but the chill comes from elsewhere: the bigoted scribbles were part of hundreds of race threats and crimes committed around the same time across the US.

Nobody can argue against the proven benefits of using a diversity of well-chosen tactics to wage successful struggles. The sequencing of multiple creative tactics ranging from protests to legislative pressures, from secondary boycotts to civil disobedience, has been a fundamental feature of countless successful campaigns. A wide variety of tactics lies at the core of the emphasis nonviolent activists have put for decades on knowing a repertoire of at least 198 methods of action, and on clever ways to sequence them.

But dangerous slips of logic have presided over a protest framework known as "Respect for a Diversity of Tactics". I believe the failure of protests such as the one at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul (USA) last September is inherent in the Diversity of Tactics approach.

Photo: Diana Jou

 

On September 1, 2008, several hundred protesters from across mainland USA tried to stop delegates from attending the Republican National Convention at the Xcel Center in the business district of Saint Paul, Minneapolis, where they were going to crown presidential hopeful John McCain.

 

"Crash the Convention" was the order of the day. But politically and number-wise, whose side really got smashed and crushed?

 

Over 800 people arrested. Many more detained and released. House raids in the middle of the night. Eight organizers facing "Conspiracy to Commit Riot in Furtherance of Terrorism", a second degree felony charges. Maximum penalty: seven and a half years in prison. 

 

Deep police infiltration. Pre-emptive searches and seizures. Baton rounds. Concussion and Sponge grenades. Tasers. Pepper spray. Tear gas. 

 

The intense brutality of the crackdown in the Twin Cities was an awful, a hydra monster of gross violations. Outrage and indignation. These are healthy, vital reactions. 

 

But once the emotion subsides, what should be the question?