Basically, in any protest or revolution there's two measures of success:
1. Taken seriously that these people represent a constituancy 2. Gain concessions or advantages
For the first, violent activists have an 83% success rate. Violent recipients have a 20% success rate. For not getting acceptance it's 17% and 80%, respectively.
For the second, violent activists have a 100% success rate. Violent recipients have a 0% success rate.
By "violent recipients," that's people like MLK and his non-violent protests. People who were activists and recieved violence.
That's from a study by William Gamson and Ernest Evans.
Clearly, violent activism is more effective. I'm also confused by your examples because while MLK, for example, did not condone violence, the movement he was part of used to (successfully) to effect their purpose. Just because MLK was non-violent does not mean the movement was non-violent and does not the actions of the movement were non-violent because a lot of them were.
As for the wizardry world, Hermione has tried reasoning and logic and non-violence and she has got absolutely nowhere. In fact, she's been ridiculed for it. Even the house-elves think she's being a bit ridiculous.
Also: "Do you mean to suggest that we couldn't create standards of reasonable actions in those times, and have only stumbled upon them in the last few hundred years?"
If you mean reasonable actions by way of what is currently considered reasonable by first world civilisations? Yes, we have just stumbled upon them in the last few hundred years and a good portion of the world -- in fact, most of its population -- still hasn't. Though, in actuality, the U.S., one of the main encourages of "human rights" and the like, actually ranks *really* low on the list of "good" countries in terms of human rights and human rights violations. Basically, we're in company with Iran and Iraq and places like that.
This site is the Human Rights Watch Report of 2004, which mainly deals with the violations the U.S. has willingfully done in the last year or so.
But most of this is neither here nor there. What is here or there is this: "There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part."
First, we don't know that. He could have attempted to reason with people. Perhaps he did reason with people and that's how he got a number of followers. However, it's clear from what we see of the Ministry in the books and Dumbledore in the books that attempts to educate and reason with people must come from within the system -- or from a new system. Educating one person at a time does very little, as history and common sense, has shown.
Currently Muggle Studies show things, as you yourself pointed out, such as box-lifting and the like. Things which do not even begin to educate about the Muggle world. Currently, a man who works in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department doesn't even know how to say electricity. Currently, Muggleborns are assimulated into the culture and anyone who attempts to bring on "enlightened" Muggle values, such as Hermione, is considered a bit insane and too Muggle. Currently, the pureblood objection, if the Malfoys' comments have anything to do with it, is against people who were raised by Muggles. Literally, that's what Draco says. He asks only if Harry had two magical parents, not if Harry was a pureblood.
So, there's one, obvious non-violent manner in which to acheive a revolution of knowledge and purpose, seemingly. Tom Riddle would have had to have become Minister of Magic and then change the system. Except that, of course, changing the legal system does little good if the school system, if every magical child in the UK and Ireland, is in control of a person with completely different views of you. So, what Voldemort needs then, is to be able to change both systems when the Ministry doesn't have control over Hogwarts and vice versa.
Can you think of a non-violent way he could have managed that?
Yes, but it's long and difficult and might not have large results for a generation.
There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part. If everyone who was sure they were right lept immediately to the idea of using force, there would be even more death and destruction in this world than there already is.
Exactly. It's pretty obvious from the way Tom behaved in CoS (and fifty years before that) that Voldemort never tried nonviolence first. It's as simple as that, really.
Regarding the survey info (and one survey does not a truth make), what about Gandhi? I'm not saying he did everything himself, but his movement made a huge difference in the changes made in India.
The other thing to note, especially when comparing Voldemort to Hitler, is that Hitler came to power through democratic means. He tried to take power in a putsch once, was arrested, and, as a popular figure, was given a reduced sentence and spent it writing Mein Kampf. One wonders whether Voldemort could have been diverted from terrorist-style violence if he had been subjected to a decent legilimencer/truth potion and arrested after the Chamber of Secrets murder?
So, there's one, obvious non-violent manner in which to acheive a revolution of knowledge and purpose, seemingly. Tom Riddle would have had to have become Minister of Magic and then change the system. Except that, of course, changing the legal system does little good if the school system, if every magical child in the UK and Ireland, is in control of a person with completely different views of you. So, what Voldemort needs then, is to be able to change both systems when the Ministry doesn't have control over Hogwarts and vice versa.
Can you think of a non-violent way he could have managed that?
He could've done something similar to what Dumbledore did with Fudge - either be Headmaster and arrange for an ardent follower of his to be Minister, or vice versa. Although it's likely that Dumbledore would've moved to check his power by becoming whatever Voldemort wasn't, and it's possible that after the defeat of Grindelwald, there was no way for Voldemort to beat out Dumbledore for the position of Headmaster when Dippet retired.
I agree that the situation looks bleak for Tom, but I just find violence to be so terrible that it will be difficult for me to agree that it's justified unless in the most dire circumstances.
1. Taken seriously that these people represent a constituancy
2. Gain concessions or advantages
For the first, violent activists have an 83% success rate. Violent recipients have a 20% success rate. For not getting acceptance it's 17% and 80%, respectively.
For the second, violent activists have a 100% success rate. Violent recipients have a 0% success rate.
By "violent recipients," that's people like MLK and his non-violent protests. People who were activists and recieved violence.
That's from a study by William Gamson and Ernest Evans.
Clearly, violent activism is more effective. I'm also confused by your examples because while MLK, for example, did not condone violence, the movement he was part of used to (successfully) to effect their purpose. Just because MLK was non-violent does not mean the movement was non-violent and does not the actions of the movement were non-violent because a lot of them were.
As for the wizardry world, Hermione has tried reasoning and logic and non-violence and she has got absolutely nowhere. In fact, she's been ridiculed for it. Even the house-elves think she's being a bit ridiculous.
Also: "Do you mean to suggest that we couldn't create standards of reasonable actions in those times, and have only stumbled upon them in the last few hundred years?"
If you mean reasonable actions by way of what is currently considered reasonable by first world civilisations? Yes, we have just stumbled upon them in the last few hundred years and a good portion of the world -- in fact, most of its population -- still hasn't. Though, in actuality, the U.S., one of the main encourages of "human rights" and the like, actually ranks *really* low on the list of "good" countries in terms of human rights and human rights violations. Basically, we're in company with Iran and Iraq and places like that.
This site is the Human Rights Watch Report of 2004, which mainly deals with the violations the U.S. has willingfully done in the last year or so.
But most of this is neither here nor there. What is here or there is this: "There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part."
First, we don't know that. He could have attempted to reason with people. Perhaps he did reason with people and that's how he got a number of followers. However, it's clear from what we see of the Ministry in the books and Dumbledore in the books that attempts to educate and reason with people must come from within the system -- or from a new system. Educating one person at a time does very little, as history and common sense, has shown.
Currently Muggle Studies show things, as you yourself pointed out, such as box-lifting and the like. Things which do not even begin to educate about the Muggle world. Currently, a man who works in the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department doesn't even know how to say electricity. Currently, Muggleborns are assimulated into the culture and anyone who attempts to bring on "enlightened" Muggle values, such as Hermione, is considered a bit insane and too Muggle. Currently, the pureblood objection, if the Malfoys' comments have anything to do with it, is against people who were raised by Muggles. Literally, that's what Draco says. He asks only if Harry had two magical parents, not if Harry was a pureblood.
So, there's one, obvious non-violent manner in which to acheive a revolution of knowledge and purpose, seemingly. Tom Riddle would have had to have become Minister of Magic and then change the system. Except that, of course, changing the legal system does little good if the school system, if every magical child in the UK and Ireland, is in control of a person with completely different views of you. So, what Voldemort needs then, is to be able to change both systems when the Ministry doesn't have control over Hogwarts and vice versa.
Can you think of a non-violent way he could have managed that?
- Andrea.
Reply
There might've been nonviolent means to achieve his ends. He could've gathered evidence of the Muggle threat and tried to enact the same goals peacefully. That he didn't do this, but rather went straight to violent revolution, is a moral failing on his part. If everyone who was sure they were right lept immediately to the idea of using force, there would be even more death and destruction in this world than there already is.
Exactly. It's pretty obvious from the way Tom behaved in CoS (and fifty years before that) that Voldemort never tried nonviolence first. It's as simple as that, really.
Regarding the survey info (and one survey does not a truth make), what about Gandhi? I'm not saying he did everything himself, but his movement made a huge difference in the changes made in India.
Reply
Reply
Can you think of a non-violent way he could have managed that?
He could've done something similar to what Dumbledore did with Fudge - either be Headmaster and arrange for an ardent follower of his to be Minister, or vice versa. Although it's likely that Dumbledore would've moved to check his power by becoming whatever Voldemort wasn't, and it's possible that after the defeat of Grindelwald, there was no way for Voldemort to beat out Dumbledore for the position of Headmaster when Dippet retired.
I agree that the situation looks bleak for Tom, but I just find violence to be so terrible that it will be difficult for me to agree that it's justified unless in the most dire circumstances.
Reply
Leave a comment