On July Fourth many of us attend parades that, in addition to the local chamber of commerce float, include men, boys and sometimes girls dressed in soldier costumes reminiscent of the war that brought the colonies independence from the British. Reading about this war we know that it was brutal, horrifying and left serious deprivation for both sides but especially the nascent Americans. On this July Fourth I am wondering what America as a nation might have become had we gained our independence from England through means of non-violent resistance instead of war?
The question was brought home to me by my recent trip to India where ahimsa (the principle of no-harm) is honored in this country which gained its freedom from British rule not through war but through a popular uprising using the principles of non-violent resistance.
This idea of a non-violent American revolution seems, at first blush, to be sentimental, academic or even heretical. Yet the question of violent vs. non-violent revolutionary movements is very real for those countries currently attempting to gain their freedom from oppressive occupying forces. It is very real for the people of Tibet, for example. Recently a group of students and I were able to meet with the Dailai Lama and with Prof. Rinpoche Sandhong, the Prime Minister of the Tibetan People in exile. When we asked Prof. Rinpoche about Buddhism and the principle of Ahimsa he spoke of Gandhi. “Gandhi did not invent non-violent resistance, but what he did was bring the principle of non-violence to an entire people to create change.”
Gandhi led the Indian people to a non-violent attainment of complete freedom from a much more powerful occupying force; Martin Luther King, Jr, was inspired to use these same techniques in the American civil rights movement; and Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu did the same in South Africa. Today the people of Tibet, led by the Dalai Lama, have halted violent means of securing their freedom and in so doing have shown the Chinese invasion for the travesty that it is while providing spiritual inspiration for people of all nations.
What if the practice of non-violence resistance had extended further back and had been employed in the Americas? Would the French revolution have followed suit and been less bloody? Would a non-violent American revolution changed our understanding of conquest and freedom and altered our interactions with native American populations and with our neighbors to the south and north?
I am not a complete pacifist. But the powerful freedom struggles of India and Tibet that did not rely on force but on spiritual principles have inspired me to re-consider our Independence day parades and to remember that there are other models of getting freedom in the world – ones that don’t involve violence. Let us celebrate our independence but reflect upon other means that true and lasting freedom are attained. Happy Fourth of July.
posted July 3, 2009 at 8:15 pm
King George was a nut. Our independence came the only way it could.
posted July 3, 2009 at 8:50 pm
“King George was a nut. Our independence came the only way it could.”
Despite references to him in the Declaration, the king of England already had very limited powers by the time of the Revolution. In addition, the British generally left us alone for most of our history, and the taxes they did give to us after the Seven Years War were minimal, particularly when compared to what people payed in England.
And as for our way being the only way, I do believe that it was less than 100 years later that Canada achieved full independence from Britain, and up until that point they were a self-governing autonomous region. So, while I by no means lament the decision of my ancestors to fight for independence (such would be wholly unnecessary) I have to disagree that it was the only way.
posted July 4, 2009 at 6:06 am
Leave Mandela out of your analysis. He was one of the instigators of the ANC’s policy of Armed Struggle. That was what he was sent to jail for, in fact. As these things go, the ANC did have one of the most disciplined armed uprisings in history, with attacks on specific military and state targets rather than random massacres of civilians. But it was certainly not “non-violent resistance” as Gandhi would have understood it.
posted July 5, 2009 at 2:07 am
I think the challenge is when we choose security over faithfulness to the gospel. If we truly followed non-violence, surely we would not be causing harm to other people. However, we might not exist. But I think that is a risk we should take.
posted July 5, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Kudos to you, POvidi, for that excellent use of Canadian history! We get some people on American websites who think we live in igloos. And yes, we achieved our independence through an act of Parliament, roughly 100 years after yours (July 1, 1867, to be exact). It was very non-violent . . . but eighth-grade history class is probably a lot less exciting for us north of the border.
posted July 6, 2009 at 1:01 am
Anal retentive liberals, cure your insanity with the following prescription not covered under any health care plan; current or imagined:
. Buy US $100 worth of illegal fireworks.
. Made in China.
. On a native American (aka Indian) reservation.
. Enjoy.
posted July 7, 2009 at 11:24 am
Thanks for this thought-provoking perspective!
I don’t know if the USA could have achieved independence without taking up arms, but I think John Adams would say that the most important aspect of the Revolution was nonviolent — a radical shift in the minds and hearts of the people. He wrote: “The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution.”
posted February 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm
check Minnesota Indian Reservations