Introduction to Non-Violence Part 2

[24] Alexander Berkman, _Prison Memoirs of an Anarchist_ (New York: Mother Earth Publis.h.i.+ng a.s.sociation, 1912), 7.

[25] Berkman, _Communist Anarchism_, 217-229, 247-248, 290.

Abraham Lincoln

Abraham Lincoln represented the spirit of moderation in the use of violence. He led his nation in war reluctantly and prayerfully, with no touch of hatred toward those whom the armies of which he was Commander-in-Chief were destroying. He expressed his feeling in an inspiring way in the closing words of his Second Inaugural Address, when the war was rapidly drawing to a victorious close:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness to do the right, as G.o.d gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations."

The Church and War

The statements of British and American churchmen during the present war call to mind these words of Lincoln. At Malvern, in 1941, members of the Church of England declared: "G.o.d himself is the sovereign of all human life; all men are his children, and ought to be brothers of one another; through Christ the Redeemer they can become what they ought to be." In March, 1942, American Protestant leaders at Delaware, Ohio, a.s.serted: "We believe it is the purpose of G.o.d to create a world-wide community in Jesus Christ, transcending nation, race and cla.s.s."[26] Yet the majority of the men who drew up these two statements were supporting the war which their nations were waging against fellow members of the world community--against those whom they professed to call brothers. Like Lincoln they did so in the belief that when the military phases of the war were over, it would be possible to turn from violence and to practice the principles of Christian charity.[27]

There is little in human history to justify their hope. There is much to make us believe that the violent att.i.tudes of war will lead to hatred and injustice toward enemies when the war is done. The inspiring words of Lincoln were followed by the orgy of radical reconstruction in the South. There is at least as grave a doubt that the spirit of the Christian Church will dominate the peace which is concluded at the end of the present war.

The question arises insistently whether violence without hate can long live up to its own professions.

FOOTNOTES:

[26] number of these religious statements are conveniently brought together in the appendix to Paul Hutchinson's _From Victory to Peace_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1943). For a statement of a point of view similar to the one we are discussing here, see also Charles Clayton Morrison, _The Christian and the War_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1942).

[27] Bernard Iddings Bell has expressed the att.i.tude of such churchmen: "Evil may sometimes get such control of men and nations, they have realized, that armed resistance becomes a necessity. There are times when not to partic.i.p.ate in violence is in itself violence to the welfare of the brethren. But no Christian moralist worth mentioning has ever regarded war _per se_ as other than monstrous, or hoped that by the use of violence anything more could be accomplished than the frustration of a temporarily powerful malicious wickedness. War in itself gives birth to no righteousness. Only such a fire of love as leads to self-effacement can advance the welfare of mankind." "Will the Christian Church Survive?" _Atlantic Monthly_, Vol. 170, October, 1942, 109.

III. NON-VIOLENCE BY NECESSITY

The use of non-violent resistance does not always denote devotion to pacifist principles. Groups who would gladly use arms against an enemy if they had them often use non-violent means simply because they have no others at their disposal at the moment. In contrast to the type of action described in the preceding section, such a procedure might be called "hate without violence." It would probably be better to call it "non-violence by necessity."

The group using non-violence under such circ.u.mstances might have in view one of three purposes. It might hope through its display of opposition and its own suffering to appeal to the sense of fair play of the group that was oppressing it. However, such a hope can exist only in cases where the two opposing parties have a large area of agreement upon values, or h.o.m.ogeneity, and would have no basis when the oppressing group looked upon the oppressed as completely beneath their consideration. It is unlikely that it would have much success in changing the policy of a nation which consciously chose to invade another country, although it might affect individual soldiers if their cultural background were similar to that of the invaded people.[28]

An invader usually desires to gain something from the invaded people. In order to succeed, he needs their cooperation. A second way of thwarting the will of the invader is to refuse that cooperation, and be willing to suffer the penalties of such refusal. Since the invaded territory would then have no value, the invader might leave of his own accord.

A third possibility is for the invaded people to employ sabotage and inflict damage upon the invader in the belief that his invasion can be made so costly that it will be impossible for him to remain in the conquered territory. Such sabotage easily merges into violence.

In the preceding paragraphs, the enemy of the group using non-violence has been referred to as the "invader," because our best examples of this type of non-violent opposition are to be found in the histories of conquered people opposing the will of occupying forces. A similar situation may exist between a colonial people and the home government of an imperial power, since in most cases their position is essentially that of a conquered people, except that their territory has been occupied for a longer period of time.

FOOTNOTE:

[28] Franklin H. Giddings said, "In a word, non-aggression and non-resistance are an outcome of h.o.m.ogeneity." "The Gospel of Non-Resistance," in _Democracy and Empire_ (New York: Macmillan, 1900), 356. See also Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 248; Lewis, _Case Against Pacifism_, 185-186.

Non-Violent Resistance to Invaders

Stories of the use of this sort of non-violence occur in our press every day, as they find their way out of the occupied countries which are opposing the n.a.z.i invaders with every means at their disposal. In these countries the vast majority of the people are agreed in their determination to rid themselves of n.a.z.i control. Such common agreement is the first requisite for the success of this method of resistance.

When the people of the territory refuse to inform the police about individuals who are committing unlawful acts against the invaders, it is virtually impossible for the latter to check the expansion of non-cooperation or sabotage. Similarly, if the whole population refuses to cooperate with the invader, it is impossible for him to punish them all, or if he did, he would be destroying the labor force whose cooperation he desires, and would have defeated himself in the very process of stamping out the opposition to his regime.

Hitler himself has discovered that there is a difference between military occupation and actual conquest. In his New Year's proclamation to the German people in 1944, he attempted to explain the n.a.z.i reverses in North Africa and Italy in these words:

"The true cause of the difficulties in North Africa and the Balkans was in reality the persistent attempts at sabotage and paralyzation of these plutocratic enemies of the fascist people's State.

"Their continual sabotage not only succeeded in stopping supplies to Africa and, later on, to Italy, by ever-new methods of pa.s.sive resistance, thus preventing our soldiers and the Italians standing at their side from receiving the material wherewithal for the conduct of the struggle, but also aggravated or confused the situation in the Balkans, which had been cleared according to plan by German actions."[29]

Opposition to the German invader has taken different forms in different countries. In Denmark, where there was no military resistance to the initial invasion, the subtle opposition of the people has made itself felt in innumerable ways. There are many stories such as that of the King's refusal to inst.i.tute anti-Jewish laws in Denmark on the ground that there was no Jewish problem there since the Danes did not feel themselves to be inferior to the Jews. Such ideological opposition makes the n.a.z.is angry, and it also makes them uncomfortable, since they do hold enough values in common with the Danes to understand perfectly the implications of the Danish jibes. Such psychological opposition merges into sabotage very easily. For instance when the Germans demanded ten torpedo boats from the Danish navy, the Danes prepared them for delivery by taking all their guns and equipment ash.o.r.e, and then burning the warehouse in which these were stored. The n.a.z.is even forbade the press to mention the incident, lest it become a signal for a nationwide demonstration of solidarity.[30]

Other occupied countries report the same type of non-violent resistance.

There are strikes of parents against sending their children to n.a.z.i-controlled schools, strikes of ministers against conforming to n.a.z.i decrees, demonstrations, malingering, and interference with internal administration. Such events may appear less important than military resistance, but they make the life of an occupying force uneasy and unhappy.[31]

Calls for non-violent preparation for the day of delivery go out constantly in the underground press. While urging solidarity in illegal acts among the French population at home, one French appeal even gave instructions to Frenchmen who might go to work in Germany:

"If you respond to Laval's appeal, I know in what spirit you will do so. You will wish to slow down German production, establish contacts with all the Frenchmen in Germany, and create the strongest of Fifth Columns in the enemy country."[32]

Over a long period of time such action cannot help having an effect upon the success of the invader. Since the grievance of the peoples of the occupied countries is a continuous one, there is no prospect that their resistance will relax until they have freed themselves of their oppressors.

FOOTNOTES:

[29] _New York Times_, Jan. 1, 1944, page 4, columns 2-7.

[30] C. H. W. Ha.s.selriis, "Nothing Rotten in Denmark," in _The New Republic_, June 7, 1943, Vol. 108: 760-761.

[31] The publications of the various governments in exile are filled with such stories. See such periodicals as _News of Norway_ and _News from Belgium_, which can be obtained through the United Nations Information Service, 610 Fifth Avenue, New York City.

[32] _Resistance_, Feb. 17, 1943, reprinted in _Free World_, July, 1943, Vol. 6, 77.

Chinese Boycotts Against Foreigners

We can find many other examples of the use of these non-violent methods under similar circ.u.mstances. The Chinese made use of the boycott repeatedly to oppose foreign domination and interference in their internal affairs in the years before the outbreak of the present war against j.a.pan. Clarence Case lists five significant Chinese boycotts between 1906 and 1919. The last one was directed against foreigners _and the Chinese government_ to protest the action of the Peace Conference in giving j.a.pan a predominant interest in Shantung. As a result the government of China was ousted, and the provisions of the treaty revised. j.a.pan felt the effects of the boycott more than any other country. Case says of the j.a.panese reaction:

"As for the total loss to j.a.panese trade, various authorities have settled upon $50,000,000, which we may accept as a close approximation. At any rate the pressure was great enough to impel the j.a.panese merchants of Peking and Tientsin, with apparent ruin staring them in the face, to appeal to their home government for protection. They insisted that the boycott should be made a diplomatic question of the first order and that demands for its removal should be backed by threats of military intervention. To this the government at Tokio 'could only reply that it knew no way by which the Chinese merchants, much less the Chinese people, could be made to buy j.a.panese goods against their will.'"[33]

This incident calls to mind the experience of the American colonists in their non-violent resistance to Great Britain's imperial policy in the years following 1763, which we shall discuss more at length in the next section.

Egyptian Opposition to Great Britain

Another similar example is that of the Egyptian protest against British occupation of the country in 1919. People in all walks of life went on strike. Officials boycotted the British mission under Lord Milner, which came to work out a compromise. The mission was forced to return to London empty handed, but finally an agreement was reached there with Saad Zagloul Pasha, leader of the Egyptian movement, on the basis of independence for the country, with the British retaining only enough military control to safeguard their interest in the Suez Ca.n.a.l. After the acceptance of the settlement in 1922, friction between Egypt and Great Britain continued, but Egypt was not sufficiently united, nor were the grievances great enough to lead to the same type of successful non-cooperation practiced in 1919.[34]