Violence_vs._Nonviolence

Judging by key events in history, it would seem like human beings have the innate quality of being forceful. After all, our superior nervous system does give us an advantage over other the other species that inhabit this planet. This sounds fascinating but, in actuality, this has an incredible potential of being more destructive than constructive. From the beginning of our existence, it seems like we had to fight for our food, our land, our freedom, our civil rights, etc. In fact, it may just be the case that we became civilized as a result of revolts and war; as a result of fighting for what earlier groups of activists believed in. Even so, if we compare modern societies with those pertaining to ancient history, it would seem like the drive for violent uprisings has diminished. Over the course of time, exemplary leaders who believe in peace have come forth and expressed their ideas on how to channel our energy, astuteness, and passions in a way that causes no harm to our neighbor, while still yielding results. Among the most recognized leaders of this kind is Mohandas Gandhi who devoted his life to achieve peace, equality, and tolerance among people through non-violent means. Inspired by authors such Leo Tolstoy, he became a teacher, for many, of Passive Resistance. Passive resistance goes by many names- Truth-Force, Soul-Force, and Love-Force, to name a few. In one of his writings he described it as follows: “Only those who realize that there is something in man which is superior to the brute nature in him, and that the latter always yields to it, can effectively be Passive Resisters”1. Therefore, refraining from violence does imply submissiveness; non-violent approaches, he believes, entail spiritual and moral strength. In his own words, “It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one’s whole soul against the will of the tyrant”.2 1 Gandhi, Mahatma. “The Theory and Practice of Passive Resistance.” Cultural Conversations: The Presence of the Past. Ed. Dilks, Stephen, Regina Hansen, and Matthew Parfitt. New York: Bedford Books, 2001. 446. Print. 2 Gandhi, Mahatma. “The Doctrine of the Sword I.” Cultural Conversations: The Presence of the Past. Ed. Dilks, Stephen, Regina Hansen, and Matthew Parfitt. New York: Bedford Books, 2001. 455. Print. Gandhi’s philosophy preached to many worldwide, even after his death. Many activists, like Petra Kelley- a cofounder of the Green Party, who concentrated her political efforts on peace and nonviolence, ecology, feminism, and human rights-, were greatly influenced by his teachings. In fact, even those who probably never heard of Gandhi, who inhabited other parts of the world, acted in accord to what he taught. On March 21st, 1937, a group of political activists from the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party had organized a peaceful march along the streets of Ponce, Puerto Rico to protest against the imprisonment of nationalist leader Pedro Albizu Campos by the US government on sedition charges. That morning, the chief police, Colonel Orbeta, traveled to the site with the intention of prohibiting the activity. He gave orders to the head of the police in Ponce, Captain Felipe Blanco, to stop the march, and headed to the capital of the island to meet with the governor at the time, Josè Ramòn Quiñones, and his assistant. There, they decided that the demonstration was of military character- an illegal manifestation at the time- so the Colonel ordered reinforcements to be sent to Ponce. Even though parades and public acts could be legally held without permission, a week before the set date for the march, the Nationalists had requested authorization for said manifestation from the governor. He was out on vacation, and the acting governor, Dr. William Gelpi’s, response was that the decision had to be made by the governor. Upon the governor’s return, he promised to grant them the permission. On the day of the protest, as the heavily armed police reinforcements were arriving, two Nationalists went to the mayor’s office to claim the permit. At about noon, Colonel Orbeta met with the mayor to question the permit, saying that the march was of military character. The mayor stood by his decision, assuring the Colonel that the march was of a passive nature. The Colonel threatened to open fire and hold the mayor responsible if the manifestation continued. Priests also asked the mayor to revoke the permit, being that it was Holy week. In the end, the mayor made the decision to revoke the permit, but the Nationalist party’s plans did not change. They decided to march despite being surrounded by both a crowd of supporters and armed police, ready to open fire upon command. The national hymn started playing, the demonstrators began to march, and the police opened fire from four locations for over 15 minutes. Demonstrators as well as spectators suffered the consequences of this violent outbreak. Around 200 people were wounded and 19 were killed. 3 What was supposed to be a passive march through the streets of this town turned into a bloody massacre in a matter of seconds. The Nationalist Party acted in accord to what Gandhi would have wanted: they felt strongly about their cause, they took non-violent action, and they stuck by what they believed in without resorting to brute force when they were challenged- even when that meant dying for their cause. It is almost as if their strength and composure intimidated the higher authorities so much, that they had to use intimidation and incredibly violent means to end their manifestation within a minute since it started. It can be inferred that their peaceful approach had the potential of being so powerful, perhaps even effective, that the government just could not permit it even started. 3 “The Ponce Massacre.” Puerto Rico Encyclopedia. National Endowment for the Humanities, n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2010.