SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
posted by
LaminatorX
on Wednesday February 19 2014, @11:00PM
from the not-going-to-make-light-of-this dept.
from the not-going-to-make-light-of-this dept.
romanr writes:
"The situation in Ukraine was pretty wild yesterday. Over twenty dead protesters have been reported, and many more have been injured. One student, a supporter of peaceful demonstrations and a participant in the riots, answers questions about the current situation in Ukraine."
[ED Note: Background on the Ukraine situation from the BBC.]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Ukrainian Riots Participant Answers Questions on Reddit
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 26 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
QOTD:
"My life is a soap opera, but who gets the movie rights?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2014, @12:21AM
The alternative is a non-violent protest which would be systemically taken apart and pacified by illegal government actions, think Occupy. Violence is the only thing that governments and those in power understand as they are inherently violent themselves. Gandhi is revered as a hero of the non-violent movement but the fact is he wouldn't of succeeded without simultaneous efforts of violent revolutionaries. The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom was successful partly because it scared the shit out of white people knowing that it could turn into a riot. The labor movement in America was successful because bomb throwing anarchists and die hard violent revolutionary communists fought it out in the streets, not because they sat around and held hands while police beat the shit out of them.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2014, @01:03AM
The alternative is a non-violent protest which would be systemically taken apart and pacified by illegal government actions, think Occupy
Yes. Non-violent protests take time and patience.
The difference with Occupy movement was that it had no purpose. You need a goal and a message and you need the movement to become political. Since Occupy movement wasn't political, they failed. Public had a positive perception of the protests, at first. But then, no message to unite behind, the public became indifferent eventually viewing them as irrelevant. And that's why they failed.
Tea Party, on the other hand, is succeeding because they have a message and are political (irrespective if I disagree with their message).
The labor movement in America was successful because bomb throwing anarchists and die hard violent revolutionary communists fought it out in the streets...
No. I do not agree with this. Public perception of fairness towards protesters is paramount. If protests turn into riots, I would not give a shit what happens to the protesters. Neither would most observers. This is one of the major reasons why protest-opponents try to spark violence - to plant hooligans into protest movements to justify violence against the protesters.
If original protesters in Syria did not arm themselves and started shooting back, Syria would not be at civil war at this moment. But they did, and now they have a bloodbath. You see, most people when told to harm others do not feel so good about it. They will eventually rebel and "do the right thing". But if you start to shoot at them, the situation changes from them questioning their actions to trying to survive. And people will do anything to survive.
The problem is people want immediate results and they act irrationally. Non-violent opposition does not cause immediate results, but it does not delay lasting results. Change happens "when people are ready", not because some groups wants them now.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by tftp on Thursday February 20 2014, @02:06AM
Change happens "when people are ready", not because some groups wants them now.
There are groups in Ukraine who want the change right now. They are using the fact that the government of Yanukovitch is corrupt, impotent, and indecisive. (Compare to Al Sisi in Egypt; there were thousands of protesters in the streets against him; he sent helicopters with machine guns and issued live ammo... and we heard crickets in the Western MSM. Protesters are no more, and Egypt is stable again. Is the price worth it?)
Just like the revolution in Russia in 1917, the current government is universally despised and weak. However the vast majority of Ukrainians do not want violence. A revolt is only going to install a new boss, who may be not any better than the old boss. Ukraine is a largely democratic country, such as that parties can propose candidates, and the voters vote for them. Ukraine could have simply elected a better President. However the protesters (and those who instigate the riots) do not want the democratic process because they'd never be elected. Some of them are following in the footsteps of Stepan Bandera, a NAZI associate of Hitler. Those guys can get power only in fire of a violent revolt, where the "election" is done by force, not by careful and free consideration of all voters. What's happening in Ukraine right now is deeply undemocratic, on par with Pinochet's takeover in Chile. Sometimes such actions are necessary... but only if the democratic process in the country is dead. Ukraine's democracy was not dead, far from it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 20 2014, @11:24AM
I agree. Carrots don't work without sticks. Also, Malcolm X deserves credit and so too the Black Panthers.