|
|
|
|
|
by kushti
3953 days ago
|
|
Indians made this (see Gandhi & Indian independence movement), but I don't sure "americans"(mostly english people living overseas those days) were capable for that(especially with taking natives genocide & slavery into account). |
|
I'm pretty sure India would have had a violent movement too if WW2 hadn't happened and Indians had better access to firearms and stuff. Violence was less of an option because the British government deliberately ensured that the locals were suppressed. Whereas in the U.S. the British were exploitative of the colonies, but they did not suppress the people (until the movement started); after all, those were their own people.
We did, in fact, have a violent movement, in 1857, just that it didn't work out too well.
I don't think that "Indians are less violent" is really an argument to be made here.