Today I'm going to take a second to acknowledge heroes of pacifist ideals. We'll start out with a small, but certainly not insignificant gesture of altruism.
I am a foodie and addicted to Food Network. One of my favorite shows on that channel is Chopped where four chefs are pitted against each other to cook a three course meal with surprise ingredients. At the end of each course a chef is eliminated. In each show you get a cross section of the stereotypical chef, from the braggart, egotistical, self centered to the humble, pleasant, caring chef. Two guesses as to which I prefer. This weeks episode had an amazing moment of altruism. It is a very competitive show and often leads to hurt feelings and smashed egos, but there are some definite gems of kindness. My two favorite chefs are Madison who is the all time most winning chef so far and Lance Nitahara. It is chef Nitahara we will talk of today. He had returned for a redemption round (after losing the dessert round to Madison) and ending up winning. His final competitor was competing to gain the $10,000 to travel to see her dying Grandmother in France. Nitahara, after winning, decided that his competitor needed the money more then he did and gave it to her so she could see her grandmother. Chef Nitahara, I applaud you.
The second I found out about today. Incase you hadn't heard tragedy struck Norway this last week. First of all, my prayers to them. I have been avoiding discussing the situation there since I thought it would be in bad taste to give my opinion on what should be done in response so close to the attack. Just recently I found out that I didn't need to bother. The Nordic countries are known very well for being pacifist in their foreign policy, but this was an attack equivalent to the terror of September 11th. When asked if Oslo would be stepping up their security in the wake of the attack he replied, "I don't think security can solve problems. We need to teach greater respect." That is a response that took true courage. They chose to set aside the violent response the world would have seen as right in favor of peace and education. They saw a future with violent response or lowering of rights and freedoms as a path they didn't want to walk down. For them it had no possible benefits that outweighed the consequences of a possible violent counter response or the lose of basic freedoms. Norway, I applaud you as well.
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The evolutionary benefit of Altruism
Some more clarification.
6. You are not the center of the universe. In fact, your personal welfare is not even the most important. You do not know everything and you can be wrong. There are countless billions in this world, if your wounded pride leads to a fight then the chances are that the people most likely to be hurt are those who are not even connected with the situation.
Yay for a nice shot at the ego. This may be one of the more contentious aspects of pacifism Many would say that it makes almost no evolutionary sense to think of others first. In fact, this argument is the basis behind the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. The argument goes something like this: We, the human race, is evolutionally predisposed to hedonism because evolution is based around the concept of self preservation. Therefore, altruism is biologically non-existant. By this argument there is no reason for us to care for others except for social pressure. So if you have absolutely no biological compulsion toward altruism then why do it? Because altruism is the ultimate form of biological self preservation.
When you choose to think of yourself as the center of the universe you separate yourself from the people around you and, more often then not, gain their ire. People do not appreciate egotism and pure hedonism. When you think of yourself as incapable of being wrong or are prepared to fight with others for the preservation of yourself you cause feelings of anger in others. The current debt ceiling arguments in the US congress are a perfect example of this issue. The two main parties are divided by issues of party politics. The refusal by some in Washington to compromise and drop some of their personal feelings on the subject has made the issue bigger then it needs to be. At this point we risk default and danger of economic struggles because we cannot agree.
When we are altruistic we disarm people. A dangerous situation can be calmed very quickly when we take our personal and self centered beliefs out of the equation. If you disagree with someone you have two possible futures. In one you fight it out until feelings or bodies are hurt. In the other you choose to look at the situation with as few of your personal biases as you can and compromise can be reached. We fight and go to war only when we absolutely refuse to see anything outside of our own ideologies.
When you do not focus on yourself people are very likely to try and use it against you until they realize something. You are someone that they can get along with. People don't like to fight and they love a person who is generally nice to them. Do I personally agree with every single person I know? Of course not. I have my own opinions. In fact, I often have problems with dropping those opinions and I get into arguments. I'm human and working through those situations, but that is the rub of it. I try to see things from other peoples points of view and to not argue. Does it matter if someone I know has different world views then me? Not really. There are few things that I see as truly worth fighting over without compromise. Almost none of those concern my own views on life. If someone argues for injustice, violence, war, or racism then I will argue with that because it is harmful to others. Will I take this out to fighting or violence. Rarely. If I do, if I choose to fight then the people most likely hurt are the ones I'm trying to protect. Take Libya right now. They have gone to civil war to handle the problem and we have stepped in to help the rebels. Do the rebels have a justified reason to be upset? Yes, but by choosing violence the people they want to help are being killed. Look at Egypt and Tunisia* where the people were able to overthrow an oppressive and dangerous regime without war. You can see several instances throughout history of passive resistance leading to change for the better and it starts with a decision to look at others before yourself and to practice altruism.
------------------
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_revolution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution
6. You are not the center of the universe. In fact, your personal welfare is not even the most important. You do not know everything and you can be wrong. There are countless billions in this world, if your wounded pride leads to a fight then the chances are that the people most likely to be hurt are those who are not even connected with the situation.
Yay for a nice shot at the ego. This may be one of the more contentious aspects of pacifism Many would say that it makes almost no evolutionary sense to think of others first. In fact, this argument is the basis behind the book "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. The argument goes something like this: We, the human race, is evolutionally predisposed to hedonism because evolution is based around the concept of self preservation. Therefore, altruism is biologically non-existant. By this argument there is no reason for us to care for others except for social pressure. So if you have absolutely no biological compulsion toward altruism then why do it? Because altruism is the ultimate form of biological self preservation.
When you choose to think of yourself as the center of the universe you separate yourself from the people around you and, more often then not, gain their ire. People do not appreciate egotism and pure hedonism. When you think of yourself as incapable of being wrong or are prepared to fight with others for the preservation of yourself you cause feelings of anger in others. The current debt ceiling arguments in the US congress are a perfect example of this issue. The two main parties are divided by issues of party politics. The refusal by some in Washington to compromise and drop some of their personal feelings on the subject has made the issue bigger then it needs to be. At this point we risk default and danger of economic struggles because we cannot agree.
When we are altruistic we disarm people. A dangerous situation can be calmed very quickly when we take our personal and self centered beliefs out of the equation. If you disagree with someone you have two possible futures. In one you fight it out until feelings or bodies are hurt. In the other you choose to look at the situation with as few of your personal biases as you can and compromise can be reached. We fight and go to war only when we absolutely refuse to see anything outside of our own ideologies.
When you do not focus on yourself people are very likely to try and use it against you until they realize something. You are someone that they can get along with. People don't like to fight and they love a person who is generally nice to them. Do I personally agree with every single person I know? Of course not. I have my own opinions. In fact, I often have problems with dropping those opinions and I get into arguments. I'm human and working through those situations, but that is the rub of it. I try to see things from other peoples points of view and to not argue. Does it matter if someone I know has different world views then me? Not really. There are few things that I see as truly worth fighting over without compromise. Almost none of those concern my own views on life. If someone argues for injustice, violence, war, or racism then I will argue with that because it is harmful to others. Will I take this out to fighting or violence. Rarely. If I do, if I choose to fight then the people most likely hurt are the ones I'm trying to protect. Take Libya right now. They have gone to civil war to handle the problem and we have stepped in to help the rebels. Do the rebels have a justified reason to be upset? Yes, but by choosing violence the people they want to help are being killed. Look at Egypt and Tunisia* where the people were able to overthrow an oppressive and dangerous regime without war. You can see several instances throughout history of passive resistance leading to change for the better and it starts with a decision to look at others before yourself and to practice altruism.
------------------
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_revolution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution
Friday, July 22, 2011
Why?
Some of you may be wondering why I am a pacifist and consider this so important. There are a lot of reasons, but lets start with my reasons for being a pacifist.
Some of you may think that I grew up in a pacifist, passionately anti-war, anti-military family, and you couldn't be more wrong. Well actually you could. My father was actually a former air force officer. He had left the military in order to work as a scientist for NASA and had no real problems with the military himself. He never told us that we should become military people like he was, but he never discouraged us from it. We were always told as kids that we could be whatever we chose to be. We were never a pro-war family, but I never got the feeling that I needed to be anti-war and especially not anti-troops.
A lot of the things that I feel about how to live are based around my religious beliefs. This is important and not one that I have touched on yet. I plan to discuss this, but wanted to start with the secular reasons for pacifism. I grew up like many people in a mainstream evangelical Christian church, but I pent my summers at a Quaker camp. This may seem weird since I didn't attend a Quaker church, but my mother grew up Quaker and attending this camp. If you don't know much about Quakers one thing you should know is that they are religious pacifists (first real exposure). At that point in my life though I was anything, but a pacifist. I had even toyed around with the idea of joining the military.
I started developing my pacifist ideals around 2001. Any guesses as to what happened that might have encouraged these beliefs to foster in me. On September 11th of that year I turned 16 (not my best birthday) and I fell right in with the people calling for war and "justice". I wasn't aware of to much that was happening except that there was a war and the PATRIOT Act had been released. The next school year my U.S. History class really started discussing current events. I started to wonder about aspects of the PATRIOT Act, but I never really questioned the war in Afghanistan. We had already started discussing the possibility of a war with Iraq and I saw no reason. I argued that reason would prevail and we wouldn't go to war with another country over vague reports of weapons of mass destruction. My Dad especially was worried about the possibility of a second war because of the danger of stretching our troops thin and we talked about it a lot at home. Then in March of 2003 we invaded Iraq, found no WMDs, and began an eight year "peace keeping" operation in that country.
It was at this point that I more or less started to really question war. Things that I had read in the bible led me to believe that war was not a Christian reaction. The problem with this line of thought was the single mindedness of some people at my church. For them it was almost non-Christian to question the war effort. For these few people it was a Christian honor to defend American freedom in the Army and people who chose to fight were elevated for their sacrifice for "freedom". Please understand that I am not ripping on my church, just outlining some of the issues that led me to pacifism. Due to this stance on the war, and the belief prevalent at the time that patriotism meant supporting the war effort, I only got one side of the argument: that we were fighting a near holy war against the muslim encroachment (that may sound over the top, but I kid you not). So to get other sides I had to talk to people outside my church. This started with my family. My father, as I mentioned, was against the war in Iraq. He supported the troops themselves, but thought that opening a second front was ridiculous. My mother fell back on her pacifist roots and really got me debating the validity of war as a solution. Add in two intellectualist, liberal brothers and you can see where this went. Another source of discussion was my best friend. Kyle was a mormon so his views were, of course, very different then my church. He is also a conservative though a moderate one. Unlike many people discussing the war he didn't insist on the correctness of one view over another. We talked about it from a point in the middle, neither for or against, and it allowed us to develop a balanced view. Kyle, like me, was discovering pacifist ideas and so we talked about this ideology. The third point of view for me was my Senior year English teacher. Mr. Richards was an Oxford (God I hope it wasn't Cambridge or he'll kill me) trained academic originally from the United Kingdom. Naturally he had a very different point of view on the war. For him it was never an issue of patriotism to support the war.
By this point I had decided that the war in Iraq was not a justified war because we went in based on a lie. I know that Saddam Hussein, was a violent, tyrannical, murdering ruler, but this never seemed the reason for the war. Even if it had been, it was not the place of the US to unilaterally police this part of the world. I was still not a pacifist, but the seed was planted and growing. College challenged many of the things I believed about war and religion. The discussions about church and world history opened me up new ways of thinking about wars of the past. I had already been introduced to the literature of World War I poets and their view on the futility of the war, but now we started to think critically about other points in history. This experience had different effects on me and my college friends. Many moved much further into their conservatism (small Christian school) others way out into more radical liberalism. For me it drew me more center. I started to see how the fights in Washington DC were driving the country more radical in both directions with little chance to meet in the middle. Plus, the wars had now been going on for almost nine years with little to show for them except death.
With the end of the Iraq War and the realization that we had a whole other war to finish I began to get even more discouraged. My church and college had challenged many of my personal views on theology and I started to see the biblical view of war much differently. When Osama bin Laden was killed and people started to celebrate his death in the streets I realized we had gone way too far. We should never celebrate the death of anyone, no matter what they had done. Our country had descended into infighting between parties, violent rhetoric was prevalent on all sides of the aisle, and people had started to sink into a limited xenophobia around muslims and muslim countries. It was at this point that I realized that pacifism was the only real answer.
We chose to react to a horrid incident of violence against our country in a violent way and it caused even more violence and death around the world. Innocents were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism grew more common rather then less, and my country had descended into near civil war over ideological beliefs. I began to posit on the causes of this. They all seemed to point back to the wars. Spending on defense had ruined the US economy racking up huge deficits prior to the bank collapse and the divide between Democrats and Republicans continued to grow as each side, spurred by earlier disagreements over the war and PATRIOT Act, continued to insult and attack each other. Had we chosen peace over violence I feel that things would have been better. Spending on defense would have been way down without the war, the PATRIOT Act, created in reaction to the terrorist attack, may have not been passed and another cause of division in the US would have never happened, and I know that thousands of deaths could have been averted. It would have been hard for us to not seek revenge, but I believe it would have led to a better present. I really created this blog because I know that there are many misconceptions about pacifism and I felt the need to get my ides out, even if no one reads this.
That last paragraph was purely speculation of course, but is a possible other future. To be honest, it may not have turned out any differently, but I feel very strongly that the choice to seek peace instead of war would have been a better choice. I will discuss the religious aspects of my beliefs in more detail later in the year, but I thought it would be good for you to know a little bit of why I think this was a necessary discussion.
Please feel free to leave comments and tell me what you think. I don't care if you want to call me an idiot or question what I've said. I ask that anything you say in comments is conducive to more discussion and not just a direct insult of anyone. I will censor any comments that insult anyones beliefs.
Some of you may think that I grew up in a pacifist, passionately anti-war, anti-military family, and you couldn't be more wrong. Well actually you could. My father was actually a former air force officer. He had left the military in order to work as a scientist for NASA and had no real problems with the military himself. He never told us that we should become military people like he was, but he never discouraged us from it. We were always told as kids that we could be whatever we chose to be. We were never a pro-war family, but I never got the feeling that I needed to be anti-war and especially not anti-troops.
A lot of the things that I feel about how to live are based around my religious beliefs. This is important and not one that I have touched on yet. I plan to discuss this, but wanted to start with the secular reasons for pacifism. I grew up like many people in a mainstream evangelical Christian church, but I pent my summers at a Quaker camp. This may seem weird since I didn't attend a Quaker church, but my mother grew up Quaker and attending this camp. If you don't know much about Quakers one thing you should know is that they are religious pacifists (first real exposure). At that point in my life though I was anything, but a pacifist. I had even toyed around with the idea of joining the military.
I started developing my pacifist ideals around 2001. Any guesses as to what happened that might have encouraged these beliefs to foster in me. On September 11th of that year I turned 16 (not my best birthday) and I fell right in with the people calling for war and "justice". I wasn't aware of to much that was happening except that there was a war and the PATRIOT Act had been released. The next school year my U.S. History class really started discussing current events. I started to wonder about aspects of the PATRIOT Act, but I never really questioned the war in Afghanistan. We had already started discussing the possibility of a war with Iraq and I saw no reason. I argued that reason would prevail and we wouldn't go to war with another country over vague reports of weapons of mass destruction. My Dad especially was worried about the possibility of a second war because of the danger of stretching our troops thin and we talked about it a lot at home. Then in March of 2003 we invaded Iraq, found no WMDs, and began an eight year "peace keeping" operation in that country.
It was at this point that I more or less started to really question war. Things that I had read in the bible led me to believe that war was not a Christian reaction. The problem with this line of thought was the single mindedness of some people at my church. For them it was almost non-Christian to question the war effort. For these few people it was a Christian honor to defend American freedom in the Army and people who chose to fight were elevated for their sacrifice for "freedom". Please understand that I am not ripping on my church, just outlining some of the issues that led me to pacifism. Due to this stance on the war, and the belief prevalent at the time that patriotism meant supporting the war effort, I only got one side of the argument: that we were fighting a near holy war against the muslim encroachment (that may sound over the top, but I kid you not). So to get other sides I had to talk to people outside my church. This started with my family. My father, as I mentioned, was against the war in Iraq. He supported the troops themselves, but thought that opening a second front was ridiculous. My mother fell back on her pacifist roots and really got me debating the validity of war as a solution. Add in two intellectualist, liberal brothers and you can see where this went. Another source of discussion was my best friend. Kyle was a mormon so his views were, of course, very different then my church. He is also a conservative though a moderate one. Unlike many people discussing the war he didn't insist on the correctness of one view over another. We talked about it from a point in the middle, neither for or against, and it allowed us to develop a balanced view. Kyle, like me, was discovering pacifist ideas and so we talked about this ideology. The third point of view for me was my Senior year English teacher. Mr. Richards was an Oxford (God I hope it wasn't Cambridge or he'll kill me) trained academic originally from the United Kingdom. Naturally he had a very different point of view on the war. For him it was never an issue of patriotism to support the war.
By this point I had decided that the war in Iraq was not a justified war because we went in based on a lie. I know that Saddam Hussein, was a violent, tyrannical, murdering ruler, but this never seemed the reason for the war. Even if it had been, it was not the place of the US to unilaterally police this part of the world. I was still not a pacifist, but the seed was planted and growing. College challenged many of the things I believed about war and religion. The discussions about church and world history opened me up new ways of thinking about wars of the past. I had already been introduced to the literature of World War I poets and their view on the futility of the war, but now we started to think critically about other points in history. This experience had different effects on me and my college friends. Many moved much further into their conservatism (small Christian school) others way out into more radical liberalism. For me it drew me more center. I started to see how the fights in Washington DC were driving the country more radical in both directions with little chance to meet in the middle. Plus, the wars had now been going on for almost nine years with little to show for them except death.
With the end of the Iraq War and the realization that we had a whole other war to finish I began to get even more discouraged. My church and college had challenged many of my personal views on theology and I started to see the biblical view of war much differently. When Osama bin Laden was killed and people started to celebrate his death in the streets I realized we had gone way too far. We should never celebrate the death of anyone, no matter what they had done. Our country had descended into infighting between parties, violent rhetoric was prevalent on all sides of the aisle, and people had started to sink into a limited xenophobia around muslims and muslim countries. It was at this point that I realized that pacifism was the only real answer.
We chose to react to a horrid incident of violence against our country in a violent way and it caused even more violence and death around the world. Innocents were dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, terrorism grew more common rather then less, and my country had descended into near civil war over ideological beliefs. I began to posit on the causes of this. They all seemed to point back to the wars. Spending on defense had ruined the US economy racking up huge deficits prior to the bank collapse and the divide between Democrats and Republicans continued to grow as each side, spurred by earlier disagreements over the war and PATRIOT Act, continued to insult and attack each other. Had we chosen peace over violence I feel that things would have been better. Spending on defense would have been way down without the war, the PATRIOT Act, created in reaction to the terrorist attack, may have not been passed and another cause of division in the US would have never happened, and I know that thousands of deaths could have been averted. It would have been hard for us to not seek revenge, but I believe it would have led to a better present. I really created this blog because I know that there are many misconceptions about pacifism and I felt the need to get my ides out, even if no one reads this.
That last paragraph was purely speculation of course, but is a possible other future. To be honest, it may not have turned out any differently, but I feel very strongly that the choice to seek peace instead of war would have been a better choice. I will discuss the religious aspects of my beliefs in more detail later in the year, but I thought it would be good for you to know a little bit of why I think this was a necessary discussion.
Please feel free to leave comments and tell me what you think. I don't care if you want to call me an idiot or question what I've said. I ask that anything you say in comments is conducive to more discussion and not just a direct insult of anyone. I will censor any comments that insult anyones beliefs.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The bravery of non-violence
Back to the review.
5. Pacifism and appeasement do not mean that you are a doormat. Turning the other cheek is not the same as allowing yourself to be walked over. If you are wronged, state the wrong. Confront the guilty party and tell them that what they did was not ok and seek redress. Do not demand your way, but seek to find a common ground and to acknowledge the sentiments on both sides. In other words, COMPROMISE!
Often times we see ourselves as a doormat if we turn the other cheek. It is seen as weakness to not react to insult or injury. Recently I talked to a friend who said that she was angry that the president chose to apologize for the deaths of civilians in the attacks on military targets in Pakistan. She saw it as showing weakness. Unfortunately, this is a prevalent idea today. In this case, the deaths of innocents was seen by many as unfortunate consequences of war. Therefore, we were justified in their deaths because it was a death which served the "greater good". If you except that then apology for those deaths deaths would be a weakness and a mistake. It is just an unfortunate side effect of war. In the same way it would have been seen as "weakness" had we chosen to not fight in the first place. We would have been "doormats" if we had not started the war on terror.
I've probably said this one before, but the disconnect between what we teach our children and how we behave in the adult world is confusing to me. We tell our kids to not let insults bother them (Sticks and stones...). They are taught that violence is not an acceptable solution for a wrong or an injury caused. Our children are taught to seek redress for wrongs through an intermediary and communication, not with their fists. Yet we consistently choose violence as the answer for international issues. If we are insulted we threatened, insulted, or don't agree with a leaders choices we threaten sanctions which ultimately hurt the innocents in the country more then the leadership. It is rarely the dictator who starves. If we or our property in other countries are attacked we threaten retaliation through attacks of our own. This behavior sends a mixed message to our children. It says that violence is ok for adult issues, but not ok for their own problems.
Hypothesize with me for a second. It is September 11, 2001 and the twin towers have just been hit. President Bush is faced with a decision. On one hand he chooses the cowards way and does not react with war. In the other case he bravely chooses to go to war to seek vengeance for this tragedy. In another reality it is September 11, 2001 and President Bush is faced with a similar choice. In one case he goes to war to gain revenge for the death of his people. On the other hand he chooses to not repay violence with violence. He chooses to seek justice through a joint intelligence effort with the rest of the world to bring the masterminds of the attack before international court to stand trial. He knows that this will not ease the anger of people who want revenge so he tells the world about the rightness of their choice and how it is sometimes braver to not fight (what we tell our children).
I will not postulate on the outcomes of the second reality. We know what happened with the first choice. The important thing to realize is the difference in thinking involved. In one case you picture one as brave and justified and the other as cowardly and weak. In the other case you view them both as possible solutions and weigh them from a point of equal standing. In the first pacifism is pretty much guaranteed to not be an option because the opinion on it is biased toward wrong. In the second neither is predetermined. Pacifism is not seen as a doormat decision and a viable other option is presented. Had we chosen to bring Osama bin Laden before a court then the world wouldn't have questioned our capture of him in the first place, it would have been public. We wouldn't have alienated the United Nations as we did by going into the fight unilaterally. Beyond that who knows what would have happened in the first case. Feel free to post your ideas of what would have happened either pro or con. I won't go further on it.
In either case the choice for pacifism must be seen as viable. We are not in a world of imperialism and isolationism. Our decisions are seen and judged by the world. Pacifism can be a choice because we can work with the world in ways we couldn't before. We can seek aid in non-violence that previous centuries could only dream of. We can make pacifism work, but we must remove the stigma of cowardice that it associates.
5. Pacifism and appeasement do not mean that you are a doormat. Turning the other cheek is not the same as allowing yourself to be walked over. If you are wronged, state the wrong. Confront the guilty party and tell them that what they did was not ok and seek redress. Do not demand your way, but seek to find a common ground and to acknowledge the sentiments on both sides. In other words, COMPROMISE!
Often times we see ourselves as a doormat if we turn the other cheek. It is seen as weakness to not react to insult or injury. Recently I talked to a friend who said that she was angry that the president chose to apologize for the deaths of civilians in the attacks on military targets in Pakistan. She saw it as showing weakness. Unfortunately, this is a prevalent idea today. In this case, the deaths of innocents was seen by many as unfortunate consequences of war. Therefore, we were justified in their deaths because it was a death which served the "greater good". If you except that then apology for those deaths deaths would be a weakness and a mistake. It is just an unfortunate side effect of war. In the same way it would have been seen as "weakness" had we chosen to not fight in the first place. We would have been "doormats" if we had not started the war on terror.
I've probably said this one before, but the disconnect between what we teach our children and how we behave in the adult world is confusing to me. We tell our kids to not let insults bother them (Sticks and stones...). They are taught that violence is not an acceptable solution for a wrong or an injury caused. Our children are taught to seek redress for wrongs through an intermediary and communication, not with their fists. Yet we consistently choose violence as the answer for international issues. If we are insulted we threatened, insulted, or don't agree with a leaders choices we threaten sanctions which ultimately hurt the innocents in the country more then the leadership. It is rarely the dictator who starves. If we or our property in other countries are attacked we threaten retaliation through attacks of our own. This behavior sends a mixed message to our children. It says that violence is ok for adult issues, but not ok for their own problems.
Hypothesize with me for a second. It is September 11, 2001 and the twin towers have just been hit. President Bush is faced with a decision. On one hand he chooses the cowards way and does not react with war. In the other case he bravely chooses to go to war to seek vengeance for this tragedy. In another reality it is September 11, 2001 and President Bush is faced with a similar choice. In one case he goes to war to gain revenge for the death of his people. On the other hand he chooses to not repay violence with violence. He chooses to seek justice through a joint intelligence effort with the rest of the world to bring the masterminds of the attack before international court to stand trial. He knows that this will not ease the anger of people who want revenge so he tells the world about the rightness of their choice and how it is sometimes braver to not fight (what we tell our children).
I will not postulate on the outcomes of the second reality. We know what happened with the first choice. The important thing to realize is the difference in thinking involved. In one case you picture one as brave and justified and the other as cowardly and weak. In the other case you view them both as possible solutions and weigh them from a point of equal standing. In the first pacifism is pretty much guaranteed to not be an option because the opinion on it is biased toward wrong. In the second neither is predetermined. Pacifism is not seen as a doormat decision and a viable other option is presented. Had we chosen to bring Osama bin Laden before a court then the world wouldn't have questioned our capture of him in the first place, it would have been public. We wouldn't have alienated the United Nations as we did by going into the fight unilaterally. Beyond that who knows what would have happened in the first case. Feel free to post your ideas of what would have happened either pro or con. I won't go further on it.
In either case the choice for pacifism must be seen as viable. We are not in a world of imperialism and isolationism. Our decisions are seen and judged by the world. Pacifism can be a choice because we can work with the world in ways we couldn't before. We can seek aid in non-violence that previous centuries could only dream of. We can make pacifism work, but we must remove the stigma of cowardice that it associates.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Pause...
Take a breath....
Release.
Sit somewhere quiet and just reflect for a second with me. If you are reading this you either came here for the first time or you have sat through the rest of my thoughts. So let's pause.
Take a breath...
Release.
Today was not my best day. I was grumpy and frustrated for the better part of the day which when I stopped to think was weird. It was a fine day, not too hot, not too cold. My back was hurting a little, but nothing that I can't deal with if I relax.
Take a breath...
Release.
Unfortunately, some of the beauty of the day was lost on me because I didn't pause and think. In truth I am doing well. The world isn't perfect, but it is good to me. There is a lot for me to be frustrated about, but one thing I learned was that frustration doesn't help me. In fact, it usually just makes me angry.
Take a breath...
Release.
When I get angry it leads to more anger, which can lead to violence or hatred, which leads to more violence and hatred...etc. So a small pause is what I needed. I went to the gym, which helped, but then I got frustrated over dinner, and that was when I paused. Over food (hah, proof of the point).
Take a breath...
Release.
After dinner my wife and I walked the dog and stepped out of the world for a second (ok not literally, but definitely out of the usual plan) and that really helped. Then we took a scooter ride by the river and in a wooded area and my world was much better. I really wished that I had done this pause sooner.
Take a breath...
Release.
After that pause I thought back on my day. My wife and I recently bought our first china set at an antique store. Today I found the last pieces we were missing.
Take a breath...
Release.
Today a job option opened up in my city where there had been none before. This was one of my biggest frustrations and I may have found a way to make it work.
Take a breath...
Release.
So take a second with me and pause. If you followed my instructions you are either hyperventilating or have taken several big solid deep breaths. Helps doesn't it? You are somewhere quiet or somewhere that is calming to you (like watching Cupcake Wars while your wife makes cookies.) So take a break and pause with me. Seek peace in your life and your house and that way you can seek peace with those around you as Lao-Tse says.
Take a breath...
Release.
Release.
Sit somewhere quiet and just reflect for a second with me. If you are reading this you either came here for the first time or you have sat through the rest of my thoughts. So let's pause.
Take a breath...
Release.
Today was not my best day. I was grumpy and frustrated for the better part of the day which when I stopped to think was weird. It was a fine day, not too hot, not too cold. My back was hurting a little, but nothing that I can't deal with if I relax.
Take a breath...
Release.
Unfortunately, some of the beauty of the day was lost on me because I didn't pause and think. In truth I am doing well. The world isn't perfect, but it is good to me. There is a lot for me to be frustrated about, but one thing I learned was that frustration doesn't help me. In fact, it usually just makes me angry.
Take a breath...
Release.
When I get angry it leads to more anger, which can lead to violence or hatred, which leads to more violence and hatred...etc. So a small pause is what I needed. I went to the gym, which helped, but then I got frustrated over dinner, and that was when I paused. Over food (hah, proof of the point).
Take a breath...
Release.
After dinner my wife and I walked the dog and stepped out of the world for a second (ok not literally, but definitely out of the usual plan) and that really helped. Then we took a scooter ride by the river and in a wooded area and my world was much better. I really wished that I had done this pause sooner.
Take a breath...
Release.
After that pause I thought back on my day. My wife and I recently bought our first china set at an antique store. Today I found the last pieces we were missing.
Take a breath...
Release.
Today a job option opened up in my city where there had been none before. This was one of my biggest frustrations and I may have found a way to make it work.
Take a breath...
Release.
So take a second with me and pause. If you followed my instructions you are either hyperventilating or have taken several big solid deep breaths. Helps doesn't it? You are somewhere quiet or somewhere that is calming to you (like watching Cupcake Wars while your wife makes cookies.) So take a break and pause with me. Seek peace in your life and your house and that way you can seek peace with those around you as Lao-Tse says.
Take a breath...
Release.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Peace through food
Another slight detour (mostly because I was gone so long from here).
I thought that today would be a good chance to discuss the more practical side of peace. Many people think that peace can only be attained through violence. If you squash the violent segments in society you can see peace. However, as I have said many times now, violence really only generates more violence. In fact, peace is gained in situations where there is common ground reached. Take, for instance, the Christmas Truce of 1914 (more on that one later) or some of the civil rights protests of the 60's that sought, without violence, to reach out to people outside the protesting group and make their issues more universally felt. I'll talk a little about these situations later in this project's lifetime, but I do want you to know some situations where this concept has worked in the past. For today, however, I would like to discuss the most universal common ground of all time: food.
I may be on this kick because my wife and I just picked up some new china for our upcoming anniversary, but it really is of little importance. Growing up my parents were very interested in social justice. My mother, who grew up a Quaker, learned that food was a great means of having a conversation. She cooked for all of our friends, for people in the community who needed the help, she has large Thanksgiving and Christmas meals with families in need and friends, and I think she would cook for the enemies in a battle to try and find common ground. And this passed on to me. I love to cook for friends and anyone who needs it. I would cook food for all sides in a war because people rarely use physical violence when a good meal is present and tend to converse more civilly on a full stomach. Do I think that food will end the wars in Libya and Afghanistan? No not really, but I do know that their is a need to find common ground.
Let's take a moment to postulate. We sit down the leaders of both sides in a war in the same place. Less likely to lead to bombings or open firings from the soldiers if they think they will hit their leaders. We have a wonderful dinner prepared that is culturally sensitive and host the party with some top class mediators. So we have Michael Symon and Bobby Flay in the back making a five course meal and everyone is sitting together and conversing with these two fantastic mediators. The only requirements for those attending the meal are no weapons and an open mind. Ok, so this isn't going to necessarily lead to a solution, but it does get people together. Peace can arise through these situations and it never hurts to try.
Let's take it back a little ways. We make certain that food is available to the world. We strive to end hunger and help the poor have a meal. One of the needs for security is regularly met for all people and the perceived need for violence to eat is eliminated. You take the time in your day to help people eat and invite friends and others over for meals. Your efforts to help people feel safe and cared for leads them to do the same and so forth. Even though it won't end a war it can touch a life who can touch a life who can...etc. We may be abe to deal with some of the problems that lead to war before they arise.
I want to finish this post with a request. Food Network®, one of my favorite channels, has been on a campaign for months to try and end hunger in America. Please, visit strength.org and find ways to help people in need and to share ways you have tried to end hunger in your community. Please know that I was not paid to say this (like they would pay a blog with as little traffic as mine) nor do I want or expect anything from this mention. I simply care about the cause. Please support them.
I thought that today would be a good chance to discuss the more practical side of peace. Many people think that peace can only be attained through violence. If you squash the violent segments in society you can see peace. However, as I have said many times now, violence really only generates more violence. In fact, peace is gained in situations where there is common ground reached. Take, for instance, the Christmas Truce of 1914 (more on that one later) or some of the civil rights protests of the 60's that sought, without violence, to reach out to people outside the protesting group and make their issues more universally felt. I'll talk a little about these situations later in this project's lifetime, but I do want you to know some situations where this concept has worked in the past. For today, however, I would like to discuss the most universal common ground of all time: food.
I may be on this kick because my wife and I just picked up some new china for our upcoming anniversary, but it really is of little importance. Growing up my parents were very interested in social justice. My mother, who grew up a Quaker, learned that food was a great means of having a conversation. She cooked for all of our friends, for people in the community who needed the help, she has large Thanksgiving and Christmas meals with families in need and friends, and I think she would cook for the enemies in a battle to try and find common ground. And this passed on to me. I love to cook for friends and anyone who needs it. I would cook food for all sides in a war because people rarely use physical violence when a good meal is present and tend to converse more civilly on a full stomach. Do I think that food will end the wars in Libya and Afghanistan? No not really, but I do know that their is a need to find common ground.
Let's take a moment to postulate. We sit down the leaders of both sides in a war in the same place. Less likely to lead to bombings or open firings from the soldiers if they think they will hit their leaders. We have a wonderful dinner prepared that is culturally sensitive and host the party with some top class mediators. So we have Michael Symon and Bobby Flay in the back making a five course meal and everyone is sitting together and conversing with these two fantastic mediators. The only requirements for those attending the meal are no weapons and an open mind. Ok, so this isn't going to necessarily lead to a solution, but it does get people together. Peace can arise through these situations and it never hurts to try.
Let's take it back a little ways. We make certain that food is available to the world. We strive to end hunger and help the poor have a meal. One of the needs for security is regularly met for all people and the perceived need for violence to eat is eliminated. You take the time in your day to help people eat and invite friends and others over for meals. Your efforts to help people feel safe and cared for leads them to do the same and so forth. Even though it won't end a war it can touch a life who can touch a life who can...etc. We may be abe to deal with some of the problems that lead to war before they arise.
I want to finish this post with a request. Food Network®, one of my favorite channels, has been on a campaign for months to try and end hunger in America. Please, visit strength.org and find ways to help people in need and to share ways you have tried to end hunger in your community. Please know that I was not paid to say this (like they would pay a blog with as little traffic as mine) nor do I want or expect anything from this mention. I simply care about the cause. Please support them.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
A pound of flesh?
Back to the review. Edition 4:
4. Justice does not mean the same as revenge. If you are wronged you do not gain justice by wronging another. If you insist that you can only have peace of mind when your pain is felt then you lead yourself inexorably to war.
Another difficult one. Going to take a slightly different tact with this one though and rely on your knowledge of literature (which I can only assume will be vast since you are obviously very intelligent). So for instance, I assume that you caught the reference in the title and knew what this one was about before you even started reading (in case you didn't, this is a reference to the plot of "The Merchant of Venice" by Shakespeare).
Ok, down to business. This point is one of the more important ones for the world to realize. Pacifism does, in a sense, mean turning the other cheek, but it is important for world peace and harmony that justice is observed. Unfortunately, most people don't really understand the concept of justice. It isn't that everyone lives the same life that you do or that a person who does wrong is wronged the same way in return.
We often wonder where justice is when we notice the inequalities in the world. People ask if it is justice that there are people dying of hunger when others spend thousands of dollars on a single bottle of wine. The truth is that this isn't an issue of justice, but one of equity. We want to see a world where issues of inequity are solved: until it starts to effect our own property. If we want to see this kind of equity we need to make the choice to contribute, which means giving some of our property or time to make the world a bit more equitable. Even though equity isn't equivalent to justice it is one that is important to the pacifist. One of the main causes of violence is inequity. Inequity among nations leads to jealousy and a sense of being wronged, particularly economically. Inequity in cities leads to a lack of the basic requirements for a sense of security; shelter, food, and stability. This is particularly noticeable in the inner cities. High levels of poverty cause a low sense of security. In order to feel more secure, people in poverty form together into support groups to try and help each other. In one case they form communities where each member pledges to provide for the others in times of need. One problem with this form of support (often found in community centers or churches) is that it becomes difficult to support each other when everyone is already struggling to support themselves. Another form of support group is a gang. In this case the members of the group see themselves as marginalized because of their poverty and seek protection and money in the form of violence and crime (please note that this is not a blanket statement about all people in poverty, just those in gangs). An unfortunate side effect of gang "protection" is the sense that anyone not in your gang is against your gang. People in authority are a problem because they are seen as the source of the lack of security, other gangs horn in on their territory and means of gaining some form of support through crime, and anyone else is either inconsequential or a source of money and property.
It is in the gang culture that we see the most obvious example of justice as revenge. When a member of a gang is hurt or killed the other members of the gang, like all people, feel a need for justice. However, when you see authority as corrupt and a cause of you state of poverty then you won't trust them to act on your need for justice. So justice is left up to you. The problem is that justice in the hands of people is very rarely just. More often it becomes a means of revenge. What was it Sean Connery said in "The Untouchables": "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."* This idea of justice is pervasive in the world. We see justice as this leveling of circumstances. If we are hurt we want the other person to be hurt as well. However, that kind of thinking only leads to more violence and destruction of life. Think about "The Count of Monte Cristo" or "Hamlet". In both cases justice, or more appropriately revenge, led to the destruction of the main characters. "Romeo and Juliet" beautifully show the dangers of this idea of justice. Mercutio, due to the deep seated hatred of the Capulets, chooses to fight Tybalt who kills him. Romeo, enraged by this, chooses to seek revenge and kills Tybalt leading to his exile. We all know what happens after that.
When justice is interpreted as revenge you give someone else a reason to seek "justice" in kind. It doesn't always happen this way and it isn't always the case that revenge leads to war. However, when we choose violence we raise the chances of more violence. Violence leads to violence. Hate leads to hate. Peace leads to peace. In "Romeo and Juliet" Mercutio dies not because Romeo advocates for peace. If he had chosen to back down instead of fighting Tybalt when Romeo first tried to stop the fight then he would not have died. If Tybalt had listened earlier to Benvolio that fight could have been avoided. If all of their parents had chosen to stop the feud and seek reconciliation then there would have been no fight between Mercutio and Tybalt. It's a bit academic to think about this, but the truth is that the feud could have been resolved if justice had been seen as something more then just revenge. There is a great quote used, though not originated, in "Fiddler on the Roof". A man in the crowd shouts out, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!" to which Tevye responds "And then the whole world would be blind and toothless."+ When we misunderstand justice as revenge we only propagate more revenge.
------------------------
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094226/quotes
+http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/eye_for_an_eye/
4. Justice does not mean the same as revenge. If you are wronged you do not gain justice by wronging another. If you insist that you can only have peace of mind when your pain is felt then you lead yourself inexorably to war.
Another difficult one. Going to take a slightly different tact with this one though and rely on your knowledge of literature (which I can only assume will be vast since you are obviously very intelligent). So for instance, I assume that you caught the reference in the title and knew what this one was about before you even started reading (in case you didn't, this is a reference to the plot of "The Merchant of Venice" by Shakespeare).
Ok, down to business. This point is one of the more important ones for the world to realize. Pacifism does, in a sense, mean turning the other cheek, but it is important for world peace and harmony that justice is observed. Unfortunately, most people don't really understand the concept of justice. It isn't that everyone lives the same life that you do or that a person who does wrong is wronged the same way in return.
We often wonder where justice is when we notice the inequalities in the world. People ask if it is justice that there are people dying of hunger when others spend thousands of dollars on a single bottle of wine. The truth is that this isn't an issue of justice, but one of equity. We want to see a world where issues of inequity are solved: until it starts to effect our own property. If we want to see this kind of equity we need to make the choice to contribute, which means giving some of our property or time to make the world a bit more equitable. Even though equity isn't equivalent to justice it is one that is important to the pacifist. One of the main causes of violence is inequity. Inequity among nations leads to jealousy and a sense of being wronged, particularly economically. Inequity in cities leads to a lack of the basic requirements for a sense of security; shelter, food, and stability. This is particularly noticeable in the inner cities. High levels of poverty cause a low sense of security. In order to feel more secure, people in poverty form together into support groups to try and help each other. In one case they form communities where each member pledges to provide for the others in times of need. One problem with this form of support (often found in community centers or churches) is that it becomes difficult to support each other when everyone is already struggling to support themselves. Another form of support group is a gang. In this case the members of the group see themselves as marginalized because of their poverty and seek protection and money in the form of violence and crime (please note that this is not a blanket statement about all people in poverty, just those in gangs). An unfortunate side effect of gang "protection" is the sense that anyone not in your gang is against your gang. People in authority are a problem because they are seen as the source of the lack of security, other gangs horn in on their territory and means of gaining some form of support through crime, and anyone else is either inconsequential or a source of money and property.
It is in the gang culture that we see the most obvious example of justice as revenge. When a member of a gang is hurt or killed the other members of the gang, like all people, feel a need for justice. However, when you see authority as corrupt and a cause of you state of poverty then you won't trust them to act on your need for justice. So justice is left up to you. The problem is that justice in the hands of people is very rarely just. More often it becomes a means of revenge. What was it Sean Connery said in "The Untouchables": "He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue."* This idea of justice is pervasive in the world. We see justice as this leveling of circumstances. If we are hurt we want the other person to be hurt as well. However, that kind of thinking only leads to more violence and destruction of life. Think about "The Count of Monte Cristo" or "Hamlet". In both cases justice, or more appropriately revenge, led to the destruction of the main characters. "Romeo and Juliet" beautifully show the dangers of this idea of justice. Mercutio, due to the deep seated hatred of the Capulets, chooses to fight Tybalt who kills him. Romeo, enraged by this, chooses to seek revenge and kills Tybalt leading to his exile. We all know what happens after that.
When justice is interpreted as revenge you give someone else a reason to seek "justice" in kind. It doesn't always happen this way and it isn't always the case that revenge leads to war. However, when we choose violence we raise the chances of more violence. Violence leads to violence. Hate leads to hate. Peace leads to peace. In "Romeo and Juliet" Mercutio dies not because Romeo advocates for peace. If he had chosen to back down instead of fighting Tybalt when Romeo first tried to stop the fight then he would not have died. If Tybalt had listened earlier to Benvolio that fight could have been avoided. If all of their parents had chosen to stop the feud and seek reconciliation then there would have been no fight between Mercutio and Tybalt. It's a bit academic to think about this, but the truth is that the feud could have been resolved if justice had been seen as something more then just revenge. There is a great quote used, though not originated, in "Fiddler on the Roof". A man in the crowd shouts out, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!" to which Tevye responds "And then the whole world would be blind and toothless."+ When we misunderstand justice as revenge we only propagate more revenge.
------------------------
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094226/quotes
+http://thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/eye_for_an_eye/
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A short diversion
Going to take a momentary detour from my creed examination today. The last several posts have been pretty heavy and historical so I thought it would be time to talk about something a little lighter.
I want to propose a special day every month to practice pacifism with extra intention. Lets call it P-day (Pacifism Day). It's a good entry point for people new to this concept and a good chance for life long pacifists to hone their resolve. So here is what we will do...
On P-day all people who choose to (no forcing your opinions on others) make a concerted effort to limit confrontation. If you are cut off in traffic take a breath and relax instead of reacting. If someone gets upset with you then do not fight back. Say you accidentally bump into someone and they flair up at you. Apologize. Lets say someone bumps you, do not get angry, but relax and speak kindly. Go out of your way to do something nice for someone else. Seek compromise. E-mail your senator and tell them to seek compromise. Loose and argument with intention. In general, do anything you can to reflect pacifism and encourage peace.
Many of you may wonder why you should do this. What do you gain? What is the benefit for you? I have spent the better part of my life trying to be generally nice to people. It has done several wonderful things in my life. I have managed to quell some of my anger issues. People are generally nicer to me. I have felt a significant amount more at peace. Will I absolutely guarantee eternal happiness for you if you do this once a month...No. The one thing I can promise tell you is that if you attempt to make peace and practice pacifism there will be more peace in your life. So I suggest that we start this next month on the 11th and do it the 11th of every month after that. Ok, so that means that you will be actively seeking peace and pacifism on September 11th every year from now on if you choose to participate. I did not choose this date to make some kind of political statement. I think it is a good choice for a couple of reasons. One; that day, of all days in recent memory, is one that needs reminders of peace. Two; it is my birthday.
So take a stand with me the 11th of every month, starting this August, for peace, pacifism, compromise, and reason.
P.S. See...I can write happy, short light posts on this blog, too.
I want to propose a special day every month to practice pacifism with extra intention. Lets call it P-day (Pacifism Day). It's a good entry point for people new to this concept and a good chance for life long pacifists to hone their resolve. So here is what we will do...
On P-day all people who choose to (no forcing your opinions on others) make a concerted effort to limit confrontation. If you are cut off in traffic take a breath and relax instead of reacting. If someone gets upset with you then do not fight back. Say you accidentally bump into someone and they flair up at you. Apologize. Lets say someone bumps you, do not get angry, but relax and speak kindly. Go out of your way to do something nice for someone else. Seek compromise. E-mail your senator and tell them to seek compromise. Loose and argument with intention. In general, do anything you can to reflect pacifism and encourage peace.
Many of you may wonder why you should do this. What do you gain? What is the benefit for you? I have spent the better part of my life trying to be generally nice to people. It has done several wonderful things in my life. I have managed to quell some of my anger issues. People are generally nicer to me. I have felt a significant amount more at peace. Will I absolutely guarantee eternal happiness for you if you do this once a month...No. The one thing I can promise tell you is that if you attempt to make peace and practice pacifism there will be more peace in your life. So I suggest that we start this next month on the 11th and do it the 11th of every month after that. Ok, so that means that you will be actively seeking peace and pacifism on September 11th every year from now on if you choose to participate. I did not choose this date to make some kind of political statement. I think it is a good choice for a couple of reasons. One; that day, of all days in recent memory, is one that needs reminders of peace. Two; it is my birthday.
So take a stand with me the 11th of every month, starting this August, for peace, pacifism, compromise, and reason.
P.S. See...I can write happy, short light posts on this blog, too.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
And did I mention compromise
Third installment. A short one.
3. In order to avoid violence it is necessary to compromise. You cannot be 100% correct in a fight because the other group will think the same. If you choose to hold back and to not give an inch then you will always be destined to war, large or small, rather then peace.
So this may sound very similar to the last post, but they are different. In the last idea we talked about the need to see the other side, to understand their point. This leads to consensus or compromise. It is important enough though to say this twice; you must be willing to compromise.
Since I spent the majority of the last post explaining this (I really should check myself before I write anything new) I will make the point definite again. You have to be able to compromise. We continue to fight and argue because we cannot learn to reach a consensus or a compromise.
I think a part of my thinking on this topic is that compromise doesn't seem to be happening today. Ever since the start of the Afghan war ten years ago (dear God!) the world, and particularly the U.S., has seemed to grow more polarized. Issues of economics have taken the main stage and has seen the fall of many governments. Greece has descended into chaos over fiscal policy and cannot seem to find a way to compromise. The government there has made concessions to the European union to save their credit rating and the people of Greece feel they are being asked to bear the entire brunt of the fallout. The government, in trying to compromise with the E.U., has seemed to ignore the people who refuse to give on their stance. Since I don't know too much about this subject I will leave it at that.
It seems to me that this polarization has come out the most in America (could just be that it's what I see the most). It has become the stance of many people in this country that the only "compromise" they will except is one where they get only their way. That is not compromise! This stance, which is on both sides of the aisle (hooray for non-accusatory stances), has brought many parts of my country to a standstill. I was listening to a news story today and they mentioned that Minnesota, the state named with the best working government at one point, had shut down. There was no compromise and no attempt to compromise so the state shut down and had to lay of 22,000 public sector employees*. This stubborn, single minded, unwillingness from all sides to compromise has caused innocent people to be hurt. Many people are not going to receive paychecks because of a refusal to see the other side and reach consensus.
So I have, I hope, made my point. I don't think I have run this one to death yet because it is that important. Not just to the pacifist who looks to find the middle ground on issues, but to normal and effective relationships with all people in the world. So just to get it across, You need to compromise.
-----------------------
*http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/01/shutdown-state-employees-laid-off/
3. In order to avoid violence it is necessary to compromise. You cannot be 100% correct in a fight because the other group will think the same. If you choose to hold back and to not give an inch then you will always be destined to war, large or small, rather then peace.
So this may sound very similar to the last post, but they are different. In the last idea we talked about the need to see the other side, to understand their point. This leads to consensus or compromise. It is important enough though to say this twice; you must be willing to compromise.
Since I spent the majority of the last post explaining this (I really should check myself before I write anything new) I will make the point definite again. You have to be able to compromise. We continue to fight and argue because we cannot learn to reach a consensus or a compromise.
I think a part of my thinking on this topic is that compromise doesn't seem to be happening today. Ever since the start of the Afghan war ten years ago (dear God!) the world, and particularly the U.S., has seemed to grow more polarized. Issues of economics have taken the main stage and has seen the fall of many governments. Greece has descended into chaos over fiscal policy and cannot seem to find a way to compromise. The government there has made concessions to the European union to save their credit rating and the people of Greece feel they are being asked to bear the entire brunt of the fallout. The government, in trying to compromise with the E.U., has seemed to ignore the people who refuse to give on their stance. Since I don't know too much about this subject I will leave it at that.
It seems to me that this polarization has come out the most in America (could just be that it's what I see the most). It has become the stance of many people in this country that the only "compromise" they will except is one where they get only their way. That is not compromise! This stance, which is on both sides of the aisle (hooray for non-accusatory stances), has brought many parts of my country to a standstill. I was listening to a news story today and they mentioned that Minnesota, the state named with the best working government at one point, had shut down. There was no compromise and no attempt to compromise so the state shut down and had to lay of 22,000 public sector employees*. This stubborn, single minded, unwillingness from all sides to compromise has caused innocent people to be hurt. Many people are not going to receive paychecks because of a refusal to see the other side and reach consensus.
So I have, I hope, made my point. I don't think I have run this one to death yet because it is that important. Not just to the pacifist who looks to find the middle ground on issues, but to normal and effective relationships with all people in the world. So just to get it across, You need to compromise.
-----------------------
*http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/07/01/shutdown-state-employees-laid-off/
Monday, July 11, 2011
The need for compromise
Examining the creed; installment 2.
2. The Pacifist will always attempt to understand the feelings of the other side. They know that while they hold one specific view the opposite side in a conflict clearly holds another. If you choose to only listen to yourself and not to try to see the other side then you will never reach a consensus.
This one is tough. It is very difficult to put yourself into the place of another person, particularly if they seem diametrically opposed to you. However, unless you are willing to try to understand all sides how can you possibly hope to make a compromise. Given the current climate in American politics I think I should define this concept. Compromise is an agreement in which all parties give up something they want in order that a decision can be made. For example, if I want beef and my wife wants chicken we may choose to have fish. Neither of us got what we wanted, but we each got something we like. Compromise does not mean holding an agreement hostage until the other party gives up everything. Both groups loose something, but each group gains more in the agreement.
Another quick note. I am not attacking America. I happen to be a citizen and can only talk confidently about things that directly effect me. I don't know if the concept of compromise is an issue in other countries' governments, so I don't mention anything about them. Back to the topic.
If you want to have peace then you must be willing to give up something yourself. You must be willing to compromise. If your pride requires of you to win all arguments then you cannot hope to achieve peace. When you hold out for only your way you will inevitably find yourself in a fight. Maybe not physical, but certainly a fight. Don't think that you should devalue your own opinions on a subject, particularly one you are well acquainted with. If you feel that a discussion is moving toward a fight then step back, stop, and seek out authoritative proof of the topic. The beauty of the age that we live in is the multitude of sources available to us for fact checking. You may have noticed that I site my sources when dealing with history. I do this so you know that I am not making it up or just stating opinion. Frankly, I am often wrong about my beliefs and, unfortunately, allow myself too often to let my passions on a topic get the better of me. This point is one that I want to pride myself the most on, but often find the hardest to fulfill. I usually can see the other side of the argument, letting go of my personal biases is another thing entirely.
To be a pacifist means to try and relax biases. These can be innate, cultural, nationalistic, taught, learned, etc. All that they do for us in the end is stand in the way of compromise. Take the current budget crises in America. On the one hand you have the radical democrats refusing to allow any change to entitlements, on the other you have the radical republicans refusing to consider any tax increases. In the middle you have most Americans simply wanting a decision to be made which will reduce the risk of economic downturn. As long as the fringe groups refuse to relent on their choices then we will remain in danger of default on our loans. Which way is the best? Neither. If you continue to take in revenue and then simply spend it you gain no ground on savings or loose any means to pay debts. If you take in no revenue then you stand no chance to eliminate any debt you already have or to save up for the future. So you do what most people usually do, you continue to generate revenue, you put some aside and you pay your bills. To make certain you can do both you cut back on unnecessary expenses.
I don't want to make this about politics or economics. I just wanted to give an example of a place where compromise is possible and easy. It isn't always easy or even possible. The subject of slavery was one that needed to be handled. It saddens me that attempts to end the slave trade led to war, but there seemed little chance for reason to prevail. In most situations, compromise and reason can win out. It is up you to judge when the situation has gotten out of hand. If you feel that you cannot find a compromise or help the other side see reason, then you should first seek help. Get others involved to mediate the conflict and help find compromise. If the situation is beyond compromise and is important enough to warrant further action, for instance you or others are threatened, or it is a situation as drastic as slavery or genocide, then you take action. Be certain though that the action you take is warranted to the situation.
The chinese philosopher and Taoist Lao-Tse once said about peace, "If there is to be peace in the world, there must be peace in the nations. If there is to be peace in the nations, there must be peace in the cities. If there is to be peace in the cities, there must be peace between neighbors. If there is to be peace between neighbors, there must be peace in the home. If there is to be peace in the home, there must be peace in the heart." It alls begins with you and your personal universe. You must seek to find peace and compromise with yourself and those closest to you if you hope to see peace for all the world.
2. The Pacifist will always attempt to understand the feelings of the other side. They know that while they hold one specific view the opposite side in a conflict clearly holds another. If you choose to only listen to yourself and not to try to see the other side then you will never reach a consensus.
This one is tough. It is very difficult to put yourself into the place of another person, particularly if they seem diametrically opposed to you. However, unless you are willing to try to understand all sides how can you possibly hope to make a compromise. Given the current climate in American politics I think I should define this concept. Compromise is an agreement in which all parties give up something they want in order that a decision can be made. For example, if I want beef and my wife wants chicken we may choose to have fish. Neither of us got what we wanted, but we each got something we like. Compromise does not mean holding an agreement hostage until the other party gives up everything. Both groups loose something, but each group gains more in the agreement.
Another quick note. I am not attacking America. I happen to be a citizen and can only talk confidently about things that directly effect me. I don't know if the concept of compromise is an issue in other countries' governments, so I don't mention anything about them. Back to the topic.
If you want to have peace then you must be willing to give up something yourself. You must be willing to compromise. If your pride requires of you to win all arguments then you cannot hope to achieve peace. When you hold out for only your way you will inevitably find yourself in a fight. Maybe not physical, but certainly a fight. Don't think that you should devalue your own opinions on a subject, particularly one you are well acquainted with. If you feel that a discussion is moving toward a fight then step back, stop, and seek out authoritative proof of the topic. The beauty of the age that we live in is the multitude of sources available to us for fact checking. You may have noticed that I site my sources when dealing with history. I do this so you know that I am not making it up or just stating opinion. Frankly, I am often wrong about my beliefs and, unfortunately, allow myself too often to let my passions on a topic get the better of me. This point is one that I want to pride myself the most on, but often find the hardest to fulfill. I usually can see the other side of the argument, letting go of my personal biases is another thing entirely.
To be a pacifist means to try and relax biases. These can be innate, cultural, nationalistic, taught, learned, etc. All that they do for us in the end is stand in the way of compromise. Take the current budget crises in America. On the one hand you have the radical democrats refusing to allow any change to entitlements, on the other you have the radical republicans refusing to consider any tax increases. In the middle you have most Americans simply wanting a decision to be made which will reduce the risk of economic downturn. As long as the fringe groups refuse to relent on their choices then we will remain in danger of default on our loans. Which way is the best? Neither. If you continue to take in revenue and then simply spend it you gain no ground on savings or loose any means to pay debts. If you take in no revenue then you stand no chance to eliminate any debt you already have or to save up for the future. So you do what most people usually do, you continue to generate revenue, you put some aside and you pay your bills. To make certain you can do both you cut back on unnecessary expenses.
I don't want to make this about politics or economics. I just wanted to give an example of a place where compromise is possible and easy. It isn't always easy or even possible. The subject of slavery was one that needed to be handled. It saddens me that attempts to end the slave trade led to war, but there seemed little chance for reason to prevail. In most situations, compromise and reason can win out. It is up you to judge when the situation has gotten out of hand. If you feel that you cannot find a compromise or help the other side see reason, then you should first seek help. Get others involved to mediate the conflict and help find compromise. If the situation is beyond compromise and is important enough to warrant further action, for instance you or others are threatened, or it is a situation as drastic as slavery or genocide, then you take action. Be certain though that the action you take is warranted to the situation.
The chinese philosopher and Taoist Lao-Tse once said about peace, "If there is to be peace in the world, there must be peace in the nations. If there is to be peace in the nations, there must be peace in the cities. If there is to be peace in the cities, there must be peace between neighbors. If there is to be peace between neighbors, there must be peace in the home. If there is to be peace in the home, there must be peace in the heart." It alls begins with you and your personal universe. You must seek to find peace and compromise with yourself and those closest to you if you hope to see peace for all the world.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
The Bravery of Peace
I think it is important to elaborate a little on my creed. For a little while I'm going to go through the different points of the creed and explain myself a little bit.
1. Pacifism is not the fear of the fight, it is the belief that violence, anger, war, and fights only lead to more violence, anger, war, and fights.
Many people seem to think that you are weak when you choose pacifism. They believe that bravery is measured in a persons willingness to use force to solve a problem. It is an interesting belief when you hear the campaign to stop bullying in schools. We sit our children down and teach them how violence, anger, and fighting are not a good means to gain what we want. We tell them that they cannot use force to get their way, we teach them conflict resolution to avoid violence, help them to work through their anger and address the problem before it becomes too much for them to handle. So what message do we send them when we speak of the need to use war to spread democracy and protect freedom? What do they think when we use violent imagery to make a point in politics? How should they feel when we insult a president for seeking forgiveness for the deaths of innocents in war?
These mixed messages confuse me personally. It seems that we disapprove of violence in young children, but as soon as they turn eighteen we honor it when it is done for country. I suppose that the difference lies in who the violence is directed toward and where it takes place. If we use violence, fighting, and war to "defend freedom" (most recently to exact revenge for an attack on us) then it is ok. In other words, violence is wrong except in war or against the bad guy. This is where the trouble starts. Who is the "bad guy"? In our case it is whoever we are fighting, but in their case it is us. When we descend to force we encourage the use of force in return because we become the "bad guy".
When World War II ended we started almost immediately into the Cold War. It became drastically important that we stop the spread of communism at all costs. This led to some questionable choices in international policy. We fed money into groups that we saw as anti-communism/russian with little thought to the consequences. Russia took over countries in the Middle East so the United States funded, armed, and trained Afghan mujahideen to overthrow the occupiers*. In 1988 this group established itself as al-Qaeda+. They went on to start a network of global terrorism and most notably (to the U.S.) orchestrated the attack against the Twin Towers on September 11th. This attack sparked the wars in Afghanistan and, surprisingly, Iraq. To figure out Iraq you have to either believe the statement of the government that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction or you need to step back a little further. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein rose to prominence in the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and chose to make ties with the Soviet Union. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait in the Gulf prompting the US to attack. When Saddam was not deposed in the Gulf War his further human rights violations led to the second US invasion of Iraq^.
Once again a lot of history, but necessary to demonstrate my point without allowing much space for people to write me off for "inventing" the past. When we chose to fight we opened ourselves up for more fighting in return. We chose to encourage violence in the Middle East and it led to violence throughout the world. When this violence hit us we reacted with more violence, which led to increased violence and terrorism against us and the Western world, which led the Western world to more violence, and there seems to be no end to this in sight. If we had chosen to step back and say, "This hurt us and we are not ok with it, but we choose to not respond in kind. We are stronger then our need for revenge, but we ask the world to help us find justice." By justice I don't necessarily mean the deaths of those involved, but an effort to bring these people before the world to answer for their crimes in international court. This stance won't make me popular, but I think it is right. As I've said, I want peace and I don't see it coming at the end of a knife. I only see peace through a joint worldwide effort to bravely stop fighting.
--------------
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History
^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Republic_of_Iraq
1. Pacifism is not the fear of the fight, it is the belief that violence, anger, war, and fights only lead to more violence, anger, war, and fights.
Many people seem to think that you are weak when you choose pacifism. They believe that bravery is measured in a persons willingness to use force to solve a problem. It is an interesting belief when you hear the campaign to stop bullying in schools. We sit our children down and teach them how violence, anger, and fighting are not a good means to gain what we want. We tell them that they cannot use force to get their way, we teach them conflict resolution to avoid violence, help them to work through their anger and address the problem before it becomes too much for them to handle. So what message do we send them when we speak of the need to use war to spread democracy and protect freedom? What do they think when we use violent imagery to make a point in politics? How should they feel when we insult a president for seeking forgiveness for the deaths of innocents in war?
These mixed messages confuse me personally. It seems that we disapprove of violence in young children, but as soon as they turn eighteen we honor it when it is done for country. I suppose that the difference lies in who the violence is directed toward and where it takes place. If we use violence, fighting, and war to "defend freedom" (most recently to exact revenge for an attack on us) then it is ok. In other words, violence is wrong except in war or against the bad guy. This is where the trouble starts. Who is the "bad guy"? In our case it is whoever we are fighting, but in their case it is us. When we descend to force we encourage the use of force in return because we become the "bad guy".
When World War II ended we started almost immediately into the Cold War. It became drastically important that we stop the spread of communism at all costs. This led to some questionable choices in international policy. We fed money into groups that we saw as anti-communism/russian with little thought to the consequences. Russia took over countries in the Middle East so the United States funded, armed, and trained Afghan mujahideen to overthrow the occupiers*. In 1988 this group established itself as al-Qaeda+. They went on to start a network of global terrorism and most notably (to the U.S.) orchestrated the attack against the Twin Towers on September 11th. This attack sparked the wars in Afghanistan and, surprisingly, Iraq. To figure out Iraq you have to either believe the statement of the government that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction or you need to step back a little further. During the Cold War Saddam Hussein rose to prominence in the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party and chose to make ties with the Soviet Union. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait in the Gulf prompting the US to attack. When Saddam was not deposed in the Gulf War his further human rights violations led to the second US invasion of Iraq^.
Once again a lot of history, but necessary to demonstrate my point without allowing much space for people to write me off for "inventing" the past. When we chose to fight we opened ourselves up for more fighting in return. We chose to encourage violence in the Middle East and it led to violence throughout the world. When this violence hit us we reacted with more violence, which led to increased violence and terrorism against us and the Western world, which led the Western world to more violence, and there seems to be no end to this in sight. If we had chosen to step back and say, "This hurt us and we are not ok with it, but we choose to not respond in kind. We are stronger then our need for revenge, but we ask the world to help us find justice." By justice I don't necessarily mean the deaths of those involved, but an effort to bring these people before the world to answer for their crimes in international court. This stance won't make me popular, but I think it is right. As I've said, I want peace and I don't see it coming at the end of a knife. I only see peace through a joint worldwide effort to bravely stop fighting.
--------------
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
+http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda#History
^http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq#Republic_of_Iraq
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Imperialism and Nationalism: The death of pacifism?
I was checking some of the more famous quotes on Pacifism throughout time and they make me a little sad. The general idea seems to me to be a misunderstanding of the ideals which pacifism seek. They claim a pacifist to be a coward, to be against the good of their nation, or to be a "militant" pacifist who is only a pacifist until the war and then is for the fight.
Theodore Roosevelt is quoted as saying "The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer"*. While it is sad to hear this it isn't surprising coming from the man who is also famous for his statement "Speak softly and carry a big stick!". What he seems to be missing in his assumptions on pacifists is the basis of their stance. Teddy Roosevelt was a notorious fighter at a time when the United States was plagued by imperialism and war. When Roosevelt was alive our country was in in full expansionist mode, at war with the natives, the Spanish, itself, so he seems to be a bit of a product of his age. We see the same kind of stance from many in Great Britain during their years of imperialism and expansion. His ideas though have seemed to spill over into the modern era. Imperialism in the United Staes continued on well into the 20th century and some would say has never ended. Yet it isn't only this that has lead to this militaristic stance in America.
At the start of World War I we held ourselves as apart from Europe and stayed out of the war. This probably helped the country to global monetary domination in the early 1900s, but it also raised the subject of isolationism. Europe was torn by a war that really seemed to be an internal struggle because of a series of secret treaties. There was very little need for the whole of the continent to be involved in an internal struggle in the Balkins. The refusal of America to fight was odd for the countries of Europe. America who had instituted the Monroe Doctrine pledging to defend the Caribbean from encroachment by foreign powers and extended this under Teddy Roosevelt to include any "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American country." We seemed to be holding ourselves to our Hemisphere and watching the fighting in Europe. After World War I we seemed to realize that we were a part of a bigger world community, but we still stuck back at the start of World War II.
Now if you read my last post then you know that I was pro-involvement in World War II, but if you read that you may be a little confused. World War II was an essential fight due to the insanity of the Nazis and Facists in Italy, but much of these problems could have been alleviated had there not been a World War I. As I said earlier, it was, essentially, an internal fight between parts of the Balkans that exploded unnecessarily into a continent the Western wide conflict. A series of treaties meant that an attack by any country meant the involvement of all the rest and led to finally to the fights. Even if you deem that the war was necessary the aftermath of the fight and revenge mentalities of France and England contributed in a big way to the atmosphere in Germany which allowed Hitler to rise to power. Placing the entire blame of the war on one country, driving them into a depression prior to the Worldwide Great Depression caused much of the unrest and anger that led to the rise of a maniac.
A quick pause. I want to make certain you understand me here. I am not dishonoring the memories of those who fought in World War I or II. I am simply pointing out the series of events that created the situations for massive war. The people who fought chose to fight for something they believed in, but the first World War was not the great defense of freedom many people assume it to be. Remember at the time you had a series of European empires. The British empire was stretching across the world, the Prussians held much of northeast Europe in it's borders, the ever present Ottoman Empire to southeast, and the Austro-Hungarian empire enclosed much of central Europe including the Balkans. It was these imperialistic leanings and treaties which caused an internal fight in one empire to spill over to the world. I am not the first to think this either. Many poets, artists, authors, and historians agree. We fought the war not to preserve our freedom and safety, but because of the power balance and struggles of foreign politicians.
I know this is a lot of history for a simple quote, but it important to understand the era surrounding this claim. It is unfortunate to me that it has extended into the modern era. Einstein, a devotee of peace even said near the end of World War II "I am not only a pacifist, but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war".* Yes, we need to push for peace, but the aftermath of the war and the start of the nuclear age was more war, more imperialism, intervention in nations the U.S. and Russia shouldn't have intervened in, and the ultimately to the current rise of terrorism and war in the world. So is it treason to desire peace without war? Do you dishonor the veterans and soldiers currently fighting because you chose to not fight and to stand against war? No. For Theodore Roosevelt and an age of Imperialism it seemed the only stance was to fight for nationalism and pride. Today, we need to think as an international community to seek peace and understanding with the rest of the world. We need to put down our guns, set aside our missiles, and seek a new way of peace and fairness, through pacifism.
-------------------
* Found at brainy quotes http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/pacifist.html
All historical facts checked against Wikipedia take it as you will.
Theodore Roosevelt is quoted as saying "The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as is the most brutal wrongdoer"*. While it is sad to hear this it isn't surprising coming from the man who is also famous for his statement "Speak softly and carry a big stick!". What he seems to be missing in his assumptions on pacifists is the basis of their stance. Teddy Roosevelt was a notorious fighter at a time when the United States was plagued by imperialism and war. When Roosevelt was alive our country was in in full expansionist mode, at war with the natives, the Spanish, itself, so he seems to be a bit of a product of his age. We see the same kind of stance from many in Great Britain during their years of imperialism and expansion. His ideas though have seemed to spill over into the modern era. Imperialism in the United Staes continued on well into the 20th century and some would say has never ended. Yet it isn't only this that has lead to this militaristic stance in America.
At the start of World War I we held ourselves as apart from Europe and stayed out of the war. This probably helped the country to global monetary domination in the early 1900s, but it also raised the subject of isolationism. Europe was torn by a war that really seemed to be an internal struggle because of a series of secret treaties. There was very little need for the whole of the continent to be involved in an internal struggle in the Balkins. The refusal of America to fight was odd for the countries of Europe. America who had instituted the Monroe Doctrine pledging to defend the Caribbean from encroachment by foreign powers and extended this under Teddy Roosevelt to include any "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing by a Latin American country." We seemed to be holding ourselves to our Hemisphere and watching the fighting in Europe. After World War I we seemed to realize that we were a part of a bigger world community, but we still stuck back at the start of World War II.
Now if you read my last post then you know that I was pro-involvement in World War II, but if you read that you may be a little confused. World War II was an essential fight due to the insanity of the Nazis and Facists in Italy, but much of these problems could have been alleviated had there not been a World War I. As I said earlier, it was, essentially, an internal fight between parts of the Balkans that exploded unnecessarily into a continent the Western wide conflict. A series of treaties meant that an attack by any country meant the involvement of all the rest and led to finally to the fights. Even if you deem that the war was necessary the aftermath of the fight and revenge mentalities of France and England contributed in a big way to the atmosphere in Germany which allowed Hitler to rise to power. Placing the entire blame of the war on one country, driving them into a depression prior to the Worldwide Great Depression caused much of the unrest and anger that led to the rise of a maniac.
A quick pause. I want to make certain you understand me here. I am not dishonoring the memories of those who fought in World War I or II. I am simply pointing out the series of events that created the situations for massive war. The people who fought chose to fight for something they believed in, but the first World War was not the great defense of freedom many people assume it to be. Remember at the time you had a series of European empires. The British empire was stretching across the world, the Prussians held much of northeast Europe in it's borders, the ever present Ottoman Empire to southeast, and the Austro-Hungarian empire enclosed much of central Europe including the Balkans. It was these imperialistic leanings and treaties which caused an internal fight in one empire to spill over to the world. I am not the first to think this either. Many poets, artists, authors, and historians agree. We fought the war not to preserve our freedom and safety, but because of the power balance and struggles of foreign politicians.
I know this is a lot of history for a simple quote, but it important to understand the era surrounding this claim. It is unfortunate to me that it has extended into the modern era. Einstein, a devotee of peace even said near the end of World War II "I am not only a pacifist, but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war".* Yes, we need to push for peace, but the aftermath of the war and the start of the nuclear age was more war, more imperialism, intervention in nations the U.S. and Russia shouldn't have intervened in, and the ultimately to the current rise of terrorism and war in the world. So is it treason to desire peace without war? Do you dishonor the veterans and soldiers currently fighting because you chose to not fight and to stand against war? No. For Theodore Roosevelt and an age of Imperialism it seemed the only stance was to fight for nationalism and pride. Today, we need to think as an international community to seek peace and understanding with the rest of the world. We need to put down our guns, set aside our missiles, and seek a new way of peace and fairness, through pacifism.
-------------------
* Found at brainy quotes http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/pacifist.html
All historical facts checked against Wikipedia take it as you will.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Pacifism - An Introduction
So I have recently been thinking a lot about the idea of peace. I want it. I desire it with all of myself, but I don't think that we are seeking it in a way that is productive. We seek to have peace through war, to crush out those elements that cause insecurity and violence. It makes very little sense to me. As a teacher I have noticed that when people chose to engage violence with violence, it seems, shockingly, to lead to more violence. The more that I think of this the more I realize that what the world really needs now is not another warrior, not another blockade, not another half hearted attempt at diplomacy. When we speak of peace and hold our large armies and tactical weaponry in the background we contradict ourselves. What the world needs is pacifism.
I know what you're thinking. "Pacifism just can't work." "I don't believe that we should roll over and be a doormat". "It is a nice idea, but really, is it practical?" I think it can be. I think that pacifism as method can be done, but not if we treat it as an impossibility, as cowardice. A man who chooses to not fight does not take the easy way, as a matter of fact, there is very little in the world that is more difficult. It takes a great deal of strength and character to turn the other cheek and not fight back, to seek out redress through words rather then action. I know that this may be confusing still so I would like to present you with a creed of pacifism:
1. Pacifism is not the fear of the fight, it is the belief that violence, anger, war, and fights only lead to more violence, anger, war, and fights.
2. The Pacifist will always attempt to understand the feelings of the other side. They know that while they hold one specific view the opposite side in a conflict clearly holds another. If you choose to only listen to yourself and not to try to see the other side then you will never reach a consensus.
3. In order to avoid violence it is necessary to compromise. You cannot be 100% correct in a fight because the other group will think the same. If you choose to hold back and to not give an inch then you will always be destined to war, large or small, rather then peace.
4. Justice does not mean the same as revenge. If you are wronged you do not gain justice by wronging another. If you insist that you can only have peace of mind when your pain is felt then you lead yourself inexorably to war.
5. Pacifism and appeasement do not mean that you are a doormat. Turning the other cheek is not the same as allowing yourself to be walked over. If you are wronged, state the wrong. Confront the guilty party and tell them that what they did was not ok and seek redress. Do not demand your way, but seek to find a common ground and to acknowledge the sentiments on both sides. In other words, COMPROMISE!
6. You are not the center of the universe. In fact, your personal welfare is not even the most important. You do not know everything and you can be wrong. There are countless billions in this world, if your wounded pride leads to a fight then the chances are that the people most likely to be hurt are those who are not even connected with the situation.
7. War, violence, fighting, and bullying do not make you strong. Peace, pacifism, and care do not make you weak. If you seek strength through violence you become a bully, if you seek strength through care, you change your personal universe and that can spread to change the world.
8. While war and anger are not the choice, there is a time when you must protect others. The common argument used against pacifists is what about Hitler and World War II. Would you have appeased him until he ruled the world. The answer: of course not! This was a maniac who strove to eliminate all people who were not him. But let me ask you this, would there have been a Hitler if there was no World War I. If we seek pacifism instead of violence, if we seek to mend situations of tension before they erupt into violence then we can avoid situations such as that which led to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.
9. If it becomes impossible for your safety to not fight then do that which is necessary to not allow harm to you or those around you. If someone threatens you or another with a weapon or force and will not listen to reason, if you and the others have no way to leave the situation, then do what you need to do to be safe. Do not, when you are safe, turn more violence on your attacker. If they are disarmed do not continue to hurt them. If they leave, do not follow them to seek revenge.
10. Pacifism works when you practice it with love. It is essential to understand that all people are important and entitled to their views. If you attempt to gain peace and follow everything above, but you do not demonstrate love for the other party then why should they trust what you offer. I don't mean that you need to treat the whole world as though they were your family, but you need to treat all people, even those you don't like, as if they had value.
I hope this clears some things up. If you agree that we need to find a new way for peace, if you think I'm a crackpot and want to yell at me, or if you just want to see where this goes, follow and comment.
Shawn Patrick Tolley
I know what you're thinking. "Pacifism just can't work." "I don't believe that we should roll over and be a doormat". "It is a nice idea, but really, is it practical?" I think it can be. I think that pacifism as method can be done, but not if we treat it as an impossibility, as cowardice. A man who chooses to not fight does not take the easy way, as a matter of fact, there is very little in the world that is more difficult. It takes a great deal of strength and character to turn the other cheek and not fight back, to seek out redress through words rather then action. I know that this may be confusing still so I would like to present you with a creed of pacifism:
1. Pacifism is not the fear of the fight, it is the belief that violence, anger, war, and fights only lead to more violence, anger, war, and fights.
2. The Pacifist will always attempt to understand the feelings of the other side. They know that while they hold one specific view the opposite side in a conflict clearly holds another. If you choose to only listen to yourself and not to try to see the other side then you will never reach a consensus.
3. In order to avoid violence it is necessary to compromise. You cannot be 100% correct in a fight because the other group will think the same. If you choose to hold back and to not give an inch then you will always be destined to war, large or small, rather then peace.
4. Justice does not mean the same as revenge. If you are wronged you do not gain justice by wronging another. If you insist that you can only have peace of mind when your pain is felt then you lead yourself inexorably to war.
5. Pacifism and appeasement do not mean that you are a doormat. Turning the other cheek is not the same as allowing yourself to be walked over. If you are wronged, state the wrong. Confront the guilty party and tell them that what they did was not ok and seek redress. Do not demand your way, but seek to find a common ground and to acknowledge the sentiments on both sides. In other words, COMPROMISE!
6. You are not the center of the universe. In fact, your personal welfare is not even the most important. You do not know everything and you can be wrong. There are countless billions in this world, if your wounded pride leads to a fight then the chances are that the people most likely to be hurt are those who are not even connected with the situation.
7. War, violence, fighting, and bullying do not make you strong. Peace, pacifism, and care do not make you weak. If you seek strength through violence you become a bully, if you seek strength through care, you change your personal universe and that can spread to change the world.
8. While war and anger are not the choice, there is a time when you must protect others. The common argument used against pacifists is what about Hitler and World War II. Would you have appeased him until he ruled the world. The answer: of course not! This was a maniac who strove to eliminate all people who were not him. But let me ask you this, would there have been a Hitler if there was no World War I. If we seek pacifism instead of violence, if we seek to mend situations of tension before they erupt into violence then we can avoid situations such as that which led to the rise of the Nazi party in Germany.
9. If it becomes impossible for your safety to not fight then do that which is necessary to not allow harm to you or those around you. If someone threatens you or another with a weapon or force and will not listen to reason, if you and the others have no way to leave the situation, then do what you need to do to be safe. Do not, when you are safe, turn more violence on your attacker. If they are disarmed do not continue to hurt them. If they leave, do not follow them to seek revenge.
10. Pacifism works when you practice it with love. It is essential to understand that all people are important and entitled to their views. If you attempt to gain peace and follow everything above, but you do not demonstrate love for the other party then why should they trust what you offer. I don't mean that you need to treat the whole world as though they were your family, but you need to treat all people, even those you don't like, as if they had value.
I hope this clears some things up. If you agree that we need to find a new way for peace, if you think I'm a crackpot and want to yell at me, or if you just want to see where this goes, follow and comment.
Shawn Patrick Tolley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)