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.
No comments:
Post a Comment