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.
No comments:
Post a Comment