Justified violence?

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.

It is very difficult to deal with the issue of justified violence. It becomes way to easy for violence to be seen as justified. In the case of world conflict we use any number of excuses to "justify" war and violence. During the Cold War America used the argument of the Monroe doctrine to justify involvement in Latin America. The war on communism was used as an excuse to send troops to fight in Korea and Vietnam despite the internal nature of the conflict. Going back centuries the American ideal of the "city of the hill" justified the idea of manifest destiny in U.S. expansion.

In all of these cases the violence was "justified" by the idea of threat or destiny, but in most cases the choice of violence was avoidable. This is not always the case of course. Libya is in the throws of a violent revolution brought on by the crimes against humanity of Gaddafi. When their people tried to resolve the violence through protests and peaceful actions they were violently put down with no chance of a peaceful solution. The revolution was unfortunately bloody and deadly, but their seems now to be a hope of peace in the future. It pains me to say that the violence here was justified, but I can see no other way for this to have worked.

If we step back we see the issues that lead to the rise of the Libyan revolution under Gaddafi. Prior to World War II Libya acted existed as a colony of Italy due to Italian Imperialism. When the war was ended the United Nations resolved that Libya should be removed from the Italians and made into a country. The people of Libya chose a hereditary monarchy under King Idris with a constitution based on the rites given to citizens in Europe and North America. The discovery of oil in Lybia led to a rise of foreign trade and relations with many in the Western world. However, the profits from the oil sales were seen as going toward King Idris more then to the people of Libya. In 1969, revolutionaries led by Gaddafi became fed up with the abuses of power they saw and staged a coup d'état.*

It was the observed greed and lack of care for the common man that angered the people into action. Throughout history we see cases of justified war. The revolutions in America and France can be seen as justified given the lack of care for the people and the disruption of human rights, but in both of these cases it was the greed and lack of care from a small group that led to the violence. World War II was a clearly justifiable war. Hitler was not about accept appeasement to stop his ethnic cleansing, but he only gained prominence due to the unjust reactions of Allied Powers to World War I. In all cases the war and violence was possibly justified, but only due to the unjust actions of others. We cannot say that World War II was the result of an "evil" nation (seriously there is a new DVD set that claims this) because we can look back and see that we are in a large way to blame. Yes, Russia had nuclear weapons that
they were using to bully the world, but the U.S. were the first and only nation to use an atomic bomb in war and were stockpiling them to "encourage peace". Even the violent crimes against humanity perpetrated by Stalin were the results of a corrupt government more interested in power then the issues of equality they claimed to represent. Besides that, we support Stalin in World War II and turned a blind eye to his actions when he was our ally.
---------------------
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Italian_colonial_era_and_World_War_II_1911.E2.80.931951

Sports and violence

The new English Premier League Season started this weekend and the anger has already been running rampant. Cheating and violence, anger, shouting, frustration, madness, and that is just in my house on an Arsenal match day. There is nothing that quite gets the blood boiling like a good soccer match. This last weekend Arsenal played their first game and it was not a great called match. There was some fairly dangerous maneuvers from both teams, but a really nasty series of bad calls. I was watching it on replay and 3,000 miles away and I was so angry. I shouted, cussed out the ref, and am still not really over it. All of that over a single, fairly inconsequential soccer match. I consider myself a mellow guy. I have been better at dealing with my personal anger issues and here I was shouting at my television.

All of this over a sports match. And to be honest, my reaction was pretty soft compared to some of the reactions coming out of England about the match. Fans from both teams have been in a near war of words that only a few years ago may have been a straight out war. Imagine the reaction when a family is unjustly hurt. Their is a great deal of anger and desire for revenge, but, to my knowledge, not so much violent reaction from the average person. When countries feel hurt or threatened the reaction almost always seems to be retribution. America has gone to war over the mysterious sinking of the USS Maine that many believe was overblown by the press*. Yet history has it's cases of peaceful reaction to violence and repression. Look at the overthrow of imperialistic Britain in India by Gandhi, look at the civil rights marches and movements of Martin Luther King, Jr. Think about the modern day protests in Yemen, Egypt, and Tunisia. Was every person involved in peaceful protests without violence? No, but in the cases of Tunisia and Egypt especially the overthrow of the regimes came about by peaceful, not violent action.

I will admit that I am learning everyday to be more of a pacifist. My current goal; end my anger at bad drivers (this could be impossible given the typical Spokane driver) and stop bitching to my wife about it. Will I ever eliminate my shouting at soccer matches on the television? Probably not, but I don't need to get so angry at it that I scare people around me. I need to fix the everyday angers in my life before I can hope to make a change for peace in the world.

-----------------------
*http://www.smplanet.com/imperialism/remember.html

Anarchy in the UK

Shorter one today.

If you haven't heard there has been serious violence and rioting in the United Kingdom recently. It started out when a young man was shot in a minicab in Tottenham. I am, admittedly, a little vague on the exact details of the situation. According to reports that I read on the BBC police officers with guns (they don't all carry them over there) shot a young gentleman at a crime scene. The man, Mark Duggan, was in a minicab when, according to police, he fired on them. Mr. Duggan was shot by the firearms officers and killed.* The shooting sparked a series of peaceful vigils in North London in memory of the man shot. From these peaceful meetings a small group of "young" protestors began the riots. The riots quickly dissolved into looting and arsine that burned down large amounts of various parts of London. Many reasons have been given for the violence. Several people believe that the violence was caused by unrest due to the economic downturn in England. It has been pointed out that the recent austerity measures and tax hikes seem disproportionately harmful to the lower classes. That the violence, arsine, and looting are a product of civil unrest. Others say that this gives the looters a handy excuse. They claim the blame lies with the attitudes of the people involved and on the parents for not stopping it or raising the kids right. In other words; thuggery.

It is heartbreaking for me to see this kind of violence. If the first group is correct and it is an outbreak of civil unrest then the violence is aimed at the wrong people. The buildings burned, according to Morning Edition, were houses of locals and local merchants, not worldwide corporations. Also, looting as a means of relieving civil unrest is frankly ridiculous. It is awfully convenient that by looting you make a statement and get a kick-ass new TV and Wii console in the mix. Burning houses and local businesses also makes very little sense since the only people affected by it are the house and business owners. So I would agree that the political statement idea is a little ridiculous. However, it is also interesting that we choose to blame the parents. In the end good upbringing only goes so far. People who are brought up very well and taught to behave kindly often make ridiculous choices. In the end I have a different view.

We live in a culture that praises possessions and strength through violence. What do you suspect will happen when a violent act with a questionable motive is performed? Particularly when this act is done in a low income neighborhood with many groups on the fringes? We teach our children through our international policies that threats and violence are a means of gaining what we want. The US is particularly guilty of this over the last several decades and the Cold War, but the UK has been historically very involved with this. The fact that we have people so far on the fringes that they form into gangs for protection and as a means of gaining money plays a part here as well. When you have a group of people who feel the need for protection and you make violence an element of protection and strength you set up the situation for the riots you saw.

Please understand I don't want to place any blame for the terror that we saw in London. There are so many different factors involved, not the least of which is prejudice, violent attacks by authority, fear, and greed. What I wanted to say was that it was the initial violence that was to blame. The shooting led to a good reaction of peace by the families involved, but was a good enough excuse by others to start violence and theft. We need to remove violence as an option if we don't want to see violence used.

-------------------
*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14459516

Recipe for a peace dinner

So if you are trying to think about what you can do for the first P-Day on August 11th I have a suggestion. Have friends over for a dinner and discuss issues of peace and pacifism. Or, even better, have people over who need help, those without food to eat, those who are suffering a loss or particular hardship. It is important though that you do not hold a peace meal with the explicit intention of converting/changing peoples minds. Remember, when you do something for someone with the intention of gaining something from them you are insincere. So, you are probably thinking, what could I serve these people. Well here is one good recipe that is also nicely inexpensive.

Gazpacho (cold soup originating in Russia):
Ingrediants:
2 English Cucumbers
1 Red onion
2 Bell Peppers (any color)
Chives
1 clove Garlic
2 Tomatoes (diced and seeds removed)
4 cups tomato juice
Salt to taste
Hot sauce (optional)
2 Jalapeño peppers (optional)

Cut all vegetables into chunks and place in large sealable bowl. Add garlic, salt, and tomato juice. Let sit in fridge overnight (or until chilled through) to allow flavors to meld. Serve with bread and deli meat (I'd suggest proscuito).

There you have it. Cheap, delicious, and easy to make.

Strength through non-violence

Point number 7.

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.

For some reason we tend to think of violent behavior as a sign of strength and peace as a display of weakness. So maybe that is a slight generalization, but the truth is we see it in play everyday. A nation that is attacked and reacts in kind is seem as showing a display of strength. If that same country chose to not attack back then they would be considered weak. It is commonly thought that a choice for non-violence by a country in particular would lead others to choose to attack as well. You can only maintain safety through a superior military might. This was easily seen during the Cold War. We built the atomic bomb, Russia had to have it. In response to that we increased our stockpile, and they increased theirs, and we...so forth. Luckily, no one was stupid enough to fire one off given the policy of full retaliation. The concept seemed to be that if we had this enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons and they had a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons then no one would start a war given the horrid outcome of this. So instead we invaded, attacked, coerced, and supported revolutions to undermine the military advantage of the other. In the name of fighting communism America gave money which was used by foreign governments to fight communism, sponsored militant groups in wars on Soviet occupation, and sent thousands of Americans into wars that did not threaten American soil.

In the Cold War era we tried to demonstrate American strength through military might and felt that any acts of peace would be seen as weakness by the Russians. Our ideological war with the Russians caused enormous unrest at home which fostered massive social change and a shift in the thought process for what indicated world power. From this war we gained enemies in the Middle and Far East, has led us into a war with North Korea that was never officially ended, and left us with very little except for a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons which could fall into the wrong hands and lead to death on a massive scale. Our country spent so much in defense that we have never been able to cut that much of the prosperity that country experienced leaving the second World War was spent. This spending was warned against by Eisenhower who told us to avoid spending in the Industrial Military Complex. In fact, the only advances that came out of the Cold War of benefit to the world were the Space Program, internet, and personal computing, advances that could have been gained as much through peace as war.

Let's look at the countries who chose to not be involved in the Cold War and sought out peace following World War II. Many of the Norse countries did not build armies in the Cold War, but focused on local economies research and development. Until the recent troubles in Norway they have experienced huge economic growth and prosperity with relative peace in their borders. Japan and Germany also experienced massive growth in technology (particularly Japan) and economy without a growing army or frequent wars. Germany is an interesting one and one I probably don't know enough about. I know that the loss of World War II and the occupation by Russia and Allied forces moved the country further from thoughts of war and violence and more toward peace. The Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe was not the result of violent upheaval in most countries, but concerted and fervent non-violent action. Look into the Velvet Revolution in Prague as a good example. If my historical facts are inaccurate please correct me with sighted facts in your comments.

As we look at the Nordic countries (I'm including Sweden in this by the way), modern Germany, and Japan we would not call them weak, yet if the United States chose peace over violence people in this country would be very angry with the government. It is not weakness to choose peace and more then violence is an indication of strength.