I understand why many people have been protesting the current war in Iraq. I am not one of them, but I understand it. My personal view on it has always been supportive, but as the years have passed, I wish more and more it would just be over. But as I was reading material for a class project, I came across a statement that really made me think.
"Their [Iraqi's] memories of torture and death make it hard for Iraqis to understand the war protesters in the West. "Why weren't they protesting when 350,000 Iraqis were chemically and biologically attacked?" asks Surdashi. "Where is the outrage? Why weren't they on the streets then? We know the price of freedom is going to be high, but two million of my people died under the Gestapo tactics of Saddam.""
Her questions really resonated with me. The full article is here: Horror Stories by Timothy W. Maier
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
Response to a main page post
I would like to respond to a main page post, reposted below:
"Sharp's next argument about obedience made me think. He brings up the point that a ruler's power depends greatly on the obedience of the subjects, which restates the importance of the people. Revolutions and other oppositions to the government happened because the people were tired of obeying laws they did not like. Now he raises the question why are people obedient in the first place? In answer to this question, he tells us that obedience is habitual. We follow the laws because we have for a long time and obedience prevents unwanted interruptions within our daily schedules. If obedience is habitual, why do we have strikes and nonviolent action? He quoted Thomas Hill Green who pointed out an important fact: "obedience will scarcely be habitual unless it is loyal, not forced.""
I do believe that a leader's power is based in his followers.... it's been made clear in the past (examples given in Sharp) where people just refused to follow orders, but still lived their fairly normal lives, thereby defeating the disliked ruler. And I would say that obedience is habitual... but I also think part of it is that it is very difficult to maintain or begin a revolution. The oppression has to be extreme. Especially in our form of government, where there is the opportunity for change peacefully, and that the populace has that power via voting. So I think part of it is that we rationalize that we picked our rulers, so what have we to complain about. I think strikes and nonviolent actions are used (for example, the bus boycotts and other Civil Rights actions) when the system is internally flawed, but of a good structure. The problem wasn't democracy... the problem was in how people had manipulated it... giving only certain people the vote, offering only a small selection of candidates... as well as the cultural issues of racism, very obvious in the south.
I think this may also be part of the Bush issue. I don't particularly want to get into my personal beliefs, but I will agree that many people seem dissatisfied with Bush. Why don't they act? Well some are, as noticed by participation of Juniata students in marches and such. But I don't think it's widespread enough. Some author, for another class, said that things need to be "evenly and widely distributed" for it to have an effect (I think he was talking about economic/ wealth redistribution but I think it works here too). In addition to this, I think people still fall back to the "we elected him, he has just a few years left... I'll wait for the next election to make my voice heard." Is this a good attitude? I'd say no. If we rely only on the mechanisms we have built into the system to make change, change will be slow. Besides, not enough people vote anyways. It's pathetic. While I would not participate, I feel that if people want change, or have an issue they feel passionately about, they need to act. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of talk and I don't respect that. Do something.
"Sharp's next argument about obedience made me think. He brings up the point that a ruler's power depends greatly on the obedience of the subjects, which restates the importance of the people. Revolutions and other oppositions to the government happened because the people were tired of obeying laws they did not like. Now he raises the question why are people obedient in the first place? In answer to this question, he tells us that obedience is habitual. We follow the laws because we have for a long time and obedience prevents unwanted interruptions within our daily schedules. If obedience is habitual, why do we have strikes and nonviolent action? He quoted Thomas Hill Green who pointed out an important fact: "obedience will scarcely be habitual unless it is loyal, not forced.""
I do believe that a leader's power is based in his followers.... it's been made clear in the past (examples given in Sharp) where people just refused to follow orders, but still lived their fairly normal lives, thereby defeating the disliked ruler. And I would say that obedience is habitual... but I also think part of it is that it is very difficult to maintain or begin a revolution. The oppression has to be extreme. Especially in our form of government, where there is the opportunity for change peacefully, and that the populace has that power via voting. So I think part of it is that we rationalize that we picked our rulers, so what have we to complain about. I think strikes and nonviolent actions are used (for example, the bus boycotts and other Civil Rights actions) when the system is internally flawed, but of a good structure. The problem wasn't democracy... the problem was in how people had manipulated it... giving only certain people the vote, offering only a small selection of candidates... as well as the cultural issues of racism, very obvious in the south.
I think this may also be part of the Bush issue. I don't particularly want to get into my personal beliefs, but I will agree that many people seem dissatisfied with Bush. Why don't they act? Well some are, as noticed by participation of Juniata students in marches and such. But I don't think it's widespread enough. Some author, for another class, said that things need to be "evenly and widely distributed" for it to have an effect (I think he was talking about economic/ wealth redistribution but I think it works here too). In addition to this, I think people still fall back to the "we elected him, he has just a few years left... I'll wait for the next election to make my voice heard." Is this a good attitude? I'd say no. If we rely only on the mechanisms we have built into the system to make change, change will be slow. Besides, not enough people vote anyways. It's pathetic. While I would not participate, I feel that if people want change, or have an issue they feel passionately about, they need to act. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of talk and I don't respect that. Do something.
Satyagraha
I thought the code of discipline of satyagraha was very interesting. It seemed to be a whole system and set of rules for a uniform outward face of the movement. For example, followers were told to "obey orders of satyagraha leaders, resign if there is serious disagreement". This is so contrary to our own culture in which every one is allowed to disagree and be an "individual". Usually, we try and "respectfully" disagree, but we still have that freedom. And the only times we have to leave groups are when we choose to because we, for some reason, don't want to be associated with that particular group at this time.
Another aspect I thought was unique was about how to act in face of opposition. Gandhi tells his followers to "be an exemplary prisoner". He also says to "not resist arrest or attachment of property unless you are a trustee" in which case you "refuse to surrender property held in trust at risk of life". There were more rules along this line, like protecting your enemies even if you have to die in the process. It seems to be more than just nonviolence... a step beyond. I think part of this is that for Gandhi, part of nonviolence was more than using it as a fighting tactic. For him, nonviolence was really part of life... his reasons had moral and religious underpinnings as well. What I didn't understand was that part about being a trustee. Did some people give their property to the groups... in which case they had to be protected? How did this mesh with the idea of having no earthly attachments, including familial attachments? He does say to "not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents" which I took to mean children, slaves/servants, and maybe even wives.
I don't know if I like the idea of satyagraha... it lacks individuality beyond the fact that one has to personally fully believe in its goals for any of it to work. Well, I guess in some ways I can understand that. There are things bigger than us that we are a part of, that we would be willing to make large sacrifices for... maybe that's what satyagraha relied upon/fulfilled for people. I still don't know if I would have been a part of it... I'm not peaceful enough I guess. I wouldn't be able to "harbor no anger" and other mandates Gandhi gave his followers.
Another aspect I thought was unique was about how to act in face of opposition. Gandhi tells his followers to "be an exemplary prisoner". He also says to "not resist arrest or attachment of property unless you are a trustee" in which case you "refuse to surrender property held in trust at risk of life". There were more rules along this line, like protecting your enemies even if you have to die in the process. It seems to be more than just nonviolence... a step beyond. I think part of this is that for Gandhi, part of nonviolence was more than using it as a fighting tactic. For him, nonviolence was really part of life... his reasons had moral and religious underpinnings as well. What I didn't understand was that part about being a trustee. Did some people give their property to the groups... in which case they had to be protected? How did this mesh with the idea of having no earthly attachments, including familial attachments? He does say to "not expect guarantees for maintenance of dependents" which I took to mean children, slaves/servants, and maybe even wives.
I don't know if I like the idea of satyagraha... it lacks individuality beyond the fact that one has to personally fully believe in its goals for any of it to work. Well, I guess in some ways I can understand that. There are things bigger than us that we are a part of, that we would be willing to make large sacrifices for... maybe that's what satyagraha relied upon/fulfilled for people. I still don't know if I would have been a part of it... I'm not peaceful enough I guess. I wouldn't be able to "harbor no anger" and other mandates Gandhi gave his followers.
Violence Vs. Nonviolence
So I don't remember exactly which readings these are for, but they're some thoughts I had written down a while ago.
For me, violence is not accidental; it's intentionally harming someone or something in some way. It can be against a person, an animal, property or the environment and can be standard physical harm, or emotional, psychological, etc. I don't really have a clear idea on what "harm" is. Something about lowering of standards... living standards, limiting options, reducing... somehow limiting potential. Part of violence goes back to that saying about means and ends. Violence doesn't necessarily care about the methods... as long as the end goal is accomplished that's all that matters.
Galtung talked about structural, direct and cultural violence. I can understand all three, but to me it's really difficult and almost unfair to accuse and convict someone of anything except direct violence. They can control their actions. But how can you judge a member of a majority group based on the actions of the whole? They're not in control of that. They can't individually change that. They can think something's wrong and unfair and unjust... like, let's say wage inequality for women or ethnic/racial minorities... but what can one man do about that? If he's in charge of paying people, that's different, but just any random man can't change the structure and I feel it's wrong to blame him for things beyond his control.
I guess this goes into my confusion about how intentional does violence have to be? Like in the example above, I really don't think people actually sit around and think to themselves, "Oh yes, I want to pay women and minorities less, because I'm a mean nasty person that way". At the same time, they need to be accountable for their actions. How intentional does violence have to be? Similarly, how intentional does nonviolence have to be for it to be technically used as a tactic? I really think some people are just less aggressive or prone to use violence than others. But at the same time, do they have to consciously use nonviolence as a tactic/method for it to count?
For me, violence is not accidental; it's intentionally harming someone or something in some way. It can be against a person, an animal, property or the environment and can be standard physical harm, or emotional, psychological, etc. I don't really have a clear idea on what "harm" is. Something about lowering of standards... living standards, limiting options, reducing... somehow limiting potential. Part of violence goes back to that saying about means and ends. Violence doesn't necessarily care about the methods... as long as the end goal is accomplished that's all that matters.
Galtung talked about structural, direct and cultural violence. I can understand all three, but to me it's really difficult and almost unfair to accuse and convict someone of anything except direct violence. They can control their actions. But how can you judge a member of a majority group based on the actions of the whole? They're not in control of that. They can't individually change that. They can think something's wrong and unfair and unjust... like, let's say wage inequality for women or ethnic/racial minorities... but what can one man do about that? If he's in charge of paying people, that's different, but just any random man can't change the structure and I feel it's wrong to blame him for things beyond his control.
I guess this goes into my confusion about how intentional does violence have to be? Like in the example above, I really don't think people actually sit around and think to themselves, "Oh yes, I want to pay women and minorities less, because I'm a mean nasty person that way". At the same time, they need to be accountable for their actions. How intentional does violence have to be? Similarly, how intentional does nonviolence have to be for it to be technically used as a tactic? I really think some people are just less aggressive or prone to use violence than others. But at the same time, do they have to consciously use nonviolence as a tactic/method for it to count?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
