Sometimes I wonder if we idealize Gandhi and MLK Jr and other people like them. Do we hold them to an impossible standard, as perfect models of NV? I start to dislike them almost, because all we seem to hear about is how perfect they were. And as we know, they weren't perfect. They were just humans, who happened to have great ideas about peace AND were in a position to do something about it. I mean, I know it's important to learn about them, and that most of the nonviolent theory comes from people like them (and Sharp.. we mustn't forget Gene). But is it good to focus so much on them? I was reading through some of my past posts (to make sure I wasn't repeating myself) and I realized how many of them were about Gandhi. It just seems unbalanced. I don't know who I'd rather learn about; maybe there really aren't that many people who would be good models.
Just a little thought I had.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Rawls
Rawls had the idea of a veil of ignorance. I liked this idea because it seemed the most fair to me. The idea is that people make up the rules for society, not knowing what their role in society will be. So it's like, for example, you set up an education system, not knowing if you'll be male or female, wealthy or poor. The two questions that Rawls really brings up are:
1) What are the rules of a just society
2) When do we engage in civil disobedience
The veil of ignorance's intent is to bring about equal rights. It recognizes that the world is not fair; sometimes, everyone is going to be disadvantaged. The point is that the disadvantages aren't intentionally targeted at a specific group. There will always be mistakes made, but as long as they're truly mistakes/random, and not the products of a flawed system, you just live with them.
Rawls also makes the point that if you live in a society, and accept its benefits, then you agree to comply, in conduct, with the laws. You can disagree in principle, but you still have to act in accordance with the law. Like you can make symbolic gestures of disagreement, but you can't break the law. This is a form of social contract. I don't think Thoreau would like this very much.
I think one can use civil disobedience only when:
1)the legal means have first been tried, and not worked or been closed to change
2)there is a clear violation of justice
3)there are voiceless groups, which shouldn't be in a society that truly used the veil of ignorance
4)there is a visible pattern, or potential for such a pattern, of abuse of power
Civil disobedience needs to be public, nonviolent, contrary to the law, for the general good of the whole population and done with a willingness to suffer (you are, afterall, breaking the law).
1) What are the rules of a just society
2) When do we engage in civil disobedience
The veil of ignorance's intent is to bring about equal rights. It recognizes that the world is not fair; sometimes, everyone is going to be disadvantaged. The point is that the disadvantages aren't intentionally targeted at a specific group. There will always be mistakes made, but as long as they're truly mistakes/random, and not the products of a flawed system, you just live with them.
Rawls also makes the point that if you live in a society, and accept its benefits, then you agree to comply, in conduct, with the laws. You can disagree in principle, but you still have to act in accordance with the law. Like you can make symbolic gestures of disagreement, but you can't break the law. This is a form of social contract. I don't think Thoreau would like this very much.
I think one can use civil disobedience only when:
1)the legal means have first been tried, and not worked or been closed to change
2)there is a clear violation of justice
3)there are voiceless groups, which shouldn't be in a society that truly used the veil of ignorance
4)there is a visible pattern, or potential for such a pattern, of abuse of power
Civil disobedience needs to be public, nonviolent, contrary to the law, for the general good of the whole population and done with a willingness to suffer (you are, afterall, breaking the law).
Invisible Children
I went to see Invisible Children tonight. I saw it last year in high school, but there was an update at the end, which was wonderful to see. Wow, it is astounding to see, even when I've seen it before. The first time, it made me cry. I held back this time, but very easily could have. I don't understand how you can remain indifferent to that kinda thing. The thing I love the most about the organization is that they give really practical methods of helping, as well as the really over the top ones. For example, just talk to people. Awareness raising and education is HUGE. One of the biggest reasons, I think, why people don't do anything, is because they don't know that there needs to be anything done. I know I had never heard of the problems in Uganda, regarding children, before I saw the video. I mean, I knew there was a war, and lots of ethnic conflict issues (as if those aren't bad enough on their own, right?) but I had no idea that children were being abducted and forced into military service. On the other extreme besides simply communicating, you can sign up to go and work with these kids.
My parents are always asking me, what are you going to do with International studies and PACS? Like, what is that possibly good for? I've always struggled to find good, concrete examples. But I feel like IC is one. I've always wanted to work with kids in developing nations; I picked PACS not because I'm a truly nonviolent person, although I think violence is too often chosen as a first or second resort, but because I feel like kids are often taken advantaged of, or completely neglected, in conflicts. I want to understand how conflicts work, how they can be managed and used more efficiently, so I can use that knowledge to help protect and promote children's rights in areas with war, currently or recently. I just sent my mom the link for IC; now she can know what I want to do, generally, and possibly specifically.
My parents are always asking me, what are you going to do with International studies and PACS? Like, what is that possibly good for? I've always struggled to find good, concrete examples. But I feel like IC is one. I've always wanted to work with kids in developing nations; I picked PACS not because I'm a truly nonviolent person, although I think violence is too often chosen as a first or second resort, but because I feel like kids are often taken advantaged of, or completely neglected, in conflicts. I want to understand how conflicts work, how they can be managed and used more efficiently, so I can use that knowledge to help protect and promote children's rights in areas with war, currently or recently. I just sent my mom the link for IC; now she can know what I want to do, generally, and possibly specifically.
If one is trapped in a circle of oppression and repression, whether it be by an outside force, or by dominant forces within a society, what would make you think you could rebel? I'm always surprised and impressed with groups, such as the people in Chile or other countries with terrible dictators, who manage to come together and form organizations of resistance. If you don't know any different than what you've always had though, where do these thoughts come from? Do you model off of other countries/groups of people? Or do these thoughts come of just yourself, like the Otpor group having the same models as Gene Sharp?
What reason has someone to dream of something they have never known?
I think of the boys at the orphanage where I spend my spring breaks and as much of my summer as I can. More often than not, they don't seem or express much dissatisfaction with their situation. When they first come, they cry at nights, and I've heard stories from other boys about listening to the boy above them crying in the dark of night. But after awhile, they say, they don't think about it anymore. Some of them say they have dreams of going to university, but know they will never go because they have no money. They give up on that and accept the fact that they will be merely subsistence farmers. And I waver between thinking it's a good thing that they can accept the likely reality of their futures, and distress that 10 year old boys have already given up hope for a better tomorrow. Which one is better? To dream about something they may never be and be disappointed, or never to dream at all?
What reason has someone to dream of something they have never known?
I think of the boys at the orphanage where I spend my spring breaks and as much of my summer as I can. More often than not, they don't seem or express much dissatisfaction with their situation. When they first come, they cry at nights, and I've heard stories from other boys about listening to the boy above them crying in the dark of night. But after awhile, they say, they don't think about it anymore. Some of them say they have dreams of going to university, but know they will never go because they have no money. They give up on that and accept the fact that they will be merely subsistence farmers. And I waver between thinking it's a good thing that they can accept the likely reality of their futures, and distress that 10 year old boys have already given up hope for a better tomorrow. Which one is better? To dream about something they may never be and be disappointed, or never to dream at all?
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Back to Gandhi
Gandhi's system of parallel structures really interests me. He said to set up your own system if the accepted one refused to acknowledge change. It was a last resort kind of thing. But how would that look in society? Would you set up a new school system? A new police force? Medical care? Public transportation? Everything! That would require huge numbers of people, so would this idea only work when most of the people in a region agree with you? I think that would have worked for Gandhi, had England refused to make concessions, but I don't think it would work with the current US anti-war party. Like I said in an earlier post, most people don't actively fight against the war. They talk a lot, but they don't do a lot. I don't think they could manage to set up a completely separate system. Also, what's to keep the original government from destroying it, in its infancy? I think it's a really interesting concept, but I have a lot of questions and doubts about its application. Is there an example I should look at where it has been applied?
Response to the Resistance Movies
The two movies we watched, the Danish Resistance and the Otpor movie were very interesting. We talk so much about nonviolence in theory that it was amazing to actually see it implemented. I was so impressed at the Otpor movement for so closely matching standardly and widely accepted nonviolent methods and models while not being aware of it. What impressed me most about the Danish resistance was the incredible success they had. They were amazing! When I was looking at other resistance movement in regards to Nazi occupation for my project, I tried to avoid that one because we had already discussed it in class, and it was hard to find lots of information about other countries because the Dutch one was so compelling. So nonviolently and so successfully... it just really impressed me. I was also amazed by their leadership- they had some really tough decisions to make about whether to cooperate or not with the Nazis. They did what they thought was best for their people, and when they couldn't remain true to their beliefs, they stepped down. I think the underground communication systems in Denmark really facilitated their successes. One of the most difficult things for some of the other movements was the lack of contact both with the outside world and with other underground networks, due to Nazi policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
