[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

Thu Oct 11 16:28:43 CDT 2007

>You are correct in that civil disobedience and using violence are two
different tactics

Actually the distinction is much to generic and broad and hides a number of
different tactics.  First, violence can be against property or against
individual and/or both. One may place different values on each of the two
types of violence.  Is breaking a window or burning a building equal to
hitting, tasering, pepper spraying, wounding, or killing a person?  Is
violence against an individual always unjustified even in cases of self
defense or protection against current or future threatening acts that might
cause physical or mental harm to one's self or those that one represents?

Second, civil disobedience does not preclude all forms of violence
(depending of course on how and what one defines as violence).  Tearing up
paving blocks from a sidewalk or road so as to destroy that walk or road and
prevent its further use can be considered a violent action against property
just as blowing up a facility that house research that contributes to the
harm or death of others; is such actions which only do harm to the property
and not to any persons a form of civil disobedience. 

 What is civil disobedience the polar opposite of; would it be "criminal
disobedience," "impolite disobedience," or "violent" disobedience? And what
is criminal disobedience?  What is "uncivil disobedience"? What is "violent
disobedience"? Is passive resistance where an official injures themselves by
carrying the passive resister an instance of violence being done to the
official as a result of an act of the protester?"  Is opening the valves to
an oil storage tank containing fuel destined for a war zone a violent act of
disobedience or an act of civil disobedience since it destroys the oil and
possibly the environment including the potential of creating a future health
hazard for people and animals?

In short the use of these terms glosses over many differences and hides the
subtleties of the concrete details of the situations and actions.

>Personally I prefer the civil disobedience route, yet it seems like we are
sporting blinders in regards to our own history >of violence. The United
States was founded on the concept of violence and expansion was done through
dishonest >and violent means. The concept of obtaining 'freedom and liberty'
through taking up arms is one that is deeply >ingrained in the culture here
and that is something that can't be ignored.

Excellent point; and it is made more important when one recognizes violence
and the threat of it tend to be the only language that many people -
especially those who make up the establishment - understand and respond to.
Violence or the threat of it as a backdrop for any non-violent actions
represents the possibility of disorder - and order is the thing that the
establish wants more than anything else and will go to great lengths to
achieve by oppression or negotiation.

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Marti
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:04 PM
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

You are correct in that civil disobedience and using violence are two
different tactics. Personally I prefer the civil disobedience route, yet it
seems like we are sporting blinders in regards to our own history of
violence. The United States was founded on the concept of violence and
expansion was done through dishonest and violent means. The concept of
obtaining 'freedom and liberty' through taking up arms is one that is deeply
ingrained in the culture here and that is something that can't be ignored. 

  _____  

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Matt Reichel
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 2:56 AM
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

People seem to be conflating two different organizing tactics here.
Firstly, there is the question of legal action vs. civil disobedience. The
latter implies breaking the law and risking arrest in protest against an
immoral authority, which would most certainly be appropriate now. I believed
that students should have walked out of their classes, disrupted classes,
and stopped up traffic in campustown to disrupt business as usual in
champaign/urbana when the war began in 2003. And I will remind you that we
were quite successful in that endeavour for one day. 

Secondly, there is the question of using violence as a means of achieving
political ends, which I am 100% opposed to, as were Gandhi and MLK. In the
history of the world, violence has NEVER EVER achieved anything admirable,
PERIOD. And yes that includes the Red Army. The failure of the USSR to ever
realize the "withering away of the state" is probably a result of the fact
that the country was founded on the concept of violence . . a violence that
continued in unprecedented form.

It's as simple as that. Break the Law? Yes! Use Violence? No!  That is how
you rise above injustice. This is why the greatest American peacemakers of
our time are people like Kathy Kelly (my personal hero) and Cindy Sheehan.
They aren't strapped down by any inane bureaucracies, parties or overarching
ideologies. They are motivated by peace and willing to do all in their power
outside of violence to achieve that end.

That should motivate us all!

-
mer

> From: tvchick at insightbb.com
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:05:48 -0500
> 
> >From a strategic angle even Martin Luther King Jr. was willing to break
the
> law in order to get a point across. He made the distinction between what
he
> considered to be "just" and "unjust" laws. King knew when to play it cool
> and when to engage in actions that people may have considered
revolutionary
> back in the 1960's.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Stuart Levy
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:35 PM
> To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
> 
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 11:18:27PM -0500, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
> 
> > > A peace demonstration should practice what it preaches.
> > 
> > That is a moralistic position and not a practical power political
> position.
> > It typically makes for martyrs but not successful results.
> 
> Oh -- do you mean that India is still a British colony?
> 
> cheers
> 
> Stuart
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

  _____  

Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
Try now!
<http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmail
news> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071011/4cebad43/attachment-0001.html