[Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27

Sat Oct 13 03:28:04 CDT 2007

The bold statement that violence (and I meant towards human beings) has never accomplished anything admirable was to mean that human progress (defined in the traditional liberal democratic way) has generally come about through peaceful change i.e. the human rights discourse, women's suffrage, the right to collectively bargain for workers, the 40 hour work week, the end of the death penalty in all civilized countries . . . 

The end of slavery, nazism and fascism were violent processes because they were a continuation of the system that was being de-constructed. Slavery was obviously a very violent and demeaning industry which naturally resulted in a violent resistance to progress. In other words, slavery itself was a war . . an ongoing war against people of color that culminated in an officially declared war between liberators and enslavers ( and yes, the Civil War was about slavery, first and foremost, despite what revisionists might argue . . )

The "reductio ad absurdum" I talked about was your claim that marching with signs could be construed as violence because one could possibly use the stick as a weapon. This ridiculous statement echoes police paranoia that I have witnessed at numerous protests wherein signs were taken away from peaceful protesters for that very reason. This is a police provocation and not one that ought be embraced by someone pretending to be a peace activist.

Furthermore, when I speak of violence, I am not excluding vandalism. I, for one, have vandalized public and private property as a form of activism and I do not regret it at all. Back in my late high school days, I was part of a group of activists that would resist the gentrification of Chicago's far north side by bricking the new Starbucks opening up in these uniquely diverse communities (when they were closed and no one was inside . . ). 

Lastly, The United States was most assuredly founded on violence, and that probably goes a long way in explaining why it is easily the most morally despicable of all of the "western democracies." 
 I, for one, don't actually consider the United States to be a developed western democracy because it lacks a system of universal health care and a system of universal higher education, which are two extraordinarily important pillars to democracy throughout Western Europe. What's more, the nation has fallen into a police state in recent years, wherein police departments have completely morphed into mini-Gestapos with almost no oversight. Further, they are backed by a generation (mine) that greatly admires the persona of the simple-minded, hard nosed, totalitarian goon.

-mer

From: laurie at advancenet.net
To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] Rethinking Oct. 27
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2007 00:33:12 -0500

>People
seem to be conflating two different organizing tactics here

While this may be the case that the
different organizing tactics are being confounded, I think that you have maybe
oversimplified the choices.  Here are legal actions and civil disobedience;
and both of which can be non-violent and/or violent in nature and can be
directed towards property and/or people.

>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.

Of course, this is a value statement, which
I have no doubt that you believe in and follow to the letter and which you have
a right to make and follow.  I will take it at face value as being your
position; but that does not mean that it has to be mine or anyone else’s
or that everyone agrees with it 100%.  I also think that you are making
some categorical empirical-like statements that can be neither proven nor
disproven empirically (i.e., violence has NEVER EVER achieved anything
admirable, PERIOD); such statements depend on how one defines “NEVER EVER”
AND “admirable.”

Having said that, one needs to acknowledge that
the U.S. was also born out of violence (the revolutionary war, the
Mexican-American war, the killing of native Americans, the enslaving of blacks);
and it is questionable if it ever achieved any of its stated goals and
principles. But if it did, it involved violence which is as American as Apple
Pie.  The end of slavery in the US also was a result of a war which was
very violent.  In addition, one has to acknowledge that the stopping of
German Nazism, Italian Fascism, and Japanese racism and oppression involved the
use of violence during WWII. I could go on and give examples that questionably
be taken as refuting or at least calling into question your proposition that “In
the history of the world, violence has NEVER EVER achieved anything admirable,
PERIOD.”

Moreover, your use of the term “violence”
is intentionally or not very general; it includes violence to anything – people,
animals, plants, property, environment, etc.  If one considers medical
advances for people and even animals as desirable and admirable, one has to
accept that some of them may require that exercising the violence involved in
testing them on test subjects -animal or vegetable – is undertaken in the
production of the admirable and desirable results and outcomes.

I think one needs to be cautious in making
unqualified statements of principle or fact.

> It's as simple as that. Break the Law?
Yes! Use Violence? No!  That is how you rise above injustice. 

Maybe for you; but people you see things as
being so simple and black and white scare the shit out of me.  More often
than not such “either/or” fundamentalists see no shades of gray and
perpetrate some of the worst injustices.  Instead of rising above injustice,
this sort of viewpoint tends to immerse one deep into the realm of injustice.  “America
love it or leave it,” “better dead than red,” “you are
either with us or against us,” etc. all have their grounding in the “it
is as simple as that” attitude.

>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.

I have a great deal of respect and admiration
for the two persons you mention, although I would not do them the disservice of
connecting their names with such hype as “greatest American peacemakers
of our time.”  They are both people who do more than just talk, more
than merely intellectualize, and more than engage in riskless
demonstrations.  For these reasons, I have no problem accepting their
activism as being real and meaningful and as being of great significance independent
of questions of their use or non-use of violence as opposed to mental masturbation
or intellectual exercises engaged in by other activists who face few if any
risks and inconvenience, danger, or cost to themselves.  

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!

_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star Shuffle:  the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_oct
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20071013/c1983fc7/attachment-0001.htm