[Peace-discuss] un-binary the binary - organize!

[C. G. Estabrook]

Ricky--

Your rhetorical questions are quite apropos, but I'm at sea as to who the 
atheist is.  --CGE


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> But, John ...
> 
> (and I do think it's a funny kind of argument for activists in particular to
> have, especially with the Christian arguing that unfortunately "might makes
> right" and the atheist objecting that justice sometimes prevails ;-)
> 
> ... aren't you overstating you case, just a bit?
> 
> Was Martin Luther King an oppressor?  Gandhi a conqueror?
> 
> Wasn't slavery abolished (mostly) by an international movement of people not
> necessarily in government or controlling military might, but making ethical
> arguments - and organizing - over and over, over and over?
> 
> Didn't organized labor and the organizations of the unemployed succeed - 
> partially, but substantially - when they raised living standards for millions
> of workers, achieved safety and health regulations that may be flawed but
> have nevertheless saved many thousands of lives - and that's documented - got
> thousands of poor children out of coal mines and into schools?
> 
> Didn't rebellious soldiers and peace activists around the world force the US
> out of Vietnam?  Didn't the resulting "Vietnam Syndrome" scale back US
> imperialism for decades afterwards, reducing it to the "low intensity
> warfare" that prevailed until the invasion of Granada and then Panama?
> Wasn't that worth it?
> 
> Of course we are all aware of the shortcomings of any and all of these 
> efforts, and their results.  Not least of these is that we seem to have to
> return to these same battlegrounds over and over, of course.  That's because
> all these movements were run by human beings and not characters in a fable.
> So I'd suggest that the question isn't either/or, total victory or total
> defeat, Armageddon or Ragnarok.
> 
> I agree that it's unlikely that a lot of US presidents are about to be 
> hanged, or even tried - for anything serious, anyway.  It's also pretty 
> implausible that we'll manage to elect a president, or a Congress, that ...
> well, that we'd be satisfied with.
> 
> But - apologies to my fellow anarchists - that doesn't mean they're all the
> same, does it?  Or that there is no justice possible at all.
> 
> There are things we can do.  We should do them if we can.  There are 
> contradictions like Chomsky's Nuremburg point that Carl raises, which get
> people thinking, potentially at least ... some people.  For some, at least
> they'll know they aren't crazy when they hear someone else say outloud and
> clearly.  Some may feel the proverbial scales drop from their eyes.  Some may
> decide, yes, time to organize!
> 
> It will need to get out beyond this listserve, of course.
> 
> Ricky
> 
> "Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn
> 
> --- On *Sun, 7/19/09, John W. /<jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
> 
> From: John W. <jbw292002 at gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] binary
> criterion of war/not war To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu> Cc:
> peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net, "CARL ESTABROOK" <galliher at uiuc.edu>,
> "KAREN MEDINA" <KMEDINA at illinois.edu> Date: Sunday, July 19, 2009, 1:33 AM
> 
> 
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:24 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu
> </mc/compose?to=galliher at illinois.edu>> wrote:
> 
> But in the real world, if the Nuremberg principles -- on the basis of which
> we executed nazi leaders after WWII -- had been applied consistently, all 
> subsequent US presidents would have been hanged.
> 
> 
> In the REAL world, Carl, it is always the winners - the victors, the 
> conquerors, the oppressors - who decide which principles of "justice" will be
> applied, and to whom.  "Might makes right" is the ultimate "rule of law".
> Didn't I say that just a few days ago?