Personal Choices

After reading the articles by James, McAllister, and Kokopeli and Lakey I was left pondering the question of when do we need to move from nonviolent resistance to physical resistance? I chose here to not say "when do we move from nonviolent resistance to violent resistance" because in the situations that the authors discuss, they are talking about defending oneself through physical resistance, as a last resort. Pat James states that "Common sense as well as nonviolent principle dictate that an aggressive physical response to threat is the last choice for self-defense." After, exhausting nonviolent means of resistance, it is acceptable to physically resist an aggressor. However, James seems to somewhat discredit this argument when she goes on to give evidence for the usefulness of using physical resistance as soon as one feels that their person is being violated. James states that "The main reason for choosing physical resistance in a physical attack is that it is most likely to work. [...] The researchers report that the more quickly a woman responds with physical force, the less likely she will be raped, and that early recognition of danger is the single most important factor in preventing or deflecting an attack." In these circumstances though, I feel that the use of physical force to defend one's life is warranted. I understand that those who were part of the Civil Rights Movement and other nonviolent movements stayed passive when being brutally beaten. But that was their personal choice. Also, their nonviolent actions were part of a strategic campaign for social change. What social change can be brought be an individual who remains nonviolent while being raped in a back alley? Personally, I think that using physical force to defend one's life or the life of another, when it is sufficiently threatened, is absolutely justified. Is it nonviolent? No. But if I were being attacked or witnessed someone else being attacked, I would physically resist. What do others think? Do you think that in the case of self-defense, physical force is justified? Would you remain nonviolent even if you were being raped by an attacker?

However, the victim may not have to resort to physical force if they were to follow Pam McAllister's suggestion to "refuse the attacker's script." By refusing to show fear, the victim could potentially throw their attacker off. McAllister though goes on to endorse the notion that by clinging to nonviolent values, we can affirm our humanity. She says, "I refuse to be a victim and I refuse to endorse violence by resorting to it." While I can understand this argument in a wartime situation, I have a hard time believing that it applies to individual attacks on a person. I didn't really care for McAllister's arguments, and I am wondering what others think. Do you think that you're endorsing violence, if you use physical force as a form of self-defense?

In Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey's article, they look more at the connection between violence and nonviolence as related to masculinity and femininity. They say that "The ultimate proof of power/masculinity is violence." They go on to discuss how homosexual men face the same oppression as women, in a patriarchal society. I at first thought they were going to go on to advocate for a more feminine society. However, they are rather intelligent for articulating the need for a society that blends both masculine and feminine characteristics. This article leads me to question how accessible nonviolent resistance is to men, in our patriarchal society. If a man backs down from a fight he's usually called a "wimp" or a "sissy." However, no one seemed to call Martin Luther King, Jr. or Gandhi a wimp. I think that men acting nonviolently is acceptable when its understood that they are part of a group and acting for some kind of social change. At the individual level though, a man acting nonviolently out of principle is socially unacceptable. Do you think that individual men can act nonviolent on principle in the present society? What do you think would have to change for men to act nonviolently, in all social situations, without being seen as a "wimp" or even worse, a girl?

Organizing a Movement

Organizing a Movement
It’s all about power. Taking the power of one group of people or person and shifting it to another. To do this, great organization is needed to utilize the people to put pressure on on group to shift the power to another. From a nonviolent perspective it is key to use love with power once a person has attained power. “King spoke eloquently about the importance of power and the need to combine it with love. ‘One of the greatest problems of history is that the concepts of love and power are usually contrasted as polar opposites… Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice’” (Cortright 192). Political power relies on two main factors of money and people (Cortright 192). This means that the organization of a group of people is imperative in gaining political power. Unfortunately most social organizations looking to advocate change, don’t have the same amount of money politicians do, so they must rely on their ability on the number of people they can successfully organize. Organization is changing drastically due to technology. The communication capabilities of the modern world far surpass those even a decade ago. However, the idea is still the same; “to mobilize people and resources for collective action” (Cortright 195) The internet has been irreplaceable in terms of getting word out about organizing a movement. A campaign against the war in Iraq was started via the internet in 2002. MoveOn organized meetings with Congress members who opposed war, and generated nearly a million signatures in under a week, and vigils in 140 countries. The internet was key because this medium of communication was able to get word out to millions of people within an extremely short amount of time and be easily available for translations to get word to foreign countries (Cortright 195-196). Common ground is also very important when organizing. A unity of the social group must be found for a cohesiveness to reach an ultimate goal.

Overall, a few ideas need to be looked at when organizing
Is there a clear over arching goal that all members believe in?
Is there a unity among members? Whether it be religion, geographic area, morals, beliefs, etc.
Can the media be involved as leverage?

Interpositionary Peacekeeping: Putting It All Out There (a little late... my B!)

Interpositionary Peacekeeping is arguably one of the most dangerous, gutsy, and profound actions of non-violence. I mean think about it. Traditionally it is putting yourself out there as a PHYSICAL shield! Letting it all hang out there. Not just putting your mind or words into a dispute, but physically trying to stop two conflicting forces from merging. It takes a HUGE leap of faith, a whole lot of moxy, truly you believe something 100% before you commit your physical body to the resolution of dangerous conflict. I watched a movie recently about the Liberian Woman’s Movement in… you guessed it… Liberia. To sum it up, there was a struggle between two factions for political power, and the result was a country torn apart by the carnage of war. It was such a moving thing to watch. Here were a group of average (arguably… you’ll see why) women who simply had had enough. Enough violence, enough poverty, enough fear. One woman was describing how she had to flee once from her home with her two small children to her and walking 7 hours to her parents village. When they got there they were famished. Her young son said all he wanted was a bite of a doughnut. All the woman could think about is “how do I get my son some doughnut?”. Inevitably this awakened a passion in the woman to cry out for the support of the fellow women to fight the war around them with non-violent action and protest. When she was giving her rallying speech, there also happened to be a Muslim woman in the assembly (church) as well. She felt moved and also called out to her community. The result was the coming together of woman of multiple backgrounds. OK, sorry, rant, long story short, the woman got the current president and conflicting rebels to agree to have peace talks, using non-violent tactics. However, at the meetings, the delegates tried to leave before they had reached any sort of agreement. The women said HELL NO and created a human chain around the building and FORCED the male negotiators to stay until the had reached an agreement. There was even a point where someone tried to violently jump over the woman, but they replied with pushing him right back in. (There is much more to the story, and I would recommend you watch Celia’s DVD on the subject… it’s really inspiring). Anyways, the ability for these mothers and grandmothers to take such a stand is really heart wrenching and inspiring at the same time. To see the pain they feel everyday thinking of the danger their children are in, and then having the courage to put themselves at risk. It makes me wonder a few things:

Do we understand the connections we have? As students? As whatever ethnicity we are? As whatever gender? Religion? Where do we have that connection? And even past that: where can we extend our connection to include others? Where do we find just ourselves as human beings? Would we have the power to call upon others and ourselves to do such displays of non-violence?

I guess the final thing I think to myself is: Would I ever be able to put myself on the line in the name of seeking a non-violent solution to injustice?

Resistance as a Non-Violent Action

When a conflict arises it is met with an answer, generally a means of combat; whether it is traditional warfare, chemical warfare, or a simple fight on the street. However when people think of combat they think about answers like the previous, as opposed to other more modern approaches. I as well as Gene Sharp, believe that non-violence is a means of combat just as war is.
When the words non-violence are spoken, people think of things such as simple verbal persuasion, peaceful institutional procedures backed by sanctions or peaceful negotiations.(Sharp pg. 66) However non-violent action is a far cry from these lesser acts of non-violence. As Sharp points out, non-violent action is just that "action." This is where the aspect of using non-violece as a strategy or tacitc comes into play. When organizing non-violent action, there is just as much work as organizing war, the people have to be dedicated and make sacrifices just as those who would fight in a traditional war. It takes numbers just like fighting versions of combat, it allows for innovation and calls for protest, noncooperation as well as intervention. However the difference is that it has the potential and generally does save many lives, and as most people will agree the value of a life is rarely surpassed by anything.
One particular method of non-violent action is that of resistance. As shown in the film that we viewed Thursday in class, resistance can not only produce results but it can also lead to a success that costs much less than the alternative violent actions. Resistance is a process that takes much coordination and organizational efforts. This is what intices me to say that resistance is a strategy. Although some people like Walter Wink will view non-violence as a tool that is weilded by the weak, while others including Sharp will argue that this strategic move is one that is chosen conciously and by the strong in an opportune moment. Resistance is just one of the many non-violent actions that can be employed as a tactic when faced with conflict, however the important part is that it is a tactic and not a way of life, but a way to perserve the life that is already present.

Theorizing about War: Theorizing Resistance

Sharp defines social power as the capacity to control the behavior of others, directly or indirectly, through action by groups of people, which action impinges on other groups of people. He also defines Political power as a kind of social power which is wielded for political objectives, especially by governmental institutions or by people in opposition to or in support of such institutions. I want to make a strong reference to World War II and the oppression of groups by a political entity.

Before I analyze the two successful protests, I wanted to examine one of Sharp's examples of "Why Men Obey", because I feel strongly that this is one of the main influences in Nazi Germany, and other dictatorships throughout history. The Psychological identification with the ruler, Sharp's 6th point on p. 23, is the idea that subjects of that nation or region have a strong emotional identification with the ruler or regime at that time. This idea is enhanced when common beliefs or a "sense of purpose" have broken down, and people need something to look to for purpose and direction in their lives. After World War I, Germany was broken and split as well as their economy in shambles. Hitler was the exact "ruler" that the citizens were looking for. He gave them something to believe in, but more importantly, blame for their problems. This idea unified a large percentage of Germany at the time which inherently led to the extermination of the Jews.

Sharp brings in two excellent examples of performing successful nonviolent protests against a regime that has no moral values towards them whatsoever. The first example Sharp brings in is the Norwegian dictator Quisling enacting a "corporation state" in which teachers were to teach fascist ideals to the children; in order to establish a "fascist youth". The teachers protested, nonviolently, and formed mass petitions to be sent to the governmental office. As many teachers were tortured, sent to concentration camps, and even killed, the protesters still retained a nonviolent stance against their government. Without a large population in society supporting the government, there truly would be no government to support. The protesters successfully won their nonviolent battle and the teachers were returned to their homes and began teaching their normal curriculum.

The example of Berlin's protests of 1943 was brought to the table. Jewish men were rounded up and sent away to concentration camps, while their non-Jewish wives were not arrested. The next day, about 6,000 wives assembled at their husband's detention camps and protested their release, nonviolently. After days and hours of protesting their release, the Nazi government was forced to release the Jewish men of this camp. The sole idea that Nazi officials release Jewish prisoners back into the public to live their lives is a extremely significant event, especially this being in the midst of war. The women of Berlin won a tremendous battle against a fascist regime by demonstrating that they were not afraid to protest against the government's beliefs. These nonviolent actions seem to be much stronger than the Nazi government itself at this time.

Civil Rights

We have talked about many things in class that deal with the Civil Rights movement, MLK, and many other influential people. We have watched a couple videos that deal with this, as well as, having many discussions in class about the videos. The Civil Rights movement was one of the largest events in this country's history. It took many years of nonviolent fighting and hardship. They took beating after beating, but they still kept fighting nonviolently. I think what they did was incredible.

The student Sit-Ins, I feel, was a major role in the movement. I like this act because I can relate to it because it was my age group doing the Sit-Ins. The way they set it up, so every time someone got arrested for non moving another would step right in and take their spot, was ingenious. Students play a major role in any movement. This is because the students have a lot of will power and the will to fight for what they want and believe. They have nothing to loose yet. I have and will protest for something I want or believe in. As a young citizen/student I feel I have a large impact on society because my age group will soon be the future. So what we do now, we will live with when we're older.

Freedom Rides

SNCC: Who were they?

SNCC stood for the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee. It was founded on Easter Weekend in 1960. The group was just like the name it was a movement formed and ran by students.

As we mentioned in class, College Campus provide a good place to help rally people. You access to many resources and people. The group was very active with sit-ins across the south.

The SNCC were also very active with the Freedom Rides.

The people who took part in these protest had to overcome many different things. Whites mob( mainly the KKK) would surround the buses. This would start to occur when the riders headed down to the deep south.

However it must of been hard on them because of the violence they dealt with. At the same time they were really passionate about bring a change. Overall I believe that he struggle was worth all of it.

I think the SNCC contributed a lot to the Civil Rights Movement. You had young voices speaking out an advocating a change. They were able to reach out and get the young generation to so that when they did grow up, they would want a change.

The Whole idea behind the freedom riders was to test the ruler of Boynton v. Virginia. The bus terminals that crossed state lines were suppose to be desegregated.

I think that they were very affective in getting their point across. They were able to get national notice. If I remember correctly the Kennedy's sent someone down to travel with the Freedom Riders to see actually what they were up to. That help get their cause noticed.