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.

Civil Rights and MLK

As we begin our sustained examination of the civil rights movement there are several over arching questions we want to use to frame our thinking:
- what are the factors that shape this particular movement (people, time and place, larger historical context, political and social realities, etc.)
- what are the ideas that shape this movment and the form that NV takes?
- how is NV shaped by this context, how does NV respond to this context, how does NV change this context?
- what are the successes and failures of the movement? how do we measure success and failure?
- how does this movement contribute to our understanding of social change and NV social change in particular?

Resistance to War

Carl von Clausewitz states it best in his book On War, “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means…War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument,…a carrying out of the same by other means…wars are only the expressions of manifestations of policy itself.” Basically war is just a tool used by governments to implement their foreign policy. A brutal way, yes; but the only way humanity has seen fit. Resisters of war find that unacceptable for various reasons; ergo countless literature from conscientious objectors and pacifists on the horrific consequences of war. However, for the most part it seems that these kinds of people just complain about how atrocious war is, but they never have an alternative or solution. If pacifists want to rid the world of war, they must create a new tool for which governments can use to continue foreign policy. William James brings us an alternative to war – what he calls a moral equivalent to war.

William James moral equivalent to war is constructed from his belief in what human nature is. For James, human nature is in harmony with violence; he believes that instilled in every human being is this desire for violence/excitement, what he calls our warlike trait. James solution stems primarily from his notion on what humans instincts are. Thus his idea is for a nonviolent army, a social army. This social draft would include everyone and no one would be exempt. The purpose of this coalition would be to educate the youth about the world – a real and true experience of the world through practical means. This would be a way to connect people from different cultures to people of other cultures at a truly personal level; such that our desire to kill them or create violence would disappear because of our knowledge that they are like us – they are humans.

To reiterate, resisters of war are those who cannot accept war for various reasons at a personal level. While I neither endorse nor oppose the concept of war, I do believe that unless there is an alternative to war, war must go on and will continue to go on. Ergo, alternatives like William James should be thoroughly considered as practical solutions to preventing war by resisters of war.

I never previously understood the implications of pacifism. I had always just assumed that a pacifist was an individual who believed any sort of violence was unacceptable. I now realize that pacifism encompasses a wide variety of beliefs on the topics of violence and appropriate action. It is based in morality, and morality is a gray area. By that I mean, true morality is incomprehensible and impossible to determine. Therefore, that which determines passivity is based on an individual’s perception of morality.

At the beginning of “A Pacifist Continuum”, Ronald W. Clark is quoted to have said, “Perhaps in pacifism, as in space, there are no absolutes.” That is an intriguing thought. He is suggesting that pacifism is subject to contextual influence. Are there absolutes in pacifism? If so, what are the implications of that?

The pacifism continuum is very diverse; but it seems as if it always comes back to the same principle: nonviolent action to acquire positive reaction. This of course leads to the question: is any violence acceptable as absolute pacifism implies? Or, is war an acceptable means to bring peace, like technological pacifism would have you believe? Both passive arguments present strong cases, and are inherently similar.

Suffragists and Feminism

Prior to reading any Suffragist literature, I made the false assumption that all of the speeches and declarations made by some of history’s most outspoken and intelligent women would focus solely on making desperate pleas for voting rights. However, upon delving deeper into the material, it quickly became apparent that the Suffragist struggle went way beyond the simple desire to vote. It seems to me as though, more than anything, these women just wanted to be acknowledged and respected for their societal contributions. Elizabeth Cady Stanton described in her address to the legislature of New York that women had made great strides in funding charities, schools, and churches. They created missions, educated society’s youth, and even made new discoveries. Why then couldn’t they receive any of the wealth or honor that was owed to them?

It makes me wonder even now how much has changed since the 19th century. Do the women of today receive the full respect of their peers that they so deserve for their many accomplishments? I think in a lot of ways we have made great strides in asserting our status, yet somehow I feel like the woman's presence could be more visible in some areas of society and her efforts more widely acknowledged.

Pacifism and abolitionists

When looking at nonviolence, I see how a very good place to start is with pacifists and abolitionists. A lot of the framework for how pacifists and abolitionists begin looking at nonviolence starts with religious framework and rhetoric. Garrison's Declaration of Sentiments seemed to indicate that a lot of early pacifist based their beliefs on christian framework and a lot was based exclusively on the teachings of Jesus. While Garrison did use religion as the foundation for his belief set, it seemed that it was still founded on the belief of a God that bestows judgement upon humanity, thus "vengeance is mine- I will repay sayeth the lord." Do such pacifistic sentiments only apply to humanity? Does Garrison really hope that God bestows punishment? If so, I find it interesting that belief in a judgmental and punishing God relates to Garrison's understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Is judgement and punishment ultimately good, but solely belong to God? I am curious to explore the relationship between religion and pacifism further. When it comes to abolitionists, I find it very interesting how Frederick Douglas seems less motivated by religious reasons than the pacifists. Many of the sentiments that Douglas is expressing seems to stem from "enlightenment" ideals of equality and justice. Though Douglas does make some christian references in his speech, it is more in reference to "man's rights" bestowed by God, thus reinforcing the conceptual foundation in enlightenment thinking. Why is it though, that the foundation for pacifism and abolitionists seem to come from different sources? Is this difference just evident because of the sources chosen, or is there some underlying difference between the foundations of American pacifism and abolitionism? Both philosophies seem to hold very similar ideals, but deep down may be based on very different framework.

Western Roots

When I personally think about nonviolence, my mind drifts to thoughts of foreign countries and cultures, of people in far off places practices nonviolence, and how America should be more like these foreigners. However what I often forget is there have been an substantial amount of nonviolent movement in the western world that have shaped society as we know it today.
In class this Thursday we watch a documentary about the woman's rights movement. The film talked about how these brave women would stand for days sometimes even months in front of the White House and the Capital building, nonviolently sending there message to the law makers with picket lines and picket signs. The women of the movement used parades through the streets of America to inform and rally support for their cause. They would carry banners and sing slogans about the oppression President Wilson was placing on the women by not giving them the right to vote. These women fought with their words by creatively making the nation aware of the unfair treatment they were receiving, and that they were not going to stand for it anymore.
It took years and years of campaigning, marching, picketing, rallying, and much more to achieve their final goal. However the women of the west did it with out violence. Even when they were faced with violence, such as unlawfully being thrown in jail, or the police letting crowds throw things at them, they gracefully accepted what was being handed to them, and answered back with more nonviolent reaction, such as informing the public of what was being done to them. Being a woman I can especially appreciate what they went through to gives us such a fundamental right. However whether you can relate to the women of the movement or not everyone can clearly see that they were brilliant citizens who truly used nonviolence to achieve what they deserved.

Religious Roots

The discussion on Tuesday raised several interesting questions about the moral and ethical principles that inform our understanding of nonviolence. All of the religious traditions gives us guidelines about things we should do -- love one another, be in right relationships, eschew attachment, seek enlightenment, suffer yourself rather than impose suffering, see the unity of all existence, and things we shouldn't do --- don't kill, do not act of out anger, do not desire.

Are these essential elements for understanding Nonviolence? Are they sufficient? Are they a useful guide for thinking about how we should choose to behave? In what contexts? As individuals? As nations?

Holmes and Gan pose the question as: how do proponents of nonviolence suggest we respond to the violence and wrongdoing of other? Wink in particular is interested in this question as well. Does a moral stance of refusing to be violent make your a doormat? What in these readings helps us begin to think about how we might answer this question. Are the answers compelling. Why or Why not?

Tolstoy (49) argues says that some people believe that “to do deeds of violence and to kill people is not always bad, but that there are circumstances when it is necessary and even moral.” Do you agree or disagree with this statement? What does Tolstoy say about it?

Tolstoy objects to the notion that there is such a thing as justifiable violence. Why? Why does he take an absolutist position?

hello