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.