Wednesday, 11 February 2009

Non-Violence

Running on from the conversation at THEOS tonight, I thought you might enjoy considering Mark Kurlansky's 25 rules regarding non-violence:

1. There is no proactive word for nonviolence.
2. Nations that build military forces as deterrents will eventually use them.
3. Practitioners of nonviolence are seen as enemies of the state.
4. Once a state takes over a religion, the religion loses its nonviolent teachings.
5. A rebel can be defanged and co-opted by making him a saint after he is dead.
6. Somewhere behind every war there are always a few founding lies.
7. A propaganda machine promoting hatred always has a war waiting in the wings.
8. People who go to war start to resemble their enemy.
9. A conflict between a violent and a nonviolent force is a moral argument. If the violent side can provoke the nonviolent side into violence, the violent side has won.
10. The problem lies not in the nature of man but in the nature of power.
11. The longer a war lasts, the less popular it becomes.
12. The state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without force.
13. It is often not the largest but the best organized and most articulate group that prevails.
14. All debate momentarily ends with an "enforced silence" once the first shots are fired.
15. A shooting war is not necessary to overthrow an established power but is used to consolidate the revolution itself.
16. Violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.
17. Warfare produces peace activists. A group of veterans is a likely place to find peace activists.
18. People motivated by fear do not act well.
19. While it is perfectly feasible to convince a people faced with brutal repression to rise up in a suicidal attack on their oppressor, it is almost impossible to convince them to meet deadly violence with nonviolent resistance.
20. Wars do not have to be sold to the general public if they can be carried out by an all-volunteer professional military.
21. Once you start the business of killing, you just get "deeper and deeper," without limits.
22. Violence always comes with a supposedly rational explanation -- which is only dismised as irrational if the violence fails.
23. Violence is a virus that infects and takes over.
24. The miracle is that despite all of society's promotion of warfare, most soldiers find warfare to be a wrenching departure from their own moral values.
25. The hard work of beginning a movement to end war has already been done.

2 comments:

Dave Nuttall said...

Is it possible to have a non-violent war? Would we view Martin Luther King as being in a war against the establishment as some kind of battle against racism? It is easy to see war only as a call to arms and violence but perhaps it is possible to do battle in a different way.

David S Harvey said...

I like this thought by Dave Nuttall. I think that it seems difficult to say that Jesus encouraged or could have sanctioned violence. However, I think it's very difficult to suggest that Jesus wasn't involved in some sort of resistance.

Additionally, if Jesus wasn't seen to be opposing something, what was he killed for?

This is why I prefer the term 'non-violence' to pacifism. It might be a small difference, but to me pacifism brings images of not doing anything, the 'retreating' that John talked about last night. Whereas 'Non-violence' seems to allow for resistance and 'fighting' back (pardon the term) just using means other than violent ones.

Post a Comment