Gandhi's Gonna Kick My Ass for This
Violence. It makes a great movie, but in real life it can be kind of a hassle.
When I consider the possibility that some violence (even killing) may be justified, I often can't help thinking that Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Tolstoy, M.L. King and God are all up in heaven wagging their fingers at me. Nevertheless, I've basically decided that using violence in self defense (blah, blah, blah -- you've heard this before) is, if not "okay", then at least understandable in that God won't throw you in hell for too many eons for it.
You see, I've also considered the possibility that killing someone -- no matter who -- will land you in a temporary hell that may still last trillions of eons. The question you have to ask yourself when you think of killing someone is whether you think it's worth it spending trillions of eons in hell to kill that person. If you kill a dictator who's planning on killing a bunch of other people, then you might emerge from those trillions of eons in hell as a hero when you finally get to heaven. Or something like that. I kind of mean for this idea to be more of a mental yardstick to use before acting -- sort of a "what if" scenario that you can use to decide whether it is ethical to kill whoever you're considering killing.
Now, since I'm all about collegiate revolution, let's talk about where violence fits in there.
The thing about using violence in a "revolutionary" struggle is this: Violence is, at the very most, for physical self defense. It is a reaction. A political struggle to change the status quo, on the other hand, is about in some sense moving forward--starting something new instead of just reacting. It may be okay in the eyes of God and Gandhi to protect your physical wellbeing, but protecting yourself doesn't have anything to do with pushing forward your political goals.
That is, if the cop at the demonstration hits you with his nightstick, you may have the option of hitting him back in order to try to keep him from hitting you too much more -- if that even works. The various things that may happen if you do this, you can imagine. Or, you can allow yourself to be hit with the nightstick -- not because you don't have a right to fight back or because the cop should be allowed to hit you -- but because keeping yourself from getting bashed up with a nightstick is not your goal in the demonstration.
Please keep in mind that I have never been hit with a nightstick and am not trying to make light of how much that must suck. I'm not even saying I wouldn't fight back. You may not have to be a total martyr for your cause, but if you think it's important to protect yourself, you have to realize the consequences that will come of that -- escalation of violence being probably the most relevant. And because you don't even know whether fighting back will reduce the extent to which you'll be hurt -- which is your whole reason for fighting -- well, let's just say turning the other cheek isn't cowardly here.
Looking at lethal violence in the same light, we can see a similar dynamic, except that in this case it can probably be even more justified to protect yourself. If your neighborhood is plagued with members of a group of people who don't like your group of people, you may buy a gun and shoot any member of that other group who tries to shoot you or your family. And even though it might be absolutely necessary to kill members of this other group in order to protect yourself and other innocent members of the group you're said to belong to, this will most likely not lead to a situation where those others don't try to kill you anymore -- it'll be pretty certain to do the opposite, if anything, at least in the long run. But hey, I'm not telling you to sacrifice your life for a possible long run. You gotta kill who you gotta kill -- but you gotta remember what you're killing for. If killing means that the people you're protecting will get killed more, then you're not a Chamberlain for thinking that killing the killers is the wrong form of protection.
Oh yeah, and we're all children of God who are interconnected in web of blah, blah, blah ... which means your afterlife may get a little hot for at least the lifetimes of a few galaxies.
This is true, I think, whether you're an oppressed minority struggling for revolutionary freedom or just a person who belongs to a group which may or may not be oppressing some other group, and who wishes those folks struggling for freedom would quit blowing up your friends.
Basically, if you're thinking you have to kill someone, consider whether that person would still be trying to kill you if you were not trying to kill him.
When I consider the possibility that some violence (even killing) may be justified, I often can't help thinking that Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, Tolstoy, M.L. King and God are all up in heaven wagging their fingers at me. Nevertheless, I've basically decided that using violence in self defense (blah, blah, blah -- you've heard this before) is, if not "okay", then at least understandable in that God won't throw you in hell for too many eons for it.
You see, I've also considered the possibility that killing someone -- no matter who -- will land you in a temporary hell that may still last trillions of eons. The question you have to ask yourself when you think of killing someone is whether you think it's worth it spending trillions of eons in hell to kill that person. If you kill a dictator who's planning on killing a bunch of other people, then you might emerge from those trillions of eons in hell as a hero when you finally get to heaven. Or something like that. I kind of mean for this idea to be more of a mental yardstick to use before acting -- sort of a "what if" scenario that you can use to decide whether it is ethical to kill whoever you're considering killing.
Now, since I'm all about collegiate revolution, let's talk about where violence fits in there.
The thing about using violence in a "revolutionary" struggle is this: Violence is, at the very most, for physical self defense. It is a reaction. A political struggle to change the status quo, on the other hand, is about in some sense moving forward--starting something new instead of just reacting. It may be okay in the eyes of God and Gandhi to protect your physical wellbeing, but protecting yourself doesn't have anything to do with pushing forward your political goals.
That is, if the cop at the demonstration hits you with his nightstick, you may have the option of hitting him back in order to try to keep him from hitting you too much more -- if that even works. The various things that may happen if you do this, you can imagine. Or, you can allow yourself to be hit with the nightstick -- not because you don't have a right to fight back or because the cop should be allowed to hit you -- but because keeping yourself from getting bashed up with a nightstick is not your goal in the demonstration.
Please keep in mind that I have never been hit with a nightstick and am not trying to make light of how much that must suck. I'm not even saying I wouldn't fight back. You may not have to be a total martyr for your cause, but if you think it's important to protect yourself, you have to realize the consequences that will come of that -- escalation of violence being probably the most relevant. And because you don't even know whether fighting back will reduce the extent to which you'll be hurt -- which is your whole reason for fighting -- well, let's just say turning the other cheek isn't cowardly here.
Looking at lethal violence in the same light, we can see a similar dynamic, except that in this case it can probably be even more justified to protect yourself. If your neighborhood is plagued with members of a group of people who don't like your group of people, you may buy a gun and shoot any member of that other group who tries to shoot you or your family. And even though it might be absolutely necessary to kill members of this other group in order to protect yourself and other innocent members of the group you're said to belong to, this will most likely not lead to a situation where those others don't try to kill you anymore -- it'll be pretty certain to do the opposite, if anything, at least in the long run. But hey, I'm not telling you to sacrifice your life for a possible long run. You gotta kill who you gotta kill -- but you gotta remember what you're killing for. If killing means that the people you're protecting will get killed more, then you're not a Chamberlain for thinking that killing the killers is the wrong form of protection.
Oh yeah, and we're all children of God who are interconnected in web of blah, blah, blah ... which means your afterlife may get a little hot for at least the lifetimes of a few galaxies.
This is true, I think, whether you're an oppressed minority struggling for revolutionary freedom or just a person who belongs to a group which may or may not be oppressing some other group, and who wishes those folks struggling for freedom would quit blowing up your friends.
Basically, if you're thinking you have to kill someone, consider whether that person would still be trying to kill you if you were not trying to kill him.
After originally writing this post, I found the following, by Howard Zinn, which brings up good points about the non-feasibility of revolutionary violence [ http://notbyjlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/10/im-such-hippie-excerpts-from-zinn.html]:
614 - What of revolution? Here the balance of achievement and cost is less haphazard, though still far from rational. The four great revolutions of modern times (the American, the French, the Russian and the Chinese) though all erratic in their movement towards social progress, in the end, I believe, justified the relatively small amount of violence required to fulfill them. But today, can we still look to revolutions as the chief means of social change, and as a useful means, whereby great change can be achieved at relatively small cost?
In some exceptional instances, yes. But, as a general rule, it seems to me that the conditions of the contemporary world have removed the feasibility of revolutions in the old sense. There are several reasons for this. One is that the power of weapons in the hands of the ruling elite makes popular uprisings, however great is the base of support, a very dubious
615 - undertaking. The other consideration, and probably more important, is that revolutions like wars no longer can be contained. They almost always involve one or more of the great nations of the world, and are either crushed by an outside power (as were the Hungarians in their revolt) or are prolonged to the point of frightful massacre (as the revolt in Viet Nam was met by the intervention of the French and then the Americans, and as the revolt in the Congo was stymied by Belgians and other forces). The Cuban revolution was an oddity; it was able to subsist because it brought into the picture not one but both the two leading world powers. There, even in success we can see the perils posed by revolution in the contemporary world, for the Cuban missile crisis almost set off a global disaster.
By the way, here are some links to stuff written by people smarter than me, both for and against the philosophy of nonviolence (aka, pacifism):
Support for nonviolence:
http://www.mkgandhi.org/sfgbook/eleventh.htmhttp://www.unpo.org/news_detail.php?arg=01&par=3466
http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/philosophy-nonviolence.php
http://nvpf.org/np/english/resources/rstudy.asp.htmlhttp://www.fredsakademiet.dk/library/tolstoj/tolstoy.htm
http://afrikaworld.net/afrel/goddionah.htm
http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/torah.htm
Criticism of nonviolence:
http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/02/20/miller/http://web.archive.org/web/19981205224334/www.netwood.net/~hryan/nonviol.htmhttp://www.walterlippmann.com/mx-nyt.html
http://historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/fanon.htmlhttp://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=111454http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schaefer042803.asp
http://www.i3pep.org/archives/2003/09/23/contextualizing-gandhi/
http://www.i3pep.org/archives/2003/09/23/contextualizing-gandhi/ (claims that Gandhi’s nonviolence worked but that violence may at other times be necessary)
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt (not mainly against nonviolence, but mainly against Gandhi)
Also, I'm not sure whether these two articles can be called pro- or anti-nonviolence. They're sort of both. I like 'em:
http://ranprieur.com/essays/vipac.html
http://ranprieur.com/essays/viunrav.html
------------------
------------------
Back to contents:
http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/07/contents.html
posted by jlhart7 at 6:31 PM
1 Comments:
I was planning a blog on a similar topic but it hasn't happened yet. Mine was to be about direct action (as opposed to merely voting once every few years), not violence. So Gandhi would not kick my ass.
On the other hand lots of people would kick my ass when I make little distinction between state-sponsored terrorism and the plain old suicidal amateur kind.
I wish you would consider a post on the topic of being "unamerican", because it seems to me that everyone in US is forced to prove they are patriots even though McCarthy is long dead and buried. I'm not qualified, on the grounds that I am nonamerican, which is a bit more excusable than being unamerican.
Post a Comment
<< Home