Pacifism as Pathology - part II (new topic)

Since I went on a bit of a rant on a section of this, I thought I would focus on another section for a different blog.
In a later section, he mentions that the black panthers were the best thing to happen to the Civil Rights movement, and criticizes Gandhi's followers for allowing themselves to be beaten. I disagree with his statements, mostly because he has little evidence to back up his claims, but also because of the information that I have acquired in this class. Gandhi is one of the most famous non-violent activists. His name springs to mind when thinking of nonviolence. Obviously what he did had a huge affect on the state of affairs in India, because in the West he is a popular figure and it has raised an enormous amount of awareness about the situation there. Not to mention what good his resistance did at the time of it. It is very far from ineffective.
On the topic of the Civil Rights movement, Martin Luther King and his organizations are the most well known because they made an enormous difference. There was no lack of strategy; different activists used economic boycotts as well as simple passive resistance. They also used active resistance with sit ins and pickets. The Black Panthers are more widely frowned upon because of their escalation (to a certain extent) of the conflict. Violence escalates conflict, non-violence raises awareness and thus de-escalates conflict. This is a fact. There is no desputing it. Although there are pros and cons to both sides, you simply cannot argue that the non-violent resistance during the Civil Rights movement was ineffective. It is absurd.

Pacifism as Pathology - part II

This is a different article than the book that I was reading. I found the first two sections to be a bit ridiculous, especially the section called "Like Lambs to Slaughter". Thus, this blog will be concerning the first two sections. In the first section, the author speaks about non-violent resistance as a new "fad" which is becoming more and more popular. He talks about it as if it is completely ineffective. What he is failing to recognize is the countless successes that non-violence has had. But what really offended me was the second section, where he basically says that the Jewish leaders led their people to their deaths passively during the Holocaust. Not only is this a very daring thing to say, but it is simply inaccurate. There were many uprisings, including the large Warsaw uprising. However, these uprisings were kind of a joke - they were very ineffective, obviously because the people in the ghettos were completely under control and had no access to weapons of any kind. Nonviolent resistence certainly wouldn't have worked in a dictatorship, and when many people in power viewed the Jews as "subhuman". Thus, the Jewish people during the Holocaust should be given much credit for trying - in addition, there were non-violent protests which included secret meetings for religious ceremonies, and countless other acts of bravery. The Jewish people were in a situation where little could be done to help them without outside help. They should not be regarded as hopeless little lambs being led to slaughter, because it simply isn't true. There is plenty of information out there on uprising within the Jewish community during the Holocaust - just because this is an example of ineffective uprising does not mean that it did not exist or that nonviolence doesn't work elsewhere.

Free Gaza Movement

I did my personal project on the free Gaza Movement, which is a humanitarian movement started by people of all nationalities. I found this movement very interesting because it is very different from the other movements we have studied. I wanted to discuss it more in the context of the situation in Gaza rather than simply analyzing the movement. It is a different movement because it uses different tactics and has a specific approach which also has a specific goal. I liked that because when focusing on one thing, it is more likely that success will be reached. Also, I found that it is a good way to protest the unfair treatment of the people in Gaza because it is entirely non-violent and the fact that Israel is hindering people's abilities to bring supplies into Gaza just shows the militant attitude which is coming from Israel as well as Hamas. It is important that the world recognizes this because, mostly in the West, people have a tendency to be drawn to Israel's side of the conflict. People in Gaza are in a very poor state of affairs and need help from outside states. It is important that movements like this exist not only to raise awareness but to help out people in need.

Burrowes - the strategic theory of Non-violent defense

In this article, Burrowes discusses the strategic tactics of non-violent defense.
There are two major types of non-violent defense: civilian-based defense and social defense.
Civilian defense is the tactic of resistance by groups of civilians, including economic strategies.
Social defense usually involves more protesting, picketing, and non-cooperation, etc.
There is also a difference between the ideas behind these two. Often a combination of these two tactics is used, and it can often and has often been very effective. However, there are certain criticisms that Burrowes discusses in this article.These are mostly against civilian-based defense.
The first argument that Burrowes mentions is that civilian-based defense often ignores the opponent's needs for "self-esteem" as well as "justice." This is because the civilian based defense places a great deal of emphasis on defeating the aggressor, which is very different from Gandhi's idea of getting along with the other rather than simply defeating it.
Secondly, Burrowes says that civilian-based defense encourages regarding the opponent or aggressor as permanantly and unconditionally bad. Again, for the same reasons, this opposes a Gandhian approach, and also could conceivably encourage violence.
These are but a few criticisms of civilian defense, but they are significant problems that could possibly pose a problem for the ideals of active non-violence. Although civilian-based defense is a non-violent strategy, when regarding the other in such a way, it would be easy for it quickly to escalate to violence. In a conflict it is easy to begin to view the other as evil, and sub-human through a psychological process known as dehumanization. When this occurs, it is often easier to justify wrongdoing or violence against those particular people.

POWER

In this article, Burrowes discusses the nature of power. I would like to discuss and focus on the nature of power especially in the context of Israel and Palestine.
In the article, Burrowes says that there are often discussed in feminine literature three types of power by the "patriarchal West." These are power-over, power-in, and power-from-within.
Power over is one group having complete control over another. This holds the notion that one must gain or earn the rights to power.
Power from within is individual power - the ability of one person to act on a particular inner belief.
Power with requires a group - it is the way in which people can gain power by working together.

These three concepts are very important to non-violence because in many circumstances, the second two methods must be used to challenge the first. In many human rights situations, people power must be used to resist great injustice.
An example of this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus far, the Palestinian people have not had very much success in standing up to Israel, neither with violent or non-violent protests.
Israel is a perfect example of power-over because it is an occupying country. Israel essentially has complete control over the West Bank because not only does the West Bank rely on Israel for goods, but Israel also controls much of the water supply to the West bank and is in control of approximately 60% of the land (Class C). Because Israel has such a strong military and such high security, and since the Palestinian government is so small and disorganized, it is impossible for the Palestinians to fight back without "terror." It seems that even mobilization of non-violence and people power coudl not overcome Israel's power, mostly because of the many restrictions that Israel puts on the West Bank and also because of the enormous control that Israel holds. It would be necessary for more of a balance to occur and possibly for the Palestinians to establish a state before they could effectively protest. In the current state, it appears that that is unlikely - but we must always hope for the future!

civilian peacekeeping

Schirch – Civilian Peacekeeping

Civilian peacekeeping is a crucial part of non-violence in the world today. With constant conflict and injustice over the globe, a certain amount of responsibility falls on the civilians to create peace worldwide. According to Schirch, there are four ways to go about peacekeeping, and I will discuss each in sequence.

1.Waging Conflict Nonviolently – This approach involves making the conditions correct for certain groups to fight on a certain issue non-violently. This could include raising awareness or helping to increase a group's power to wage non-violent conflict.
2.Reducing Direct Violence – This is very common and involves a more grassroots approach to conflict resolution. Although this often does not attack the source of a particular conflict, it eases the suffering of individuals involved and often clears the way for others to be able to attack the conflict directly.
3.Transforming Relationships – This is more of a psychological approach, and involves programs that help deal with the trauma of individuals and helping their relationship and thought approach to issues.
4.Capacity Building – This is a prevention for future violence and often involves training and education. The idea is that this will help to make peace last.

Each of these approaches is very important to peacekeeping. In some ways it appears to be a four step process ; first, one might wage conflict non-violently in order to raise awareness about a particular issue. Then, when violence over the issue erupts, one could reduce direct violence and begin to try and transform the relationships of the people affected. Finally, once peace is reached, capacity building would allow for the peace to be sustained.

A good example of civilian peacekeeping includes work done by the Christian Peacemaking Team in Palestine. They routinely walk children to school to protect them from militant settler attacks, try and prevent checkpoint harrassment, and protect civilians in general from settler hostility. This may not do very much for the conflict as a whole, but it changes the lives of the people affected by the conflict.
Transforming relationships reminds me of the work done by Seeds of Peace. At Seeds of Peace International Camp, Israeli, Palestinian, Jordanian, Egyptian, Indian, and Pakistani teens come together in Maine to try and live together for a three week session. It is difficult, but the campers are forced to discuss, live, and perform activities together in order to transform their views of one another. In the end, many of the teens have radically changed views on the conflict.
Capacity building is the most difficult of the four approaches to describe. It could be handled in a variety of ways, but it also seems like the most difficult to successfully perform. Many countries in conflict have gone back to conflict after months or years of peace. It is very difficult to undo racial tensions, but it is a crucial step in the process.
Overall these four approaches are very interesting when paralleling them to the real world. Many conflicts exist and it is our job as global citizens to take a stand.

James; Self Defense

In this article, James discusses self-defense from a feminist's perspective. She discusses her personal experience with assault and her process in learning and practicing martial arts for self-defense. Finally, she discusses how self-defense is important for self-esteem as well as safety for all women. She also discusses the difference between self-defense and violence.
I found the discussion of self-defense and violence to be very interesting. When practicing non-violence, there are many approaches to take, from inactive pacifism to violent resistance in the form of self-defense. I think that this range of responses to attack or injustice should all be considered to be non-violent, even if force is required. However, if one is using their self-defense techniques in a way that will intentionally harm the other person more than is necessary for escape, this is when it starts moving into the violent territory. It is, however, a difficult discussion because intent does not always lead to optimum results. Sometimes even when the intention is good, the outcome ends up appearing to be very violent. This is why it is difficult to discuss violent self-defense techniques in the context of non-violence.
Secondly, I found James' discussion on self esteem to be very interesting in the context of self defense. James explains that it is important to believe that one's life is worth preserving, and that women do not need to bend to a man's will, but rather can be confident and defend themselves should the need be present. Also, she says that being assertive is societally not the way that women are supposed to act, because society tells us that women are the weaker sex. In thinking about this statement, I think that it is becoming less and less true. Speaking as a woman of this generation, it is definitely still a prevalent problem, but it is becoming less and less taboo for a woman to speak about the same things as a man does, and to do many of the same things as a man does, including behaving certain ways that may not be considered “polite” or “ladylike”. I think that today, we still have a long way to go, but it is rapidly moving in that direction.

Online Activism

I found the talk and article on online activism to be very interesting. One of the biggest things that I have been interested in is learning about the difference between passive and active non-violence and the effectiveness of each. On the exterior, it seems that cyber activism would have little to no effect. However, I learned that cyber protests are a lot more helpful than they seem.
First of all, online protests create a great deal of media attention. This is very important because the media plays a big role in non-violent movements by raising awareness to get the issue out into the open, which can do big things for a movement.
Secondly, it seems to me that online protests have an ability to get in touch with a lot of people who are unable for whatever reason to protest in the normal sense.
Other benefits of online activism are ones that I have participated in before, which are letter writing campaigns. This is more of an email-writing campaign but through Amnesty International it is possible to get through to people through masses of email-writing. Also, awareness through Youtube has potential to spread important messages as well. Although these are certainly passive methods, awareness is important and can help whatever issues are in question.
Online activism seems to be a good way, especially with technology being such a prevalent part of today's world, to spread awareness and make a difference for different non-violent movements. It is not the most active way of becoming active; however, it is important and should be considered as an important part of non-violence today.