From time to time in my life I have heard people remark that they are against war, all war; indeed that they oppose any kind of violence at all. They are for peace. Peace solves everything.
I beg to differ. It is a wholly untenable position to hold. Would no sane man or woman knock a criminal on the head with a rock if it meant the saving of lives? Would no country with any claim to a good moral standing not go to war to prevent a tyrant's rule? While violence and war must always be a last resort, it is, sadly, almost exclusively by violence and war that evil is kept in check. It is generally the threat and use of force which keeps people in line. For people will do bad things if they think they can get away with them, and will do so often enough despite the chance of violence against them hanging over their heads. If we approach them with no intention of eventually having to aggressively force them into right behaviors if need be, and they know that, we will soon enough have no stable society worth our participation. We surely will not have peace.
Peace did not end the Holocaust or drive Hitler from power.
Peace did not bring about the end of slavery in the United States.
Peace does not apprehend criminals nor rehabilitate them.
Peace only works among the peace loving. It almost never will turn the heads of those who hate for the sake of hatred, no matter what the treacly entreaties of the peaceniks assert.
Seeing as we live in an imperfect world, one which, quite frankly, shall never be perfect without divine intervention, the price of peace must ultimately be anarchy. At that point, will the Department of Peace flower, or simply become a seed crushed against the ground and bake, exposed, in the sun?
The cost of war is, needless to say, grim. But from the greatest human costs come the greatest things, if properly driven, and without any loss of human dignity. Indeed, I rather believe that our dignity is enhanced when we stand for the greatest things. We stand for nothing when we stand for what will not work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Unfortunately, you've completely missed the point about "peace". War and other acts of violence represent the failure of the parties involved to resolve their differences nonviolently. The idea of peacebuilding is to access the root causes of violence and then watch for situations where those root causes can arise. By applying known peacebuilding technologies to those situations, violence stands a better chance of being avoided.
The point of the peace movement is that our society often turns to violence as a first choice of response rather than a last choice. This tendency happens out of habit or ignorance, because so many of us have never learned or been made aware that there are nonviolent alternatives. This is what the Department of Peace would help provide.
Good Evening, Violence! I must start by saying that, whether we ever eventually agree on the subject at hand, I do truly like that moniker!
Now, I really don't intend this simply to be contrary or snide, but I have to ask: do you honestly think that there could have been any understanding reached with an Adolf Hitler? The nations which became the Allies in World War II, by most accounts, bent over backwards to assuage him. The result? He pushed harder for even more concessions, and when he could get no more, he simply took what he wanted. In short, if either party in a dispute does not want to peaceably resolve the dispute, then peace cannot work except that tyrants will have their way unopposed.
Was Hitler ignorant of goodwill and nonviolence? Surely not; he hosted the Berlin Olympic Games in 1936 as a goodwill ploy. Yet when goodwill no longer served him, he invaded Poland. How do you respond to that?
I agree that an understanding of the root causes of the rise of a Hitler may help prevent future Hitlers from rearing their ugly heads. But surely, generally speaking, how a Hitler comes to power is only seen after the fact; as we are not omniscient, we simply will not always see things as clearly as we need requires. That is a mere fact of the human condition: being less than perfect, we will, as individuals and the greater society, at times fail. I see no amount of education which can contain that basic human frailty.
You are quite right that all too often, especially in the streets of America, violence is seen as a first choice action. I'm all for pursuing nonviolent means to stop that. But if a man is aiming a gun at me, am I not within my rights to defend myself by violence if I have no other option?
Anyway, thanks for posting. I genuinely respect and appreciate your input.
Hey Charles-
The example of Hitler is a good one, and I 100% agree that violence was the only way to respond to his aggression. As you pointed out, we can learn from what led to his rise to power - the domination approach of the victors after WWI - and learn from that. That is what led to the Marshall plan after WWII to help turn our enemies Japan & Germany into allies. Peaceful ever since.
Supporters of the Department of Peace idea recognize the DOP would supplement the work of the Dept. of Defense, not replace it. Although certainly not omniscient, the focus of the DOP would be to look at the factors that we know could lead to the next Hitler and address those beforehand. Same thing with the thug who might end up pointing a gun at you.
We have learned a lot about nonviolence over the past 30-40 years that we have not begun to put into wide practice. I believe it's worth a try, given that the alternative is to live with the violence we have today.
By the way, I'm an engineer, not an aging hippy or anything like that. From engineering I know that resolving the root causes leads to long term sustainable improvement.
Peace,
VBG
Hey again VBG,
That you took the time respond once more I take as a high compliment. Thank you.
I hope that I said nothing to offend you either; I notice that you make it a point to say that you are no aging hippy but a person of serious thought. I had no intention of inferring that you might have been anything but that, and I apologize if I have. Perhaps the reference to 'peaceniks' is the, ahem, root cause. I assure you that was nothing more than hyperbole for the sake of effect.
But with regard to the subject at hand, I suppose my main concern is that I see no way of insuring that we can ever reach everyone in all times and places and convince them to remain nonviolent. It's simply not practical: people will slip through the cracks, endure a poor upbringing for whatever reason, ignore good advice, or, sadly, just plain not care. As such, we must remain willing to employ violence when and as necessary. When, of course, it is our only reasonable option.
Still, insofar as we can teach others to behave well and respect human rights, we must of course endeavor to do so. I believe that on that point we firmly agree.
Thanks again,
Marty (Charles only when his mother is upset with him).
Post a Comment