NationStates Jolt Archive

How could we give peace a chance?

Violence is a fact. It is a future, it is a present, it is a past. Violence in all is myriad forms has haunted us since the beginning of our species. Many despair that violence will continue to haunt us down to the end of our days. No doubt, it is a tool of mankind, and based in our deepest subconscious, the so called 'reptilian brain'.

Yet there are those individuals who reject violence in all its forms. People who are born just as others are, with the innate capacity for violence...people who have to struggle within themselves to deny that basic instinct. People like the semi-mythical figure of Jesus, or the Buddha, to modern-day examples of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. Many others, less well-known, have chosen peace, and yet have also rejected passivity.

However, these people, these pacifists, are often targeted for renewed violence, for their very refusal to be complicit in acts of violence enrages others. They are denigrated for their beliefs, and hated not only by those they oppose, but also by those they support. A true pacifist denies their inner violence in order to oppose violence at large; but this does not make them immune to danger. They are labeled as 'unpatriotic', for they do not support war, no matter the motivation. They are scorned, for despite the strength needed to reject violence, there is the wider perception that pacifism is weakness. They are targeted, for their refusal to accept violence in and of itself is a rebellion that many governments can not stomach. Pacifism stems from the belief that we don't have to live this way...that peace IS an alternative. No pacifist believes that global peace will happen immediately, or even in the foreseeable future...but that makes the striving for such a goal no less important.

What are your thoughts on peace and pacifism?

Pacisifism is not something one should be proud of. Individually, it leads to being bullied and often times suicide. Pacisifists are continually trodded upon because they won't do anything about it. Jerry Springer has it right when he says "You're only treated the way you allow yourself to be treated."

There is a HUGE difference between pacisifism and assertivism (spelling?).

And as for peace? It's just a great idea . . . unless it's backed up with force.

Just to give you some background...like you care:).

When I first became politically aware (sometime around fifth grade, due in no small part to having a godmother who was a nun, and a supporter of the Sandinistas), I looked only at the state-sponsored violence as being wrong. I felt that freedom-fighters were justified in the violence that they committed, because they needed some way to protect themselves, and struggle for change. As I grew older, my feelings on violence intensified...I still support freedom fighters, but I also admitted that many times innocent civilians, wanting no part of the struggle, were hurt not only by government forces, but also by rebels. This didn't sit well with me, but I considered it a necessary evil.

It seems, however, with each passing year, I support less and less ANY group that wishes to impose their will on another using force. Usually that means government oppression, but it also includes the violence done by those fighting that oppression. The struggle within me began...how could I deny a people the only tool they have to escape oppression? How else can people become free, if not through struggle? Then again, how can I respect a group that has sullied itself with the same atrocities (albeit, often in lesser numbers) than the group they are fighting?

I have come to the conclusion that I can not support violence, no matter the reason. It is dangerous to oppose a government or a regime without violence, but violence does not guarantee safety. One of the most successful revolutions in modern times was acted out in Chiapas by the Zapatistas, and outside of a few incidences of violence in the initial days of that revolution, the rest of their struggle has been peaceful. Not passive, peaceful.

The point is, I believe change is possible, and I believe that violence can be rejected. I support people in their struggle to gain control over their lives, and I will not hate them for using violence if they feel that is necessary to their survival. However, I will not support them in this, though I may support their cause. Clear as mud? Just a political transformation...one that has become more important to me since I had my two daughters:) I'm still a crazy lefty though!

Pacisifism is not something one should be proud of. Individually, it leads to being bullied and often times suicide. Pacisifists are continually trodded upon because they won't do anything about it. Jerry Springer has it right when he says "You're only treated the way you allow yourself to be treated."

There is a HUGE difference between pacisifism and assertivism (spelling?).

And as for peace? It's just a great idea . . . unless it's backed up with force.

You're right...pacifism has a negative connotation. The general definition is usually assumed to be the second:
Main Entry: pac·i·fism
Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance

I'm not talking about letting people walk all over you. By pacifism, I am referring to assertive non-violence. (Better sounding?) I'm sure you understand what I mean...the terminology is problamatic.

The strong and peaceful will always be trodden upon less than the weak and violent.

The strong and peaceful will always be trodden upon less than the weak and violent.

Yet some of the most powerful movements for social change have been non-violent. Christianity was founded on non-violent beliefs, and although it has splintered, and many Christians support violence, it still has the power to inspire people to become non-violent. The civil rights movement would not have been as powerful had there not been a strong anti-violence group within it. Groups wanting social change often have to hold themselves to much higher standards than the forces they oppose. Groups who use violence open themselves up to smear campaigns and accusations of extremism. Groups who are adamantly non-violent will be persecuted...but that persecution will not be as supported as the persecution of those who use violence (even in self-defense), The idea with many pacifists is that they should give the government no excuse to crack down...and the best excuse out there is anti-terrorism (because even freedom fighters are labeled terrorists if they oppose the current regimes). As well, you gain a wider base of support from those who, even if they do not support your political agenda fully, can at least support the fact that you are not trying to advance it over the lives of others.

What are your thoughts on peace and pacifism?

I oppose all violence. Hate is the greatest evil.

I dislike violence. I wish it didn't exist. But it does.

Pacifism is a nice ideal, but it won't work on a large scale. States have been fighting since their conception, and will continue this way until humans evolve out of it or we destroy our species. Despite its disfavoured reputation, preëmption is a vital tactical strategy. If you wait to be struck before striking, you may very well be decapitated before your sword is out of its scabbard. It has obviously worked for a few individuals, such a Gandhi, but those circumstances were special. Darwinism applies to everything: survival of the fittest.

You're right...pacifism has a negative connotation. The general definition is usually assumed to be the second:


I'm not talking about letting people walk all over you. By pacifism, I am referring to assertive non-violence. (Better sounding?) I'm sure you understand what I mean...the terminology is problamatic.

Ahh, that kind of pacifism. That ones okay. There's nothing wrong with rejecting violence. Sometimes it's best to simply fight, I believe, but I do think we can let non-violence take care of things more.

I believe that you should defend yourself and defend others, whatever it takes. I don't know how extreme some of these pacifists (first definition) would go, for example: If you see a person being beaten up by a group of people, and they are seriously being beat on, would you stand by, or walk away, simply because you refuse to be violent? I personally could not live with myself if I did. I feel that I should help out a person like that. Granted, I don't think that I have the right to go in fists flying, but if it comes to that, I will. As many others have said, violence is a fact of life, you can't just deny it.

As a foreign policy, I believe this idea also applies. Once interesting case though is that I think the U.S. government twisted this idea a bit far for a "helping out a country being bullied." I don't intend for this to be a Iraq war topic, that was just intended to show how this can go too far.

You have assholes who've never fought in a war and think it's "cool" to kill. The only way to end violence is to shoot every corporate executive, relegious fundmentalist, Jerry Falwell, and Fatass Rush Limbaugh.

I believe that violence must only be used in self defense when the aggresor leaves you with no other options. If one person is going to walk out alive, then let it be the one who does not use violence as a way of imposing themself on others. If we stopped using violence to begin things, we wouldn't have to use violence to end them. Violence only perpetuates violence.

I oppose all violence. Hate is the greatest evil.
We should all strive for "Love and Peace!"

Non violence is aestheticaly pleasing

I used to think that violence was excused if it was used in self defense, but I'm no longer sure. Reacting with violence only justifies the violence being used against you.

For instance, someone mentioned a scenario in which a group of strangers are beating another stranger. What do you do? You can walk away, and let it happen. That is not pacifism, that is avoidance. You can react with violence and wade in, fists flying, no doubt to be beaten for interfering. That is aggression. Or you can make it clear that you will offer no resistance, but neither will you let the beating continue without intervention. That means putting yourself in harm's way, and (quite possibly) getting beaten as well. However, the hope is that the people involved in the violence will be too disconcerted to attack someone who offers no resistance. That is pacifism. Will you be beaten? It's a possibility, but it is a certainty if you go in as an aggressor. Would the average person do this? Doubtful. It is dangerous to act alone.

However, I will give you a better example of how pacifism on a larger scale can be quite effective.
It’s an unusual thing in India to see a group of naked women walking down a public road holding banners inviting rape. Yet that’s exactly what happened in the northeastern state of Manipur recently. In a fury of anger at the rape and murder of a young woman by the army, Manipuri women stripped off their saris and blouses, let loose their hair and walked through the capital city, Imphal, to the army headquarters to stage their dramatic protest. ‘Our anger shed our inhibitions that day,’ said one of the activists.
This is an example of pacifism. It is not peacefulness as in lack of assertiveness. It is protest against violence, without using violence to make your point. In this case, it brought attention to an atrocity, and put pressure on the government to make institutional changes. It doesn't always work, but neither does violence.

Another very common example of passive resistance if the practice of 'human shields' so maligned by the Iraqi conflict. This is not always young liberals storming off to foreign lands to 'protect the victims of US aggression'. More often it is an act of neigbourhoods, to support each other from violence. In Argentina, neighbours have come together to protect workers who have taken over abandoned factories. They have faced down police violence and kept those factories running. In India, an entire town stood hip-deep in water protesting the building of the Narmada dam (though their protest ultimately did not stop the construction, it did bring widespread attention to the problem of forced migration due to its presence). In Chiapas, people from all over the world along side townspeople make their presence known so that Zapatistas can not be 'disappeared' or massacred by the Mexican government.

It is easy to club or pepper spray a violent protestor, because you can say you were in fear of your own safety. It is less easy to shoot into a crowd of peaceful protestors (though it happens) because you will not be exonerated by the global community (nor by your own government, hopefully).

Peaceful protest is not going to keep you safe from violence, but it is a much more powerful message when opposing violence than any other method. How can you be anti-war, but pro-riot? How can you be anti-mob-violence, but only when it is sparked by the other side? If you truly do not support violence, there can be no exceptions. By yourself, you are weak...but in solidarity with others, you can be a powerful force. Resorting to violence only undermines your cause, and gives the opposing side reason to strike back.

We're still apes living in a modern world.

Violence is needed when other options fail.

We're still apes living in a modern world.

Violence is needed when other options fail.

What options are you willing to pursue before you resort to violence? What options should nations pursue first? When would you decide that violence was the only option left to you? It is easy to say that violence is necessary, but less easy to actually justify it.

I notice that many people have been reading this thread, but not contributing their ideas to it. Everyone has some sort of stand on the use of violence, so please contribute your ideas so that this discussion remains useful. Thanks!