BS: liberty, freedom, and violence

Subject: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:56 PM

George Bush has pledged in his second inauguration address to spread liberty and freedom to "the darkest corners of the world".

There was clearly no room in his address for these immortal words of the late Reverend Martin Luther King: "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

It is ironic that King, a great advocate for peace, was violently murdered.

what do people think - is there any place for challenging darkness with darkness? can threats and confrontation ever achieve anything worthwhile?


freda

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 08:34 PM

One of the darkest corners of the world today is Guantanamo Bay.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Fishpicker
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 08:37 PM

George Bush needs to concentrate his attention on this country, making sure that freedom and liberty are protected right here and that the wellfare of every citizen is being addressed. He has no business imposing his will on any other country IMO. Not everyone in the world wants to be a "born again" christian republican. The use of force to bend others to your way of thinking rarely, if ever, works for the positive. Running around the world tilting at windmills when there is one person homeless in this country or one child not getting three square meals a day is insane, unless of course your only purpose is to further the financial interests of your wealthy backers. Power always corrupts.

                            FP

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:14 PM

Bush's speech has had some pretty good reviews.

Fishpicker, not everyone to be a born again Christian, but what's wrong with someone wanting to live in a Democratic and free society?

Do you have a problem with that?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:40 PM

How would meeting Hitler's Third Reich with love have changed things for the better? (I already know the argument that goes, "If the treaty ending WW I had been more equitable . . . , and that said, how would meeting tanks and stukas with flowers have changed things?

I agree that King was correct. And in a perfect world . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Teresa
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM

I think this society is less free and democratic than it has ever been.

As for the use of violence ... I'm still thinking that one out. I avoid violence and have never had occasion to use it, but if someone were attacking my loved ones, I couldn't see that I wouldn't use violence. I also have never been a part of a severely oppressed society, and in some ways I can see that violent revolution is the only thing that makes a change.

But for the ideas Bush espouses ... corporate power, every country having the same kind of "freedom" as ours ... I don't think violence is called for at all.

Also, although I don't have the citations to back this one up, I've heard that King was not necessarily anti-violence. On one occasion he even posed a hypothetical question about not only avoiding the draft in Vietnam, but switching sides ... I remember hearing this in one of his speeches; anyone have more details?

teresa

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: hilda fish
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:48 PM

Where the American 'concept' of a democratic (no capital 'D) and free society are judged to be nonexistent (and not only in American eyes, I'm an Australian with the horror of Howard) the description "the darkest corners of the world" seems to exist as a judgement of 'lesser'. It is difficult to be 'free' if you are a national minority in a so-called democratic society where democracy is primarily about a rule of the majority. It has been said again and again that power is a problem of both democracy and of freedom - profit over people - the privileged over the underprivileged, and so on. As a national minority I have said often that I don't believe in democracy as it stands. This I might add, has been seen as an abominable heresy, particularly by Americans. I also add, that I haven't seen any workable solutions yet in national politics, particularly in western nations.   Democracy is a myth to justify violence as history shows again and again. Bush is a minority I am given to understand, one of the least supported Presidents ever so it's a mystery to me why HE espouses democracy.   Like many Presidents, he has tied Christianity to justifying an abominable world relationship. That being said "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it... violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars" is absolutely true so thanks to both Martin Luther King and also to freda for drawing our attention to it. We are all accountable, in my opinion, to history, for what we leave. It seems to me that this is not about democracy and a free society but about how we want the world to be for the generations unborn and how we practice our humanity. We are all demeaned by violence, by the diminished dignity this inflicts on our fellow humans so if we accept Bush's inauguration address to spread liberty and freedom to "the darkest corners of the world" well..........

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Sorcha
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:57 PM

And, I think it's a real pity that the articles I read never have a 'respond to this article' button...boy, would I like to. 51% is NOT a mandate. I'm scared...real scared. NOT a good time for US citizens to be abroad.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:03 PM

Respectfully, I would ask people to consider the following:

www.thelutheran.org/war/justifiable.html

law.gonzaga.edu/borders/documents/deforres.htm

I would then posit that the philosophical foundation of Reverend King's statement should be seen and considered in the light of its historical context. Had Black people reacted violently in demonstrations, they would have been met with force, and had that happened, it would likely have escalated and resulted in the Federal sanction and application of 'force majeure'. King's aim was equality for 'his' people specifically and others parenthetically. Violence would have gained him nothing in that regard. IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: akenaton
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:23 PM

Agreed Bruce...Just watched a documentary on Dr King, felt inspired by his oratory.
Although swathed in christain dogma, the mans feeligs for his people shone through.
Wonder what Dr King would think of his children Colin Powell and Condi Rice?....Would they shame the man who personified the struggle for civil rights...for people of all colours...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Greg F.
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:31 PM

Shit.

You mean the U.S. can't bomb all those wogs into democracy??

Bummer!

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:32 PM

Violence. Yes, it has a place and sometimes, because this world is imperfect, it's unavoidable.

That in no way means that I'm all for killing and burning and destroying.

But there is evil out there. And it will destroy people of goodness. Gandhi and King were both struck down by a bullet.

The creation of Dachau, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Bergen-Belsen and the rest; the Gulag; the Killing Fields; Rwanda; Darfor; Bosnia; Wounded Knee -- you can recite the places as well as I -- demonstrate the persistence of evil.

Sometimes you have to take up arms against evil or you will lose your humanity.

I read that a noted philosopher (I can't remember who) was asked to describe civilization. He said that it was a wonderful city, full of museums and art and towering churches and great libraries that sat on the bank of a river, down the middle of which constantly flowed a tiny trickle of blood -- and that sometimes the river overflowed its banks.

It's a description I like. Me, I try to sandbag the flood.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:41 PM

Wel gol danged...

Wonder why it is that the folks in the darkest areas that need all this American made freedom and liberty are sitting over top oil???

Anyone got an answer fir this???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: DougR
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:50 PM

Well, I'm not really sure they are, Bobert. Name the countries you have in mind, and the oil fields they occupy. Gracias!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:36 PM

Iran, fir the mosr part Dougie, but also Syria...

Meanwhile, Bush couldn't care less about the lack of freedom, liberty ot human rightds in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbelistan, Russia of Chine, justr fir starters, all of which have no particular interest on democracy, liberty or freedom.... And all serious human rights bad guys...

This, my friend, though sounding lofty and idealistic..... is about oil.. Nuthin' else... I know that it is aginst your Bushite religion to accept this very basic fact... but it's about oil....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: DougR
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:38 AM

Bobert, you are so full of horse pucky I'm surprised it is not seeping out of your ears. Bush addressed the world yesterday and laid out a blueprint for freedom without war. You, and many others have derided American administrations because they backed terrible dictators who, in the opinion of the American leadership at the time, might be despots, but did nothing to get rid of them because it was "in our best interest". The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. So why don't you, and your fellow travelers support that POV?

Also, Bobert, buddy, I assume you have an automobile. Does it operate on cooking oil, or are you still dependent on gasoline? My point is, those of you who cry, wring their hands and scream to high heaven that the only motivation for the U. S. administration's doing anything at all is because of OIL! Do you REALLY think conservatives are the only ones in America that use gasoline in their cars?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 01:45 AM

From the financial Times:

"Monitoring is a big problem. There won't be any international observation mechanism," said one United Nations diplomat. "The UN is not willing. No one is willing. No one wants to send their people there."

What kind of a democratic vote happens under these conditions?

So much for freedom, so much for liberty!

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Kaleea
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 01:57 AM

I had the good fortune to be in attendance when the grandson of the late Mahatma Gandhi spoke at a nearby University a few months back. He was asked what his grandfather would have done if he were president of the USA after 9-11. He answered that since his grandfather was not president of the USA he could not say. He does believe that if terrorism came knocking at the door, his grandfather would not answer answer with more violence or war.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:02 AM

"The UN says it cannot observe the January 30 poll because it played a role in setting up the elections. . . . "

Can anyone put any meaning to that assertion?
(Assuming it was actually made.)

(Isn't the "UN" supposed to be roughly synonymous with "a comunity of nations"? Is the UN a "thing" with its own motivations, so that it could have conflicts of interests ascribed, or is this political horseshit? (Surprise me.) )

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:01 AM

Doug:

I heard no "blueprint" laid out. (Can you hear a blueprint anyway?)

I heard vague goals, but nothing about how to get to the goals.

What exactly was the blueprint for bringing democracy peacefully to Syria, Norrth Korea and Saudi Arabia? "Just Say No To Dictators?"

clint

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 04:19 AM

"Bush addressed the world yesterday and laid out a blueprint for freedom without war. You, and many others have derided American administrations because they backed terrible dictators who, in the opinion of the American leadership at the time, might be despots, but did nothing to get rid of them because it was "in our best interest". The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. So why don't you, and your fellow travelers support that POV?"

because GWBs actions give the lie to his words. the bush "policy" is reflected by what he does, not what he says. when we give similar ultimatums to china, saudi arabia, uzbekistan, pakistan, egypt, et al, i'll begin to believe he means any of his malarkey. by the way, he laid out no "blueprint". he did not indicate any way we were going to accomplish his great plans or how we'd pay for them. i support the view of "hey, freedom is great" which is all his speech amounted to, but the idea that our country has the right and/or duty to force american-style freedom on the world is as arrogant as it gets. especially when people like yourself (you proud hummer owner you!) aren't willing to make the smallest sacrifice in your comfort and convenience while countrymen of yours and innocent citizens of iraq are paying the ultimate price for dubya's load of crap. also, you're showing your age with the "fellow travelers" line. are you an old john bircher?


"...My point is, those of you who cry, wring their hands and scream to high heaven that the only
motivation for the U. S. administration's doing anything at all is because of OIL! Do you REALLY think conservatives are the only ones in America that use gasoline in their cars?"

of course, all of us with cars use gas. there is a segment of the population that believes, however, if we were more "conservative" in our energy consumption we could lessen our dependancy on mid-east oil, thereby having less reason to kill people to get enough of it. when there are demonstrably available ways of doing this (and there are many) it would seem to me that people that actually cared about their sons and daughters dying would be on the front lines demanding action on "conservation" and alternative energies rather than lining up for their next hummer.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:59 AM

The speech yesterday made it clear that that is not the Bush policy. (Supporting friendly tyrannies, that is.)

I'm not aware of any examples so far where Bush has acted to dissociate himself from friendly tyrannies, or ceased to provide them with assistance and cooperation.
..................................

Freedom and democracy are not the same thing by a long way. An government which has been duly elected through a democratic process can be a thoroughly repressive one. Nazi Germany is the extreme case of this. Other examples are common enough, where democratically elected governments have acted repressively in regard to domestic minorities or to people living in occupied territories of one sort or another.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:04 AM

Yeah, Doug, what GUEST in NW said.

Where's the blueprint?

And. yes, Dougie, I do drive a car. It has 4 cylandars and gets over 35 mpg on the highway and 25 around town. The P-Vine also has a car. Same make and model. We plan all of our trips so as to not burn any mote gas than we have to.

We also have two woodstives up stairs and one in my shop which provided us with about 75% of our heat. If public transportation ever makes it out here, I will be more than happy to use it as much as possible.

Now, my friend, if every American family lived as energy conscious as we live, I'd bet America could cut its need for oil in *half*!!!

What that would do, Dougie, is at least conserve what oil is left while we work on creating renewable energy sources. Unlike the so-called "energy policy" that the oil industry wrote with Dick Cheney, this would represent a responsible energy policy. We have no right thinking it is our jobs to try to burn up as much oil as we possibly can during our time here on the planet. It narcisistic, greedy, immoral and downright stupid.

Now, back to your so-called blueprint for getting the oil without war. Exactly how's this supposed to work again? And is Iraq the model?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 09:33 AM

I would argue that the violence, and I mean social violence rather than 'man kills unfaithful lover' violence, has its roots in the inequity of private property society.

Physical force is the ultimate line of defence of any privilege. From the security guard in the shop, to the police beating back protestors or the current war over energy resources. Social violence follows economic competition (buyer vs buyer, buyer vs seller, seller vs seller). For example, buyer vs seller, the US in need of energy resources and unwilling to negotiate with the seller (middle-eastern oil producers) use physical force to ensure domination. Or seller vs seller, race riots - the locals versus the migrants who are perceived to be a threat to the labour market.

Thus, until we can say we are all at liberty or free to democratically control the resources on which we all depend and free to enjoy the products of those resources there will be incentive to violence.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,guest from NW
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 01:08 PM

the backpedaling has already begun. this from the WApost with white house toadies letting us know that the speech was just a bunch of hot air on a cold day and means nothing in terms of "policy" other than "more of the same greed, thievery, and murder".

"White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Nor, they say, will it lead to any quick shift in strategy for dealing with countries such as Russia, China, Egypt and Pakistan, allies in the fight against terrorism whose records on human rights and democracy fall well short of the values Bush said would become the basis of relations with all countries.

Bush advisers said the speech was the rhetorical institutionalization of the Bush doctrine and reflected the president's deepest convictions about the purposes behind his foreign policies. But they said it was carefully written not to tie him to an inflexible or unrealistic application of his goal of ending tyranny.

"It is not a discontinuity. It is not a right turn," said a senior administration official, who spoke with reporters from newspapers but demanded anonymity because he wanted the focus to remain on the president's words and not his. "I think it is a bit of an acceleration, a raising of the priority, making explicit in a very public way to give impetus to this effort." He added that it was a "message we have been sending" for some time."

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: gnu
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:21 PM

Yeah, I suppose... to hell with women's liberation... to hell with the abolition of slavery... to hell with religeous intolerance... to hell with ethnic cleansing... to hell with the killing fields... to hell with all human rights... to hell with a stable world economy built on democracy and freedom. None of that means anything to us rich westerners. It's only about the oil and the minerals and the profits... the greed. We westerners never gave anything to the world. We are so weak and so stupid that we could never survive on our own so we have to subjugate and rape the poorest of our fellow man and his resources.

Yeah, I suppose you have a point. Perhaps we should just walk away, turn a blind eye and carry on with our lives. It would be much easier than sacrificing our sons and daughters and spending their inheritance on trying to guide the world toward a utopia that may never be achieved. To hell with it all. To hell with you all. F*** the poor and oppressed - we don't need them - never did - never will... we're rich.

PS... we're going to stay that way. Get used to it. You can get with the program or you can fade away. There's a message.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 02:47 PM

heric - I think the U.N. provided an electoral advisor.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:47 PM

To get back to Freda's original question, because in my mind the world does not revolve around Dubya or US foreign policy, are we maybe meaning that there are different kinds of violence and only some situations that require applications of violence? The tone here seems to be (from many people) that ALL violence is wrong. Others, myself included, feel there are times when violence is necessary (to protect the self, to deal with the preservation of status quo over a proposed change, to effect change when the status quo no longer serves a humane function in a country).

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:49 PM

If any of the posters here were proportionately alarmed about the scandlous, anti-semetic, money-grubbing, USA-hating, international embarrassment that is the UN, I might be able to take their anti-USA sentiments more seriously. It is the UN's scandlous behavior that made the war in Iraq probable. Had so much of the international community not been profitting so mightily by circumventing the UN sanctions (and illegally profitting from them), those sanctions might have had the "tooth" necessary to cause non-violent change in Iraq.

If any of the posters here were proportionately alarmed at the atrocities of international terrorism, I might be able to take their accusations of US-as-the-embodiment-of-international-evil rhetoric. Why is it I still hear the echos of cheering over 9/11 every time I log on to this site?

It is little wonder that when Thomas The Rhymer logs on all he sees is vulgarity. This is a closed society, self-deluded into believing a world-view that is almost totally hopeless for it's lack of having achieved what you aging hippies dreamed as a glorious eutopia in your salad days, the '60s. Having fallen short of those lofty goals, you judge the world a failure, though it goes on and on with life improving for more and more on this planet.

Your self-loathing is almost totally projected to colour your political views. You save just a wee bit to spread around this site though.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:24 PM

"Your self-loathing is almost totally projected to colour your political views. You save just a wee bit to spread around this site though."

Seems you have a piece of that market, too, JH.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:25 PM

Can there be anyone more self-deluded than a patriot?

GB Shaw said 'Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.' That's the kind of 'reasoning' JH exhibits above. Leaving aside the cant and nationalism it doesn't take much to see that to see that from one bit of land to the next its the people with least to gain from war that die, and the ones that have the most to gain or the most to lose from war who sit miles from the action saying go on boys and girls 'do your bit!'. JH talks about 'lofty goals' and 'self-loathing' while people are starving and being blown to bits unnecessarily. Socialism is a necessity, lest we condemn more people to death, misery and environmental destruction.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:50 PM

Shaw was wrong. And one needn't believe that their country is right in all things or superior in all things, to believe that it might be right in one (or even many) things.

If the majority of countries from whom we solicited support, but who rejected that solicitation, had not been profitting from the sanctions that were suppose to bring about a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem, we would never have gone to war. The "starving and being blown to bits unnecessarily" is the stain on THEIR hands.

Socialism is not a necessity so much as an inevitability in any kind of democracy. That's why we employ it to such a great extent here in the USA. But we're not afraid to acknowledge through our vote for both Democrats and Republicans that we understand the same inevitability and strength of market-driven economies by which social programs gain the productivity necessary for their existence.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:59 PM

Oh great. Another paranoid "United Nations Is The Root Of All Evil" nutter-guest.

Guess these pathological types need to have an institutional bogey-man of some sort to order their world around. The UN, "environmentalists",the "International Jewish Conspiracy" the Trilateral Commission, ............................

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: GUEST,JH
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 07:33 PM

Oh, Greg, you mean like "Neo-cons"?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Piers
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:00 PM

JH, I agree that 'social programmes' can exist because they are paid for out of the real economy. But 'social programmes' or welfare is not socialism. These are palliatives necessarily afforded by the state in the knowledge without these the market system would be much less efficient or probably collapse.

Socialism means social ownership and the democratically controlled production of goods and services for use.   Capitalism, the market system - which you seem to call democracy - is based on private property, minority ownership and control of the production of goods and services driven for sale on the market. Last time I heard from my comrades in the WSPUS capitalism was dominant in the USA. Capitalist society is divided into classes based on the relationship to the means of producing wealth. The vast majority live by selling their labour to a minority who posses the means of wealth production and distribution (factories, mines, shops etc) as capital, and whose living comes from surplus value, that is by paying workers less than the value they create.

Are you seriously saying that workers have more in common with the wasters who live off our backs than workers on other bits of land, and we should go off and kill them if we are told to in order for this relationship to continue. We could have a society of real economic democracy, rather than just political democracy, without the misery of   that stems from capitalism - that is the only thing worth fighting for.

Piers

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:05 PM

Well, gol danged!

Boy if this hasn't been some week, 'er what?

Not only do the Bushites have one new excuse fir invading Iraq but now, Glory Be..... TWO!!!

The Europeans made us do it!!!

I personally thought that beardedbruce's "Well, we did it because Saddam occupied Kuwait 14 years ago" was bit of a stretch but given the list of excuses wever been hearing for 3 year, it was at least something new...

But, JH, they say that timing is everything so if you have knowledge from yer inside Bush connections that they are gonna blame the Europeans, its not real smart to let it out until the "Kuwait Occupation" excuse is past it's self life...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: hilda fish
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:10 PM

To get back to Freda's original question as brucie so kindly did. The discussion between personal acts of violence over acts of violence by states or nations is an important one.   How often in reality have we been faced with the person with a gun/knife/bludgeon ready to instantly kill our loved ones where the only defence is to kill or be killed? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen - clearly it does - and I would suppose we've all been in the situation where a well-placed kick has diffused and/or resolved many situations. It is a very rare event nevertheless. However violence that is endemic i.e. institutionalised racism, the assumption by State or National police of a right of judgement and action beyond their mandate, the assumption by soldiers (witness recent events re US, British, Swiss, soldiers) because they have the position and the weapons to do what they like to people, occupation forces, national liberation struggles, anti-union attacks, and so on continues, as freda observes, a spiralling violence that becomes part of a culture, a form of ongoing terror, that has no resolution beyond escalation and the end result is more and more people die. Horrible. And we live with it daily and by living with it, are we accepting it? Who wants a world like that? Yet, at the same time, and here's a discussion; in Redfern Aboriginal people finally attacked the police - didn't couldn't win in the long run - but that night of violence gave a strength and a power to individual koories unified that challenging authorities that for too long have been killing them could in fact change a dynamic that previously, they had been powerless in. Yet in the long run it will be mediation, education, and sheer commitment to future history that will change things. I've been in a situation, as a committed non-violent person, of having to whack someone. Most recently at a pub where I was at a loose sort of meeting where a person was being allowed to say the most offensive and racist things. There was no reasoning there but it was important that those words were not allowed to live comfortably in that atmosphere so I launched myself at the speaker and gave him a good smack in the mouth. Bedlam! I was the one who was banned which seemed a bit mean to me but by the same token it forced the issue about how people were allowed to talk about things. Words are a very dangerous form of violence and people accept them easily as part of a "freedom of speech" democratic right. Was I right or was I wrong as a person who is anti-violent to do this? And what is the difference between personal "protection/defence" and institutional violence? And does accepting this part of the discussion as okay undermine an anti-violence stand?

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 08:19 PM

Ask yourself how Martin Luther King would have handled the same situation, hilda, and I think you'll find your answer...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 09:39 PM

That does not answer Hilda's question, Bobert, because what that dear man would have done doesn't have to do with hilda's situation. Even one of the earliest pacifists was attributed with saying the following:


Mt.10:34
    "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

Lk.12:51
    "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Lk.22:36
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

It's all in the context, Bobert. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 10:04 PM

Luke is my least favorite Apostle, brucie, with Paul coming in a close second...

But with that said, Dr. King would not have made a decisssion to physically attacking a man for the man's views. He might have attempted shout the man down but more than likely he would have found the man, when the man didn't have the microphone, and quietly asked if he could pray with the man...

Non violence is the *only* way to bring about *positive* change because it makes a statement about values and love. And it stops the cycle of hatred and revenge...

But know that I love you, my brother and also know that if Johnny Ashcroft's boys come round my joint and wanta mess wid me, I know how to defend myself... Different game here...

Actually I remember back in the late 60's being carted off from a pro-war, pro- Nixon gathering for trying to question and shout down their speaker. I'm real gald I didn't go up and try to punch huis lights out. That wouldn't have sent the message that I sent... I had forgotten that incident until just now but by then I was allready a good student of Dr. King...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:17 PM

Maybe then the real question has to be, "What constitutes self defense?"

I am remined of the following: "What should be the penalty for a cold-blooded murderer?" IMO, he/she who committed the murder has already shown agreement with capital punishment. Therefore, there IS no question. Simplistic, but neat and to the point--and I was happy to be reminded of it because I said that in an argument when I first started to reconsider my stand on capital punishment.

Freda initially said, "what do people think - is there any place for challenging darkness with darkness? can threats and confrontation ever achieve anything worthwhile?" I think they are excellent questions and the answers above have been good. I am just surprised that fewer people have talked about the rights of the individual. If the legal system provides for protection, good. The enforcement arm of the legal system isn't always around when stuff happens. So, do people have the 'right' to act in place of the police? A question that was posed in a court case a few years back had to do with a teacher's actions to do with an unruly student. Under that Province's law, teachers were deemed to be acting 'in loco parentis'; that is, in the place of the parent. Therefore, the thing that had to be answered was whether or not the teacher had behaved as a responsible parent would have given the same circumstances. Because the answer was yes, the case was dismissed.

This rambles somewhat--so I'll get to the point. When there are NO mechanisms to protect individuals, does the individual then have a right to protect the self? My answer is yes. Mostly because I have difficulty seeing why not.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:20 PM

One more thing: I agree in principle that violence is wrong. I also hold to the notion that if no one starts it then no one has to finish it.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:29 PM

Now that's the brucie I love....

Sniff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: LadyJean
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:41 PM

Ghandi also died by violence. Come to that so did Christ. Preaching altruism isn't the safest mode. Of course George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the American Nazi party was killed by an assasin.

Now my own experience is that I am 5'7, strong for a woman, which isn't saying much, and I have only full use of my right arm. When I find myself in a difficult situation. (And it happens, if you live in the city.) I have to find a non violent solution. On one occasion this meant swearing like a Marine drill sergeant. It worked. If I'd tried to fight the guy, I'd have wound up in the Allegheny River.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:51 PM

There are times when ya gotta do what ya gotta do, L-Jean. I'm sorry you found yerself in such a position but you did the right thing and I'm glad fir it... Defense is a differeent critter...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:00 AM

Geeze, Bobert. I just took a closer read of your post and mea culpa. I misunderstood what you'd said. Sorry my friend. Not your writing; my reading. Good on you and keep this falg flying. I have children who will live in this world, and I hope people like you are running it when that happens.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Peace
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:03 AM

. . . and while you're flying the falg, fly the flag, too.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 12:36 AM

awww, shucks, my falg is always flyin, brucie...

You be da man I want runnin' the show...

Sniff...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 06:26 AM

Accuracy please:

Luke is my least favorite Apostle - Luke wasn't one of the Apostles.

And please please please - not Ghandi, never Ghandi, it's Gandhi.

Subject: RE: BS: liberty, freedom, and violence
From: freda underhill
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 08:05 AM

This is an interesting article on the peace potential of religions in terms of their inclination to condone or reject violence. It is written by Johan Galtung, the person who invented peace studies and founded the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo in 1959. He worked on his first book, Gandhi's Political Ethics, while in jail as a draft resister.

religions, hard and soft