Afghanistan showed America clear examples of social inequality. The poverty and rubble of that country spoke with glaring images of international gaps. Yet the overwhelming sense of inequality between Afghanistan and the USA was massaged for us into an outrage at the inequalities between Afghan women and men. If the treatment of women in Afghanistan was an outrage (as it was) then how much of an outrage was the treatment of Afghanistan by the USA?
In the opening days of the so-called war on terror those who jumped on board were separated from those who jumped off, and the key to understanding the difference in those days of division was how people were reading the history of inequality between the USA and Afghanistan. Simply put, the pro-war faction attributed Afghanistan's inequality to Afghanistan itself (supported by the shocking images of soccer field executions). Here were an incorrigible people, locked into their own tight circles of madness, there was no way to think of nonviolent alternatives, etc.
On the other side (one would like to say 'of the debate' but there was no debate) was a very different reading of the history of inequality in Afghanistan""a history of corrigible people who once lived under constitutional rule, but who were trounced into rubble by deliberate politics of belligerence that included yes the recruitment, care, and feeding of Osama bin Laden by the greater CIA network, and the nurturing of religious fundamentalism so crucial to lockstep social totalitarianism in Baghdad and Houston alike.
So from the start of the so-called war on terror (which has become a war for terror everywhere, with my deepest apologies to our soldiers for saying this) we have had the resources to deliberate this predicament nonviolently. But as the scandal over the Downing Street memo suggests, from the top of the start, it was war more than anything that was wanted, and our vaunted democracy could speak barely a peep about peace. We have to admit what this proves: we are not a very peace loving people; because love is best known during the testing times, and our love of peace collapsed right away when times got tough.
Based upon glaring inequalities that we witness between the USA and other states, nonviolent inquiry demands us to seriously investigate structural features that perpetuate these tawdry affairs. And very likely we have reason to believe that structures on the international scene are not that much different from the inequalities we find in our own cities at home.
Racism, poverty, and war were structures that King identified. They are structures because they are not disconnected from the very mechanisms of production and wealth as we know them. Racism toward the pan-Muslim world functions with the same purpose as racism toward peoples of the EastSide, or SouthSide, or whichever side your favorite city chooses to ghettoize the lowest-paid workers who provide the necessary conditions of wealth.
Briefly returning to the question of self-defense: in a conscious, militant confrontation with structure, the nonviolent activist gives up this precious and necessary right as a matter of personal conscience. One does not give it up absolutely. For example, yes, King collected signatures from fellow protesters pledging not to use violence (not even the violence of self-defense) during organized demonstrations. But at the same time, King insisted on responsible police protection from vigilante action.
King never said, let anybody do anything at any time, and that's okay. While he set out to break the will of law enforcement to stand in the way of freedom, he campaigned for equal protection against discrimination and vigilante action. In this context, he gave up his right to self defense, and he encouraged others to join him in a brotherhood and sisterhood of conscience. This was his morality, and his shrewdness. We know how his life ended. But how much sooner would it have ended had he decided to pack a gun? Against the grimly structured powers of the USA, the chances of struggle do not necessarily increase if you announce that you are arming yourself or your movement for self defense.
At home and abroad, nonviolence must focus its struggles against structures of racism, poverty, and war; not against so many pawns in the game ( Dylan). From the nonviolent point of view, structures must remain in focus, because when structures come down, equality liberates love between corrigible people and we find ourselves more free to care about each other, rather than the structures that hold us apart. Wherever you find a world structured around racism, poverty, and war, there love has become unwise. On Veterans Day why shouldn't we be encouraged to mutter, enough is enough. Why not give nonviolence another chance?
-------
Note: thanks to Matthew Daude and Kitty Henderson at the Ethics Resource Center of Austin Community College for the invitation to deliver remarks about pacifism on Nov. 11, 2005.
In the opening days of the so-called war on terror those who jumped on board were separated from those who jumped off, and the key to understanding the difference in those days of division was how people were reading the history of inequality between the USA and Afghanistan. Simply put, the pro-war faction attributed Afghanistan's inequality to Afghanistan itself (supported by the shocking images of soccer field executions). Here were an incorrigible people, locked into their own tight circles of madness, there was no way to think of nonviolent alternatives, etc.
On the other side (one would like to say 'of the debate' but there was no debate) was a very different reading of the history of inequality in Afghanistan""a history of corrigible people who once lived under constitutional rule, but who were trounced into rubble by deliberate politics of belligerence that included yes the recruitment, care, and feeding of Osama bin Laden by the greater CIA network, and the nurturing of religious fundamentalism so crucial to lockstep social totalitarianism in Baghdad and Houston alike.
So from the start of the so-called war on terror (which has become a war for terror everywhere, with my deepest apologies to our soldiers for saying this) we have had the resources to deliberate this predicament nonviolently. But as the scandal over the Downing Street memo suggests, from the top of the start, it was war more than anything that was wanted, and our vaunted democracy could speak barely a peep about peace. We have to admit what this proves: we are not a very peace loving people; because love is best known during the testing times, and our love of peace collapsed right away when times got tough.
Racism, poverty, and war were structures that King identified. They are structures because they are not disconnected from the very mechanisms of production and wealth as we know them. Racism toward the pan-Muslim world functions with the same purpose as racism toward peoples of the EastSide, or SouthSide, or whichever side your favorite city chooses to ghettoize the lowest-paid workers who provide the necessary conditions of wealth.
Briefly returning to the question of self-defense: in a conscious, militant confrontation with structure, the nonviolent activist gives up this precious and necessary right as a matter of personal conscience. One does not give it up absolutely. For example, yes, King collected signatures from fellow protesters pledging not to use violence (not even the violence of self-defense) during organized demonstrations. But at the same time, King insisted on responsible police protection from vigilante action.
King never said, let anybody do anything at any time, and that's okay. While he set out to break the will of law enforcement to stand in the way of freedom, he campaigned for equal protection against discrimination and vigilante action. In this context, he gave up his right to self defense, and he encouraged others to join him in a brotherhood and sisterhood of conscience. This was his morality, and his shrewdness. We know how his life ended. But how much sooner would it have ended had he decided to pack a gun? Against the grimly structured powers of the USA, the chances of struggle do not necessarily increase if you announce that you are arming yourself or your movement for self defense.
At home and abroad, nonviolence must focus its struggles against structures of racism, poverty, and war; not against so many pawns in the game ( Dylan). From the nonviolent point of view, structures must remain in focus, because when structures come down, equality liberates love between corrigible people and we find ourselves more free to care about each other, rather than the structures that hold us apart. Wherever you find a world structured around racism, poverty, and war, there love has become unwise. On Veterans Day why shouldn't we be encouraged to mutter, enough is enough. Why not give nonviolence another chance?
-------
Note: thanks to Matthew Daude and Kitty Henderson at the Ethics Resource Center of Austin Community College for the invitation to deliver remarks about pacifism on Nov. 11, 2005.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
