On Non-Violence
"What is violence?"
"A failure of imagination."
"[...]with some combination anyone could deepen her or his inate capacity to become an effective 'actor of love.'
"Most of us don't try to develop it, for the simple reason that most of us have ceased to believe it exists. But that is due to our cultural conditioning. I think in fact that it's violence that's artificial; it's violence that is a mechanical 'solution' that cheats us of an opportunity to grow -- as individuals, by mastering an important part of our mind; as a people, by working out a real solution to what divides us... Conflict is an opportunity, because negative emotions are an opportunity, for conversion[...]
"Isn't growing what we're supposed to be doing with our life?"
"During the Gult conflict more bombs fell on Iraq than were dropped in all of World War II. This incredible punishment 'worked': Saddam Hussein did indeed withdraw what was left of his forces from Kuwait. Yes, but what else happened? About 100,000 people died; billions of dollars worth of oil was burned in the open air or poured on the waters of the Gulf, creating an unparalleled ecological disaster. It has been estimated that the war cost Iraq alone $77 billion. And now for the really bad part. Over 200,000 Iraqi children died either during the bombing raids or in the aftermath, when infant deaths in Iraq during the first eight months after the attacks rose 300%. Then they went on dying, the children, and at the time of this writing they are still dying because of economic sanctions kept in place to force the unrepentant dictator into line -- for evidently all that bombing did not cause President Hussein to have a change of heart, only to harden it[...]
"Let us pause here to ask, in the name of what kind of logic have we inflicted this appalling suffering, year after year, on this people and these children? Dictators by definition do not care about the well-being of their subjects. So by hurting their subjects...? In fact it has been pointed out often enough that our sanctions weakened the Iraqi people to the point where they could no longer resist their harsh leader even if they wanted to. We did his job for him [italics mine]."
"The majority of Americans believe that the death penalty deters homicide; but in one of the few reliable studies on the actual results of capital punishment it was found that introducing the death penalty actually seems to increase homicides, by about two percent. The title of the study is 'Deterrence or Brutalization.' The state destroys a human life to 'send a mossage' to would-be murderers; but in reality it's sending not one but two, somewhat contradictory messages. On the concious level its message is mainly about retribution, about warning; but on a deeper level it is unfortunately more about the expendability of human life -- and the impossibility of bringing a violent person back into the community."
"In actual legal and political experience, threat is a much less reliable way of getting people to comply than it seems. We have to react to the threat as it was intended or it won't work."
"Is There No Other Way?: The Search for a Nonviolent Future"
Michael N. Nagler
I can't find the quote in the book right now, but in one section he talks about the attitudes people take toward non-violence... that they must keep violence in reserve in case non-violence doesn't work. In fact non-violence does work, it just doesn't have an immediately obvious effect -- in my thoughts, this makes our action-based/clock-bound society unable to comprehend the more subtle effects of non-violence. Additionally, we don't look past the immediate for results, we are too lazy to follow a story through to its conclusion. The media, admittedly, has a hand in this. So is it any wonder that we can't comprehend any results that take longer than five minutes to develop?
And if we continually rely on violence as our last and "most effective" resort, how can there be any chance for non-violence to succeed, when it seems that using the "most effective" solution becomes the only solution? Either we use violence to achieve immediate results, or use that threat. And holding violence in reserve as a "final solution" only defeats the purpose of resolving a situation using non-violent (not passive resistance) techniques anyway.
"A failure of imagination."
"[...]with some combination anyone could deepen her or his inate capacity to become an effective 'actor of love.'
"Most of us don't try to develop it, for the simple reason that most of us have ceased to believe it exists. But that is due to our cultural conditioning. I think in fact that it's violence that's artificial; it's violence that is a mechanical 'solution' that cheats us of an opportunity to grow -- as individuals, by mastering an important part of our mind; as a people, by working out a real solution to what divides us... Conflict is an opportunity, because negative emotions are an opportunity, for conversion[...]
"Isn't growing what we're supposed to be doing with our life?"
"During the Gult conflict more bombs fell on Iraq than were dropped in all of World War II. This incredible punishment 'worked': Saddam Hussein did indeed withdraw what was left of his forces from Kuwait. Yes, but what else happened? About 100,000 people died; billions of dollars worth of oil was burned in the open air or poured on the waters of the Gulf, creating an unparalleled ecological disaster. It has been estimated that the war cost Iraq alone $77 billion. And now for the really bad part. Over 200,000 Iraqi children died either during the bombing raids or in the aftermath, when infant deaths in Iraq during the first eight months after the attacks rose 300%. Then they went on dying, the children, and at the time of this writing they are still dying because of economic sanctions kept in place to force the unrepentant dictator into line -- for evidently all that bombing did not cause President Hussein to have a change of heart, only to harden it[...]
"Let us pause here to ask, in the name of what kind of logic have we inflicted this appalling suffering, year after year, on this people and these children? Dictators by definition do not care about the well-being of their subjects. So by hurting their subjects...? In fact it has been pointed out often enough that our sanctions weakened the Iraqi people to the point where they could no longer resist their harsh leader even if they wanted to. We did his job for him [italics mine]."
"The majority of Americans believe that the death penalty deters homicide; but in one of the few reliable studies on the actual results of capital punishment it was found that introducing the death penalty actually seems to increase homicides, by about two percent. The title of the study is 'Deterrence or Brutalization.' The state destroys a human life to 'send a mossage' to would-be murderers; but in reality it's sending not one but two, somewhat contradictory messages. On the concious level its message is mainly about retribution, about warning; but on a deeper level it is unfortunately more about the expendability of human life -- and the impossibility of bringing a violent person back into the community."
"In actual legal and political experience, threat is a much less reliable way of getting people to comply than it seems. We have to react to the threat as it was intended or it won't work."
"Is There No Other Way?: The Search for a Nonviolent Future"
Michael N. Nagler
I can't find the quote in the book right now, but in one section he talks about the attitudes people take toward non-violence... that they must keep violence in reserve in case non-violence doesn't work. In fact non-violence does work, it just doesn't have an immediately obvious effect -- in my thoughts, this makes our action-based/clock-bound society unable to comprehend the more subtle effects of non-violence. Additionally, we don't look past the immediate for results, we are too lazy to follow a story through to its conclusion. The media, admittedly, has a hand in this. So is it any wonder that we can't comprehend any results that take longer than five minutes to develop?
And if we continually rely on violence as our last and "most effective" resort, how can there be any chance for non-violence to succeed, when it seems that using the "most effective" solution becomes the only solution? Either we use violence to achieve immediate results, or use that threat. And holding violence in reserve as a "final solution" only defeats the purpose of resolving a situation using non-violent (not passive resistance) techniques anyway.