"The Ethics Of Courage" by Taiaiake Alfred
In the essay "The ethics of courage, the author expresses the need for change among the Onkwehonweneha people and the differences between being a "warrior" in the past and in the present." He is trying to tell them that they now need to fight the so called "settlers" with "non lethal defense," and that the events at the "Oka Stand off" and the Gutsfsen Stand off cannot repeat themselves. He is trying to explain to them that if they arent ready to "kill and die" to defend themselves, they will need to find another approach to solve their problems. Another objective Alfred has is trying to redefine courage.
Alfred teaches at the university of victoria and has a MA BA and PHD and education in History. He also served as a marine and is a member of the Indigenous Governance Program. He has received many awards, such as the Aborigonal Achievement Award in education. This makes him educationally credible. He also admits to the mistakes of the Onkwehonwe people and acknowledges some of the benefits they receive as a result of the "settlers." He is trying to educate the Mohawk people rather than resorting to the name calling and racism we see so much of today. He makes it clear that the views he expresses are those of the indigenous people and himself not those of everyone.
I found this piece very difficult to follow due to the language and vocabulary the author used. This makes me think that the audience he is writing to is a more educated person than average. His audience is his people, the Onkwehonwe people, who want to fight imperialism but also don't want repeats of the incidents that occurred in events such as those in Vietnam. Because of his references to so many governments and capitalism, his audience would have to be someone with at least minimal political education.
The Main purpose of Alfreds essay is to inspire his people to change the way the conception they have of warriors and how they handle confrontation with the government. He uses examples of past events such as the revolution is "Guevara. The Onkwehonwe people need to "disregard violence as a means of liberation." He is trying to give them another way of looking at things while still "preserving the ideas and the values" of his people.
The warriors definition of courage consists of willpower and determination. It doesnt necessarily mean violence. It simply means not giving up and persevering when they feel like quitting. The Onkwehonwe people need to "revolutionize" their defense tactics, rather than thier beliefs and thier way of life.
I understand the people of Alfreds culture are against using violent attacks to defend themselves, i just wonder if this would change if they had enough physical resources to defeat the "white" people. They say they couldn't win due to the unlimited amount of weapons and havoc governments have the ability release. Maybe they would be more interested in a violent attack if it were a possibility to defeat them. What are you thoughts on this piece? Do you think it is possible to defend yourself against government intervention without using violence?
Alfred teaches at the university of victoria and has a MA BA and PHD and education in History. He also served as a marine and is a member of the Indigenous Governance Program. He has received many awards, such as the Aborigonal Achievement Award in education. This makes him educationally credible. He also admits to the mistakes of the Onkwehonwe people and acknowledges some of the benefits they receive as a result of the "settlers." He is trying to educate the Mohawk people rather than resorting to the name calling and racism we see so much of today. He makes it clear that the views he expresses are those of the indigenous people and himself not those of everyone.
I found this piece very difficult to follow due to the language and vocabulary the author used. This makes me think that the audience he is writing to is a more educated person than average. His audience is his people, the Onkwehonwe people, who want to fight imperialism but also don't want repeats of the incidents that occurred in events such as those in Vietnam. Because of his references to so many governments and capitalism, his audience would have to be someone with at least minimal political education.
The Main purpose of Alfreds essay is to inspire his people to change the way the conception they have of warriors and how they handle confrontation with the government. He uses examples of past events such as the revolution is "Guevara. The Onkwehonwe people need to "disregard violence as a means of liberation." He is trying to give them another way of looking at things while still "preserving the ideas and the values" of his people.
The warriors definition of courage consists of willpower and determination. It doesnt necessarily mean violence. It simply means not giving up and persevering when they feel like quitting. The Onkwehonwe people need to "revolutionize" their defense tactics, rather than thier beliefs and thier way of life.
I understand the people of Alfreds culture are against using violent attacks to defend themselves, i just wonder if this would change if they had enough physical resources to defeat the "white" people. They say they couldn't win due to the unlimited amount of weapons and havoc governments have the ability release. Maybe they would be more interested in a violent attack if it were a possibility to defeat them. What are you thoughts on this piece? Do you think it is possible to defend yourself against government intervention without using violence?