Ever considered a hunger strike? - I dunno, even the thought of being starved makes me hungry...
Yeah, it's been a while since I've taken the time to really write anything.... well thats not true - my job involves writing emails, so in actual fact I have been writing my ass off, just not here! Anyway, what caused me to start doing that thing where I over-analyse something purely because my brain decided not to take a detour from that topic for a bit - was the last couple of weeks getting to work and seeing this group of protestors at the front of the building on a hunger strike. I have never really seen one and I know that people can live, depending on body mass for weeks, sometimes months without food but after day 15, I have to wonder whether I could do it....
I would love to say that I could but honestly? Feeling like I was starving and knowing that within 20 metres there were several choices in hunger killing, dining options - unfortunately means I would probably be that dude sneaking food at any opportunity. So it must be the passion they hold in their beliefs to have that much self control, which should be admired simply because people don't fight for what they believe is right enough... But does it give me the desire to join them in their protest? as much as their protest centres on the demand for basic human rights in countries amidst war and terrorism, I don't really get how not eating helps in any way. I can empathise with those people who stripped of their freedom, strike in hunger, but that seems more about rejecting whats offered because of what it taken and hardly someone with a plethora of choice in what they can do.
And what happens if the action that they are protesting for doesn't happen? How long will it continue? My concern about this kind of protesting would be that someone would actually have to face personal tragedy in order for the statement effect to be achieved. At day 17, I can't be sure that this is where it is headed, but even if it is - what exactly do they want. There are signs plastered around, letting anyone who reads them know of the acts of cruelty suffered by the people of a government holding their country in terror. Is what they want war? How else can one government force another to treat their people differently because I doubt a quick chat over coffee and cake is going to be sufficient. So the worst possible outcome to this hunger strike, is that someone will die from deliberately starving themselves, this gets the attention of those in power who demand this country changes their ways and we move headfirst into battle. If there was a peaceful outcome to this, it would already have happened right?
So does this relatively peaceful, non-invasive and somewhat silent protest through forced hunger really drive their messages home? I don't think I can say what the right thing to do would be or it's possible I would have done it. But maybe those loud, traffic blocking, staged acts of symbolism speak the message to a wider audience. The commitment these people would need to have, when there is no food shortage to possibly die from hunger would definitely be a statement.. but is it worth the hunger? is it worth the torture? is it enough to begin a war? For me.... no.
I would love to say that I could but honestly? Feeling like I was starving and knowing that within 20 metres there were several choices in hunger killing, dining options - unfortunately means I would probably be that dude sneaking food at any opportunity. So it must be the passion they hold in their beliefs to have that much self control, which should be admired simply because people don't fight for what they believe is right enough... But does it give me the desire to join them in their protest? as much as their protest centres on the demand for basic human rights in countries amidst war and terrorism, I don't really get how not eating helps in any way. I can empathise with those people who stripped of their freedom, strike in hunger, but that seems more about rejecting whats offered because of what it taken and hardly someone with a plethora of choice in what they can do.
And what happens if the action that they are protesting for doesn't happen? How long will it continue? My concern about this kind of protesting would be that someone would actually have to face personal tragedy in order for the statement effect to be achieved. At day 17, I can't be sure that this is where it is headed, but even if it is - what exactly do they want. There are signs plastered around, letting anyone who reads them know of the acts of cruelty suffered by the people of a government holding their country in terror. Is what they want war? How else can one government force another to treat their people differently because I doubt a quick chat over coffee and cake is going to be sufficient. So the worst possible outcome to this hunger strike, is that someone will die from deliberately starving themselves, this gets the attention of those in power who demand this country changes their ways and we move headfirst into battle. If there was a peaceful outcome to this, it would already have happened right?
So does this relatively peaceful, non-invasive and somewhat silent protest through forced hunger really drive their messages home? I don't think I can say what the right thing to do would be or it's possible I would have done it. But maybe those loud, traffic blocking, staged acts of symbolism speak the message to a wider audience. The commitment these people would need to have, when there is no food shortage to possibly die from hunger would definitely be a statement.. but is it worth the hunger? is it worth the torture? is it enough to begin a war? For me.... no.