Note: I'm attempting selectively publish what I expect are essays in progress that will grow significantly longer over time, but allow the reader to eavesdrop to some extent on my "thinking out loud." After all, my primary goal is to stimulate thought and debate in the world at large, and only secondarily, for the sake of shelter and bread, to garner some sort of recognition for my own thinking and writing. So, since it's not about bread, why not start the discussion while it's still half-baked? (How noble you are, pretending not to be a raving moderate egomaniac, then throwing out your paltry humor!)
Outline:
Us & Them, You & Me
Order & Chaos
"It's Us versus Them." "It's Us against the World." "It's Me against You." "It's just Me against the World." "It's CONTROL versus KAOS. Would you believe it?"
"Pick your battles."
It's all a matter of perspective. Let me throw in one more.
"We Are the World."
Maybe I'd better take these little quotations one by one, although I'm supposed to be rambling incoherently to get the ideas out there. Anyway, these are all slightly different perspectives on how we view the world, on what we think are important units of organization. Do we identify with a group? Only with ourselves as individuals? Do we feel a part of a greater whole, of which all human beings are a part? So I don't mean to be too organized, but here we go. Most individuals, by the way, are, in my opinion, a blend of all of the following:
"It's Us versus Them." This seems to be the mindset of the so-called "War on Terror", or perhaps it is just as well termed a "War of Terror" depending on whose "side" one is on (or not) and how objectively one is willing to think about it. This is a competitive point of view in which the individual identifies with a greater whole ("Us") composed of some identifiable subset of humanity, which might be composed of one's family, or those of one's religious affiliation, nationality, ethnicity etc. Other subsets who are not a part of this subset (and are therefore viewed as "Them") are chosen as a focus of emnity and competition. The reasons for this may be realistic, largely historical, illusory, or intentionally or unintentionally promulgated to manipulate the group. In most cases it is a combination of the above factors, with further input from the motivation to rationalize some sort of political or economic gain, or even merely a catharsis of violence.
"It's Us against the World." The affiliation to the group has become so strong that everyone else is considered to have some sort of a problem. This can happen in at least two ways. One is that the group has such cult-like qualities that it acquires an extremely powerful primacy in the minds of its members. The group promulgates a worldview which the membership comes to accept as infallibly correct. Meanwhile the rest of the world, whether by birth or by training, is far enough off the mark that they must either be converted, suffer some egregious punishment, or even be eliminated.
Another factor in an "Us against the World" point of view may be one of historical and/or current persecution. Many religions and ethnicities have at least a mild sense of some such persecution; if it comes from several different quarters and the group does not form strong alliances with outsiders, to one extent or another the members may have trouble trusting anyone outside the group as much as those inside the group.
"It's Me against You" or "It's just Me against the World." To one degree or another, all of us are alone in our individuality, and we are fighting or working for our own survival or self-interest. Some may primarily feel a part of a group, but even then, the individual's worldview is bound to conflict at some points with the received worldview of the group and/or with that of individuals within the group who may be central figures in one's life. This may lead to conflicts with the other individuals, with one's own group, or with others in the world, in which one feels one is standing alone. At some point, an individual may feel his or her aloneness as having primacy over any sense of group affiliation, and thus stands as "Me against the World". This is usually harmless to the world at large, in some cases may be beneficial as it brings about unique ideas that might be stifled by "groupthink", but in extreme cases might hypothetically be an important factor in the behavior of psychopaths whether merely murderous or, as in the case of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, having a certain self-important sense of idealism.
"It's CONTROL versus KAOS. Would you believe it?" I throw this one in as a reference to the 60's spy spoof TV series, "Get Smart". Although the show was played mostly for slapstick laughs, there is some depth to the irony that the bumbling, chaotic US spy agency was named "CONTROL" and operated for the purpose of fighting "KAOS", another bumbling spy agency, roughly equivalent to SMERSH in the James Bond films. When we look at the efforts of the current US government administration to "control" terrorism or even control the chemistry of all the different groupings of people in competition across the world, if either is indeed their goal, we have to ask ourselves if they are not in fact stirring up a greater proportion of "chaos" than they are ameliorating in the process?
In fact, I think this question is one that any movement, organization, or effort to reform or improve the world, coming from any mix of the above perspectives, has to ask itself. We operate in a complex, interwoven world in which many forces are at play, so many forces that the system probably should be considered as "chaotic" in the scientific sense of the word that implies an exquisitely sensitive system in which small actions may have large consequences, such that our focused attempts at creating some desirable order may produce larger patterns of disorder in both predictable and unpredictable ways. Introducing a new force or stimulus amidst such complexity, though intended to create greater stability, may create greater instability, as it is arguable that George Bush's intervention in Iraq has done.
"We Are the World." The theme song from 1985's Live Aid concert may be hackneyed in some people's minds, perhaps even mine, but it's key phrase is philosophically important. It may even be important to the survival of humanity as a species. It is a shift in perspective that may be viewed spiritually, or may also be viewed mathematically from a systems viewpoint. To me, the two are intertwined, although I am neither spiritually all that high nor much of a mathematician. Simply put, each object or system we think of as a "thing" is part of a greater "thing". A fingernail is part of a finger is part of a hand is part of a person is part of a population (say, "Americans" or "Christians" or "Muslims") is part of a greater population (the population of the planet) is part of a greater system (such as the ecosystem of the Earth) is part of a still greater system (like the Universe)... is, perhaps, a part of "God" or "the Infinite". And we can go smaller as well; the fingernail is made up of cells, made up of molecules, atoms, subatomic particles... down to the most infinitesimal "thing" we can imagine or manage to talk about, and perhaps God is found there, too, the substrate to all existence. In any case, we are a part of everything, and we are intertwined such that everything is a part of us as well. Chaos theory, at least in layman's explanations, postulates that a butterfly flapping its wings may be a proximate cause of a hurricane thousands of miles away. It is only one of billions of tiny causes, but if it hadn't flapped its wings right then and there, and everything else had stayed the same: no hurricane. That is how connected our existence is.
Given this complexity, we have no choice but to simplify so that our brains can handle reality and make choices. If we were butterflies, we would have no choice but to flap our wings, and we have no choice but to act in the world. But if a butterfly can make the difference to a hurricane, what are the consequences of such choices as sacrificing large chunks of our environment for short-term profit or creating a power vacuum in Iraq -- choices whose enormity and absurdity are already evident, but whose ripple effects are almost unfathomable? So we must try to view things with some complexity even as we are forced to simplify our thinking relative to the vastness of existence and the infinite interactions of cause and effect.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Shot London Bombing Suspect "Not Connected"
From BBC News:
The Met Police Chief has insisted that the policy of "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" should continue.
My reply to this "Talking Point":
It's not entirely clear to me what evidence the police had to lead them to such drastic measures. What should be clear, however, is that there are thousands of relatively dark-skinned people in London carrying bags of one sort or another, the overwhelming majority (to say the least) doing so perfectly innocently. It should also be clear that yelling the word "police" does not conclusively identify one as a police officer, and that merely running from the police does not necessarily identify a person as particularly dangerous. Here in the US, many people would run from the police merely because they are carrying marijuana, or simply because they are distrustful of the local police's treatment of minorities. These are factors that armed police in London, dealing with terrorism, will have to learn to take into account. Shooting to kill is not "protecting" if the person shot is not a dangerous criminal. One has to accept a degree of ambiguity in society -- anybody could be a dangerous criminal, but most people aren't -- if the cure isn't going to be worse than the disease. Here in America, we are still wrestling with the problems presented when the government grants itself too much power in order to "protect" us from terrorism.
The Met Police Chief has insisted that the policy of "shoot-to-kill in order to protect" should continue.
Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes, 27 was shot dead in error by police at Stockwell Tube station as part of the inquiry into attempted bomb attacks. He was later found not to be connected to the incidents.
Met Police Chief Sir Ian Blair has apologised to the family and warned that more innocent people might be killed in the fight against terrorism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4711189.stmMy reply to this "Talking Point":
It's not entirely clear to me what evidence the police had to lead them to such drastic measures. What should be clear, however, is that there are thousands of relatively dark-skinned people in London carrying bags of one sort or another, the overwhelming majority (to say the least) doing so perfectly innocently. It should also be clear that yelling the word "police" does not conclusively identify one as a police officer, and that merely running from the police does not necessarily identify a person as particularly dangerous. Here in the US, many people would run from the police merely because they are carrying marijuana, or simply because they are distrustful of the local police's treatment of minorities. These are factors that armed police in London, dealing with terrorism, will have to learn to take into account. Shooting to kill is not "protecting" if the person shot is not a dangerous criminal. One has to accept a degree of ambiguity in society -- anybody could be a dangerous criminal, but most people aren't -- if the cure isn't going to be worse than the disease. Here in America, we are still wrestling with the problems presented when the government grants itself too much power in order to "protect" us from terrorism.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Consumer Kvetch Rave #1
(Maybe I should start mentioning "rave" in all my blogentries. I hear the kids enjoy "raves", perhaps they will find me on Google when looking for another one. Then I put on ads for glo-sticks and make a fortune. Anyway, here is the rave, or blogentry, a new word I thought I just coined, except that it already has 70,000 hits on Google. But has anybody else pronounced it with the soft "j" sound yet, making it a general term for "the art of blogging"? OK OK, here it is, remember the title is Consumer Kvetch Rave #1...)
Artificial preservatives I kind of understand. Who hasn't savored the pleasure of eating eighteen month old pickles out of the jar? Personally, I thought the vinegar was supposed to do the trick, but hey, let's add a little Polysorbate 80 for good measure! Who says it causes cancer? And, hey, not everything is pickled to begin with. Personally, I'd rather eat fresh food (or merely 12 month old pickles), but OK OK, I understand. It might kill me down the line, but for now it saves me the horror of opening up the package and having something green and hairy walk out of it.
But artificial color and flavor I do not understand. Yuk! With those nice, bright colors, now I'm seeing with my own eyes the laboratory chemicals you're feeding me, which makes me feel the cells turning and multiplying into a deadly mass somewhere inside my body. But the FDA doesn't outlaw anything anymore, at least not when there's major corporate backing. And hey, Mr. Moderate doesn't really have cancer, he's just suggestible, hypochondria runs in his family. He's as healthy as an ox, and we feed livestock this stuff all time. And, oh, BTW, let's give an extra big dose of that to children, they love colorful stuff. What a great idea.
Artificial flavor? I get to smell and taste the test tube's contents, too? Oh boy! No, give me something real so I can have an ingredient list that doesn't make me scratch my head. How much could a half a teaspoon of real vanilla extract cost you, better yet the real bean, which should be cheaper because it hasn't been poked, prodded and "extracted" yet?
And, oh, BTW, I can add my own 800 mg of sodium if I really want, and you can keep the fraction of a cent you saved by leaving it out, instead of charging me 50 cents extra for being forced to continue storing it in your warehouse and making you print "low sodium" on the label. The same goes for the pesticides you didn't have to use on the head of organic broccoli that I splurged for, thinking I might actually get that fifteen seconds of added life from broccoli and not have it get cancelled out by sprays. No, I'm not libelling your *%#$ sprays and all those other chemicals, just, er, expressing my involuntary, knee jerk moderate response to them. But you all corporate interests are probably going to sue me anyway. Well, you'll be squeezing blood from a turnip. Of course, if it's a GMO (genetically modified organism) turnip, anything is possible. But that's another blogentry.
I WANT REAL FOOD! I AM CONSUMER, HERE ME ROAR! MAKE THAT "RAVE"!
Artificial preservatives I kind of understand. Who hasn't savored the pleasure of eating eighteen month old pickles out of the jar? Personally, I thought the vinegar was supposed to do the trick, but hey, let's add a little Polysorbate 80 for good measure! Who says it causes cancer? And, hey, not everything is pickled to begin with. Personally, I'd rather eat fresh food (or merely 12 month old pickles), but OK OK, I understand. It might kill me down the line, but for now it saves me the horror of opening up the package and having something green and hairy walk out of it.
But artificial color and flavor I do not understand. Yuk! With those nice, bright colors, now I'm seeing with my own eyes the laboratory chemicals you're feeding me, which makes me feel the cells turning and multiplying into a deadly mass somewhere inside my body. But the FDA doesn't outlaw anything anymore, at least not when there's major corporate backing. And hey, Mr. Moderate doesn't really have cancer, he's just suggestible, hypochondria runs in his family. He's as healthy as an ox, and we feed livestock this stuff all time. And, oh, BTW, let's give an extra big dose of that to children, they love colorful stuff. What a great idea.
Artificial flavor? I get to smell and taste the test tube's contents, too? Oh boy! No, give me something real so I can have an ingredient list that doesn't make me scratch my head. How much could a half a teaspoon of real vanilla extract cost you, better yet the real bean, which should be cheaper because it hasn't been poked, prodded and "extracted" yet?
And, oh, BTW, I can add my own 800 mg of sodium if I really want, and you can keep the fraction of a cent you saved by leaving it out, instead of charging me 50 cents extra for being forced to continue storing it in your warehouse and making you print "low sodium" on the label. The same goes for the pesticides you didn't have to use on the head of organic broccoli that I splurged for, thinking I might actually get that fifteen seconds of added life from broccoli and not have it get cancelled out by sprays. No, I'm not libelling your *%#$ sprays and all those other chemicals, just, er, expressing my involuntary, knee jerk moderate response to them. But you all corporate interests are probably going to sue me anyway. Well, you'll be squeezing blood from a turnip. Of course, if it's a GMO (genetically modified organism) turnip, anything is possible. But that's another blogentry.
I WANT REAL FOOD! I AM CONSUMER, HERE ME ROAR! MAKE THAT "RAVE"!
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Incoherent Ramblings #1
If you've read anything else on this blog, you may think that this is not the first installment of incoherent ramblings, but this will take incoherence to a new level, until finally it all comes together and coheres. At least that's what I'm hoping for. I think. I'm looking for the grand structure of current events, politics in general, economics, religion, life... Oh yes, Douglas Adams said it best in one of his book titles: "Life, the Universe, and Everything." But mostly politics and economics, because these are controlled by humans, and have so much influence upon their lives.
What is the overarching struggle here? Greed and hunger for power v. compassion and caring. Greed and hunger for power, I think, are bred from fear and insecurity, and the whole package is taken to a nearly psychotic level in high level politics and economic activity. After all, if you have incredible amounts of wealth and power, why would you feel an insecure need to exploit those who are less advantaged? "I must have more." No, you have enough to live the rest of your life in comfort, pleasure and splendor. Why do you need to wring a few more dollars out of people who may not be able to pay for food or medicine? Part of this problem may be driven by the capitalist emphasis on competition. Competition is supposed to lead to better products at cheaper prices. Sometimes it does, but a continuous drive to become bigger and cheaper eventually leads to a downward spiral, as concerns for the environment and the conditions of labor are completely shouldered aside in order to gain every advantage to keep the corporation in existence, squeeze out every penny of profit, and keep the shareholders and an overpaid CEO happy. But in cases like Enron and Worldcom, even the shareholders and finally the concern for the existence of the corporation itself seem to get squeezed out, in favor of an overly powerful CEO and handpicked executive buddies who will even sacrifice the corporation and its constituents to make a buck or a hundred million, and have a nice party in the process. Currently, the United States government in particular appears to be in alliance with such greedy multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, and has no problem with their devastating refusal to take responsibility for the broad consequences of their actions. Meanwhile, the incredible machine that is our environment, our link to existence, is allowed to crumble, and deadly poverty is ignored, sometimes even encouraged to continue.
Criticizing the US government or capitalism is not to deny the tremendous corruption, greed, and decadence that occurred under the heyday of Communism. Either way, you have those who are in a position of wealth and power taking advantage of their situation to get more of the same for themselves, at the expense of the people. The Cold War, we should realize, was not mainly fought as a struggle over what system would most benefit the people of the world. It is better explained as simply a struggle over power (and wealth and privilege), which is why so many committed Communists became committed to capitalist "reforms" after the fall of the Soviet Union. There are genuninely committed socialists, and even genuinely committed "capitalists" who aren't particularly greedy. But the Cold War had a name for them, which was slyly batted around by both sides in reference to the other: "dupes". Not that their idealism lacked beauty, only that it was irrelevant.
"I must have more." But what for? To deny death? We will all die someday. To prove oneself to some other neurotic figure in one's life, who also clings to excess wealth, power, and/or privilege for a sense of self-worth? This neurosis feeds itself with success: when the greedy get what they want, their drive is psychologically reinforced, and their coffers, their means to run roughshod over human beings and the planet in pursuit of even more, have grown larger.
In a hypothetical world where people have been brought up to believe that the role of a human being is to care for other human beings, one will have the security of knowing that others will help one to look after oneself, and this will give the individual the freedom to reciprocate, taking care of others, knowing that this is the fabric that enables human existence to not just continue, but thrive. In a competitive world, the role model one sees is to compete. If the competition is harsh, one must be harsh, or such is the feeling one gets.
Our world is a blend of these hypothetical worlds, but competition has been exalted and then spun out of control, so that the rich are in a state of desperate neurosis, while the poor are increasingly in a state simply of desperation. If we continue this way, we will destroy ourselves. And yet, this is only a small piece of the puzzle.
What is the overarching struggle here? Greed and hunger for power v. compassion and caring. Greed and hunger for power, I think, are bred from fear and insecurity, and the whole package is taken to a nearly psychotic level in high level politics and economic activity. After all, if you have incredible amounts of wealth and power, why would you feel an insecure need to exploit those who are less advantaged? "I must have more." No, you have enough to live the rest of your life in comfort, pleasure and splendor. Why do you need to wring a few more dollars out of people who may not be able to pay for food or medicine? Part of this problem may be driven by the capitalist emphasis on competition. Competition is supposed to lead to better products at cheaper prices. Sometimes it does, but a continuous drive to become bigger and cheaper eventually leads to a downward spiral, as concerns for the environment and the conditions of labor are completely shouldered aside in order to gain every advantage to keep the corporation in existence, squeeze out every penny of profit, and keep the shareholders and an overpaid CEO happy. But in cases like Enron and Worldcom, even the shareholders and finally the concern for the existence of the corporation itself seem to get squeezed out, in favor of an overly powerful CEO and handpicked executive buddies who will even sacrifice the corporation and its constituents to make a buck or a hundred million, and have a nice party in the process. Currently, the United States government in particular appears to be in alliance with such greedy multinational corporations and entrepreneurs, and has no problem with their devastating refusal to take responsibility for the broad consequences of their actions. Meanwhile, the incredible machine that is our environment, our link to existence, is allowed to crumble, and deadly poverty is ignored, sometimes even encouraged to continue.
Criticizing the US government or capitalism is not to deny the tremendous corruption, greed, and decadence that occurred under the heyday of Communism. Either way, you have those who are in a position of wealth and power taking advantage of their situation to get more of the same for themselves, at the expense of the people. The Cold War, we should realize, was not mainly fought as a struggle over what system would most benefit the people of the world. It is better explained as simply a struggle over power (and wealth and privilege), which is why so many committed Communists became committed to capitalist "reforms" after the fall of the Soviet Union. There are genuninely committed socialists, and even genuinely committed "capitalists" who aren't particularly greedy. But the Cold War had a name for them, which was slyly batted around by both sides in reference to the other: "dupes". Not that their idealism lacked beauty, only that it was irrelevant.
"I must have more." But what for? To deny death? We will all die someday. To prove oneself to some other neurotic figure in one's life, who also clings to excess wealth, power, and/or privilege for a sense of self-worth? This neurosis feeds itself with success: when the greedy get what they want, their drive is psychologically reinforced, and their coffers, their means to run roughshod over human beings and the planet in pursuit of even more, have grown larger.
In a hypothetical world where people have been brought up to believe that the role of a human being is to care for other human beings, one will have the security of knowing that others will help one to look after oneself, and this will give the individual the freedom to reciprocate, taking care of others, knowing that this is the fabric that enables human existence to not just continue, but thrive. In a competitive world, the role model one sees is to compete. If the competition is harsh, one must be harsh, or such is the feeling one gets.
Our world is a blend of these hypothetical worlds, but competition has been exalted and then spun out of control, so that the rich are in a state of desperate neurosis, while the poor are increasingly in a state simply of desperation. If we continue this way, we will destroy ourselves. And yet, this is only a small piece of the puzzle.
Friday, July 15, 2005
BBC: Muslim leaders in call for action
 Muslims protest against terror at a rally in Leeds |
Click on the title for full story.
Thank you to these leaders -- very nice to find this after my last rave a few minutes ago!
And the World Goes a Little Blinder
And now I hear that someone started a fire in the Islamic Center mosque in our peaceful little hamlet of Bloomington. It was at night, so no one was hurt, thankfully. The leader of the mosque has gone out of his way to say that he condemns both this firebombing and the recent bombings in London, and that the Islamic community and the Bloomington community at large get along well. I agree with every word. But some fools had to do this anyway, though Bloomington Muslims had about as much to do with London or 9/11 as local Christians had to do with the Crusades or the Inquisition.
Let me reiterate the quote from Asimov: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." You local boys (girls??), you firebombers -- do you know who blew themselves up in London? Ignorant kids just like yourselves, although probably guided by a few more experienced -- yet still ignorant -- folks with more connections to create more impressive devices and orchestrate a media event. They gave you an excuse for more of the same, so now perhaps you've given them an excuse for still more of the same. It was apparent to me as a nine year old, reading a book about ancient Scottish klan wars (no offense to today's Scots!), that this type of eye for an eye behavior was both a continuing horror and an exercise in futility. Then, a couple of decades back, I begin to perceive that the same thing was happening in Israel/Palestine and in Northern Ireland. Then 9/11, followed by Bush's forays into Afghanistan and Iraq. Who do terrorists -- whether "Islamic radicals" or "radical right-wing Republicans" or whoever -- think they're benefitting? They're just digging a deeper hole for everyone, including those they claim to be representing. There are always legitimate issues to be discussed, sometimes very serious ones pertaining to grave injustices, but violence helps no one.
So who are the competent, who do not need to resort to violence? Well, I'm not sure that the fellow in Asimov's Foundation novels who uttered that line is the best role model -- there was a sort of a neo-Machiavellian storyline, as I recall. But the people who do strike me as the epitome of highly competent non-violent activists are Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King. Gandhi was instrumental in freeing India from the British raj by harnessing the power of love -- as he himself would have understood his actions. He refused, condemned and sometimes fasted against violence in any form, but took direct and dramatic action to illustrate the will and resolve, as well as the plight, of his people. One can easily get a taste of an understanding of Gandhi through the 1982 movie bearing his name, although more study would be helpful for any serious activists. King was an admirer of Gandhi's methods, and his marches and sit-ins paved the way for anti-discriminatory legislation, while his speeches continue to echo in our hearts to this day.
I personally don't have as solid reference points in the Islamic traditions, but a search on Google for islam and non-violence quickly turned up this excellent article, reminiscent of Gandhi's point of view, near the top of 150,000 hits:
Non-Violence and Islam by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Coincidentally, the website is associated with another "Islamic Centre", located in India.
If one cares about God and Love, as Gandhi and King did, and author Khan does, it is assuredly better to rely on non-violence than violence. We tend to justify violence by saying that there is no other way, that we are dealing with hopelessly bad people (who after being knocked about a bit will, along with their friends, consider us hopelessly bad people). But if we have any kind of faith -- mine is a bit abstract, so I think even more so if you are truly religious in a spiritually connected way -- then it must be true that there is a better way, and that it can and will win. And for those who have no faith left at all, who have turned cynical, a bit Machiavellian perhaps, nevertheless I say that violence is but a blunt club and you are only smashing things when you resort to it. A violent solution to any problem will only disillusion you once again, as it did in Vietnam, as it is doing in Iraq, in Israel, and now across the world, as the world keeps going a little blinder. But there is hope here, as more people grow disillusioned and frustrated with leaders from Osama bin Laden to George W. Bush, as more people stand up for justice (millions of people physically attended Live8, to say nothing of watching in on TV -- we can only hope that there consciousness was raised a little! Mine was!), as more people disown violence on every side and realize that the greater community (on every side) wishes to live in peace with justice, although we must work our way out of a system that is rife with violence and injustice, some intentional and some systemic.
Let me reiterate the quote from Asimov: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." You local boys (girls??), you firebombers -- do you know who blew themselves up in London? Ignorant kids just like yourselves, although probably guided by a few more experienced -- yet still ignorant -- folks with more connections to create more impressive devices and orchestrate a media event. They gave you an excuse for more of the same, so now perhaps you've given them an excuse for still more of the same. It was apparent to me as a nine year old, reading a book about ancient Scottish klan wars (no offense to today's Scots!), that this type of eye for an eye behavior was both a continuing horror and an exercise in futility. Then, a couple of decades back, I begin to perceive that the same thing was happening in Israel/Palestine and in Northern Ireland. Then 9/11, followed by Bush's forays into Afghanistan and Iraq. Who do terrorists -- whether "Islamic radicals" or "radical right-wing Republicans" or whoever -- think they're benefitting? They're just digging a deeper hole for everyone, including those they claim to be representing. There are always legitimate issues to be discussed, sometimes very serious ones pertaining to grave injustices, but violence helps no one.
So who are the competent, who do not need to resort to violence? Well, I'm not sure that the fellow in Asimov's Foundation novels who uttered that line is the best role model -- there was a sort of a neo-Machiavellian storyline, as I recall. But the people who do strike me as the epitome of highly competent non-violent activists are Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King. Gandhi was instrumental in freeing India from the British raj by harnessing the power of love -- as he himself would have understood his actions. He refused, condemned and sometimes fasted against violence in any form, but took direct and dramatic action to illustrate the will and resolve, as well as the plight, of his people. One can easily get a taste of an understanding of Gandhi through the 1982 movie bearing his name, although more study would be helpful for any serious activists. King was an admirer of Gandhi's methods, and his marches and sit-ins paved the way for anti-discriminatory legislation, while his speeches continue to echo in our hearts to this day.
I personally don't have as solid reference points in the Islamic traditions, but a search on Google for islam and non-violence quickly turned up this excellent article, reminiscent of Gandhi's point of view, near the top of 150,000 hits:
Non-Violence and Islam by Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. Coincidentally, the website is associated with another "Islamic Centre", located in India.
If one cares about God and Love, as Gandhi and King did, and author Khan does, it is assuredly better to rely on non-violence than violence. We tend to justify violence by saying that there is no other way, that we are dealing with hopelessly bad people (who after being knocked about a bit will, along with their friends, consider us hopelessly bad people). But if we have any kind of faith -- mine is a bit abstract, so I think even more so if you are truly religious in a spiritually connected way -- then it must be true that there is a better way, and that it can and will win. And for those who have no faith left at all, who have turned cynical, a bit Machiavellian perhaps, nevertheless I say that violence is but a blunt club and you are only smashing things when you resort to it. A violent solution to any problem will only disillusion you once again, as it did in Vietnam, as it is doing in Iraq, in Israel, and now across the world, as the world keeps going a little blinder. But there is hope here, as more people grow disillusioned and frustrated with leaders from Osama bin Laden to George W. Bush, as more people stand up for justice (millions of people physically attended Live8, to say nothing of watching in on TV -- we can only hope that there consciousness was raised a little! Mine was!), as more people disown violence on every side and realize that the greater community (on every side) wishes to live in peace with justice, although we must work our way out of a system that is rife with violence and injustice, some intentional and some systemic.
Friday, July 08, 2005
Ethics and Efficacy
For the moment, other than obvious anger and sorrow, my response to the bombings in London, and to the past four years since "9/11", is simply to reference two of my favorite quotes. These should be given due consideration by those from any quarter, whether government or rebel, who are contemplating immoderate actions:
"An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind." --Mahatma Gandhi
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." --Isaac Asimov, in the Foundation trilogy
"An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind." --Mahatma Gandhi
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." --Isaac Asimov, in the Foundation trilogy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)