“In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic.”
–Richard Choen, a Washington Post columnist, on his support for the invasion of Iraq.
Is violence really the answer to changing governments? Perhaps. Surely violence and militaristic action getting things done but is it really the best way? When putting people in immanent danger they tend to react. There is collateral damage though. In the case of revolution, it is both peoples’ lives and the ecosystems that get damaged. How therapeutic are the sounds of three hundred and eighty bombs (Klein 419). Is the image of a war-torn environment really as serene as clear flowing rivers and natural foliage? I don’t think so. Violence is only therapeutic to an individual who doesn’t know the meanings of violence, or to someone in which violence is all they’ve ever known. Sorry Mr. Choen but you are wrong.
War is an old answer in my book. People called for an end of war during the Vietnam War. Here we are 40 years later and more countries are feeling the effects of war then ever before. Yes this is a time of great uprisings and revolutions. It is great to see people stepping into their power and taking back their land and their governments. At the same time, it is sad to see that the power of a countries people needs to be met with such force when they ask for change. The United States constitution starts out with “we the people…”. I don’t know for other counties what their mission statements contain but I wouldn’t doubt there that far of from ours. When the people say enough it enough, this declaration of change should not be confronted with such extreme violence.
But it so often is. As we’ve been seeing in Egypt, Jordan, and Libya violence is often the answer to confrontation. There are many causalities. People are killed. Cultures and histories are lost by looting and destruction of museums and libraries. Ecosystems destroyed by fires and bombings. War is tragedy and the collateral damage seems to be worth it every time. I really wish to see a peaceful revolution someday. I really believe it can be done. Maybe this is cause I don’t wish to make human life a sacrifice. Life is sacred enough without it being used as a blood-offering to the gods. I’m an idealist I know but for now I feel that my ideals for a better, more peaceful earth are the only things keeping me sane while reading the newspapers.
2 comments:
I, too, wish revolution could be done in peace. But I think it is (very sadly) incompatible with the world we live in. In fact, I think they (the present insane institutions which govern most of the world) bank on the hope that the oppressed will avoid uprising out of fear of violence. The unfortunate truth is, twisted eco-system-destroying governments will not come down anytime soon if the people are content to simply march down streets carrying pickets and signs and then go home quietly after a few hours.
As long as the oppressed can be convinced that violent uprising is to be avoided at all costs, the tyrants can go on oppressing them in leisure.
Take for example Egypt and Libya: The only reason Egypt's revolution was relatively peaceful is because the military backed the revolutionaries. Not so in Libya, and thus we see the violent war now taking place.
And yes, it is very sad.
"Violence is only therapeutic to an individual who doesn’t know the meanings of violence, or to someone in which violence is all they’ve ever known."
Amen. In the USA, we are often all talk and no humanity. Violence happens, yes, but it is never truly justifiable. It's something that is dealt with, but should never be lauded or padded over. It is easy for the wealthy to be moral relativists, making all sorts of wild philosophical claims in their white living rooms with glasses of wine in their hands -- it is different when it is your child. Do fashionable ethics hold up when it is your baby in the war zone? Let's ask congress.
Thanks again for your words!
Post a Comment