Since the meathead crowd is so tumescent with the notion that a high concentration of pacifists is an invitation to an asswhupping by an Evil Dictator, they probably shouldn’t mind pointing out a few occasions where that’s happened.
Rwanda?
Isolationism. It was political calculation of non-involvement by Clinton, from back when Spreading Freedom and Liberty wasn’t part of the GOP agenda.
Tibet?
Nope. I dispute the notion that a rigidly feudal society presided over by a theocratic regime with a history of slaughtering its religious opponents could be accurately called “pacifist.” There was an armed resistance movement, but Tibetan society was so ass-backwards that they never had a prayer of waging any kind of extended war against the PLA.
The Munich Agreement?
Appeasement. Basically, Chamberlain sacrificied Chechoslovakia to save Britain’s collective ass, which is hardly pacifist.
No, it wouldn’t be an act of aggression to shield the victim with your own body. But, you see, if the attacker kills you and then proceeds to kill his originally intended victim, then you actually haven’t done anything to protect the victim. ** Attacking the aggressor may in many cases be a much more practical course of action when it comes to protecting the victim. ** The problem I have with pacifism is that it assumes that there can’t possibly be any greater evil than the taking of a human life, not even when the taking of a life can clearly forestall some far greater evil. And that doesn’t strike me as some kind of profound commitment to moral principle. That strikes me as some kind of shallow, narcissistic obsession with one’s own moral purity rather than with ** doing what is right. **
Pacifists have no particular obligation to be consistent in their beliefs, nor do all pacifists hold the same beliefs. “Pacifism” is a range of beliefs, just like anything else, and believe it or not the definition of “Pacifist” isn’t decided by you.
Pacifists are idealists. Peace in an ideal. Obviously we’ve sat down and though “Gee whiz, that isn’t really gonna work.” There are always going to be people who want to fight, for good and for evil. But we don’t have to be them.
We are not presidents. We are not kings. We could not make pacifism in to a country-wide policy even if we wanted to. So we do what we can- hold up an ideal as a reminder that there is something to strive for and that all is not just endless dumb struggle. What is the point of having an ideal if nobody believes in it? There is a time for war and a time for peace. And there are people out there to commit war and people out there to commit peace.
Yeah, I confess that they were chosen rather flippantly (hence the question marks). Nonetheless, the point itself was intended rather seriously; pacifistic communities, by their nature, should be perfect breeding grounds for despots. You argue that pacifism is ultimately insupportable because it is human nature to prey on each other. This certainly may be the case; but if so, then surely the predators that occur spontaneously in rigorously pacifist societies would flourish most successfully, due to the total lack of violent resistance. Yet somehow the media has overlooked the ongoing battle between the Feds and the Amish Mafia.
It’s simply not true that “the Amish can live as pacifists because many other Americans don’t.” The Amish can live as pacifists regardless of whether any other Americans do or not. Whether they live long or successfully under different circumstances is their choice to make, and I freely grant that if the survival of the American nation ever hinges on a take-no-prisoners charge by the Amish, the country is probably screwed. However, I suspect that when America finally goes the way of all empires, future historians won’t blame the Amish.
Sorry, Sven. All I’m getting here is that you don’t care about the practical consequences of your supposed moral principles. All you care about is ideological purity. And that, to me, is monstrous.
Yes, you have. You’ve sacrificed your own life, selflessly, in defence of another person.
What if you fight the attacker, and you lose? Then he kills you and the victim anyway? Have you therefore done nothing to protect the victim? There’s a violent and a non-violent way to confront an attacker, neither of which has a guarantee of success. Your example seems to presume that the attacker is some sort of a robot, like a runaway bus, that can’t be swayed by example or pity or mercy or conscience or anything but physical force. I’m guessing that this is why pacifism only applies to people, not to killer robots or buses.
Agreed. Practicality versus morality can be a tough choice to make. From a strictly practical standpoint, the surest way to protect the victim is to kill the attacker, yes?* Then they can’t ever attack the victim again. The neat thing about this solution is that it’s equally effective for any degree of conflict. Remember, if you choose to use nonlethal force, you’re leaving the possibility open that the attacker might be able to continue his assault.
Or, possibly, pacifists believe that pursuing nonviolent resolution to conflict is doing what is right. To be fair, it seems that most non-pacifists believe this as well, up to a point, but they reserve the right to give up if it gets too difficult.
*–Or is it “shoot the hostage?” God, I hate that movie.
I want to expound on the ‘asshattery’ in the previous comment thusly: Half the reason these people are all stirred up is because of all the “Crusaders” coming in and meddling in their Islamic paradise. They’ve spelled it out for us, they don’t want whitey in their holy lands. Any peacemaker who is truly sensitive to how we need to behave toward these people is going to realize that no Muslim is going to say “I just know in my heart there are good Christians out there, what we need is a few of them to come in and show their love and charity.” Pure asshattery. These guys were just mugging for the camera. If they really wanted to make a difference and demonstrate sincerity, they should have made their protest in a place where it’s really dangerous to express your opinion, like in front of the white house.
Who said that I don’t care about the practical consequences? I’ve carefully evaluated them. There are none. I have no political power. I have never experienced violence and it is fairly unlikely that I will experience a violent situation where I have a chance at fighting back. And if I do, I’m not all that principled and there is a good chance I’d fight back on instinct alone. There is no purity to my beliefs, just hope. Somebody has to hope around here.
You should have left well enough alone. When was the last time a Quaker was murdered in front of the White House?
I am vaguely pacifistic, with the knowledge that I will use force to defend myself and/or to defend others from immediate harm. Nevertheless, I give true pacifists such as these folks full points for putting their bodies where their mouth is. I believe that they would truly have been regretful had anyone been killed during their rescue, and though that is a belief I cannot aspire to, it is a belief I can admire.
I direct you to the Globe and Mail article that I posted on the first page of this thread:
I don’t know precisely what those guys were doing over there, nor what reaction their work received from the ordinary folk they interacted with. Neither do you. I expect you know almost nothing about it, actually. Except, you know, that it was pure asshattery, mugging for the camera.
Now I’m curious, and I’m going to see what I can find out about what they were actually doing with these teams. Knowing what I do about Quakers, I’m betting there was very little mugging for cameras involved, though.
Interesting. I tend to view the politicians on the right in the United States as using religious fundamentalism to manipulate the people to serve one’s own political ends – especially in recent years. I’ve never thought of genuine peacemakers as misrepresenting the Prince of Peace.
I wouldn’t dream of questioning the motives of the Quakers who put themselves in such a dangerous situation as these did in Iraq. (It does put holes in the notion that pacifists are cowards.)
Whose morals are you concerned with in choosing to do what is right? Are you more interested in choosing what is right for someone else?
Pacifists can certainly defend themselves and others. Some study akido which allows one to neutralize the force of the attack. Akido means “Way of Spirit Harmony.” It is purely defensive.
Much the same as the govts of the coalition of the willing; “We must free the Iraqi people from their despotic leader”, “the Iraqi people will love freedom and therefore love us”, “We must spread democracy because democracy makes peoples lives better”, “We must invade Iraq to help free the world from terrorism”.
Nice words/sentiments (and I know they are not quotes, just my summation of the goals). I think I will judge them on their actions and the outcome rather then the words.
Is Mohammed Ordinary better off without Sadam? Can his children walk to school without fear of being caught up in an act of violence? Can Mrs Mohammed Ordinary go shopping without fear? Can the Ordinaries depend on the supply of safe water and reliable power supply? Does Mr Mohammed Ordinary have a job? Does the fact that Iraq now has an elected govt fill the Ordinaries with joy and make it possible to sleep peacefully at night knowing democracy is looking after them? Are they filled with joy at the fact that there would probably be a civil war if it wern’t for the presence of foreign troops? Are they overjoyed that those foreign troops have no idea when they will leave?
Before the four were kidnapped I didn’t know they were there, it is likely few outside their organisation did. They were not there to highlight their beliefs, they were there to help people. Once they were rescued they continued to state their beliefs. They had every reason to turn on those who had abducted them but they didn’t. They were rescued by troops, I’m sure they are grateful but why should they change there beliefs? If an Iraqi against the invasion is taken prisoner is he supposed to suddenly agree with the enemy? If an American soldier is abducted is he suddenly supposed to agree with the enemy?
Well done to those who rescued them and WELL DONE to them for sticking by their beliefs.
It doesn’t seem to me that the hostages or their organaization believe the people who rescued them also caused them to be kidnapped. I’m not sure where you get that.
I think someone from their group (CP?) said/wrote that the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the USA/GB/others has resulted in kidnappings such as the kidnapping of the members of their group.
My guess is that the troops involved in the rescue had never even heard of this group before they had members kidnapped and therefore could not have played any part in the kidnapping. I don’t think anyone believes or has claimed that the rescuers sought to get the dudes taken hostage.
It’s one thing to be willing to use deadly force to defend one’s self, loved ones, or community, which I am. And I’ve defended myself from violent criminals, something I would not care to repeat or even think about. However, the invective you flung at people who have nothing to do with you gave me the impression that you’re harboring an unhealthy amount of anger. If you had simply stated your position differently, I would have likely agreed with you.
Let me be clear: I am not a pacifist. I believe force is sometimes necessary for defense, deterrence and ensuring peace and stability. But it is all too often used imprudently, and cheered on as if it was a football game.
Ironically enough, Milosevic was ousted mostly due to a nonviolent student-led movement. Pacifism does not in any way preclude protecting the innocent or fighting for a cause. I daresay that armed rebellion would have ended bloodily indeed, but Serbian students and eventually other citizens were able to force elections without resorting to violent action.
India and Ghandi, Denmark in WWII, the American civil rights movement, Chile in the 1970’s, Serbia in 2000, and there are plenty of other examples - nonviolent action has a long and successful track record of working for justice and social change, often succeeding where violence has previously failed. It hasn’t gotten the attention that flashier, more orthodox military or other violent action has, but it certainly doesn’t appear to be any less successful, especially since it doesn’t have nearly the same propensity for triggering vengeance-driven endemic violence.
Pacifists and nonviolent movements get a bad rap, and this puzzles me. It works, it does so in a way that unites people instead of dividing them, and furthermore, it’s fucking hard. To participate in a movement like Ghandi’s or those Serbian students’ requires conviction and courage. The movements themselves require organization and a level of strategy to make any general proud. The danger of death or at least imprisonment are VERY real in some movements. Pacifist nonviolent action is not the route of a coward, not if they want to make a difference.
Look, I’m not saying that it always works or is always appropriate, but I’m a little bit tired of all the bullshit. If you still want to argue against pacifism, that’s fine, but argue against the real thing, which DOES have principles and DOES have a success stories, not this pathetically vulnerable straw man that you’ve constructed for your walloping pleasure. As for myself, I’m living proof that pacifism represents a range of beliefs. I’m a birthright Quaker who grew up attending meeting. I also happen not to be the strictest pacifist around; I think that a police force, regulated and monitored but strong, is a necessary condition of keeping the peace in a community, especially a large one. I also think that it is justified to use violence in personal defense, as necessary, though running away is preferred when possible (this is a pragmatic assessment: I, for example am small and fast. My chances of successfully escaping are much greater than my chances of handing out a beat-down to my assailant). I deeply admire those that take their beliefs to the extent of never practicing violence. I do not have that level of commitment. These people are quite capable of protecting and defending others, but I will readily agree that they are sacrificing a certain element of pragmatism in the options open to them.
You know, pacifists can’t afford to be foolish about the way the world works. There will always be bad people in the world - people who want to harm, oppress or kill others. That’s obviously true. That doesn’t mean that there is no other means to fight back but with violence. A lot of the kids I grew up with would say “there’s no way I would join the military or fight in a war, because I know I couldn’t kill somebody.” You might dismiss this as foolish - and I agree completely. I have a moral opposition to violence because in part because I KNOW that I am quite capable of it, that I am human like anyone else, and that this can lead me to do terrible things. I don’t want to do terrible things, but I do want to stop other people from doing them. I also don’t want to die, which is an obvious advantage to being opposed to military service, but I would also like to hope that, when the chips go down, that I would be willing to lay down my life for what I believe in, like those Christian peacemaker teams. We all have an obligation to fight for what’s right, and a pacifist who isn’t willing to put herself in harm’s way for her beliefs is, IMO, not really doing it right. No one said it had to be easy, you know.
I suspect you and the majority of folks in this thread had no idea that the CPT were even in Iraq until Tom Fox was abducted.
The CPT in Iraq were the first to expose the abuses in Abu Ghraib.
Tom Fox also worked very hard with the hospitals in Falluja, to bring medical supplies in for the Iraq people. He had worked in Palestine prior to going to Iraq and was highly regarded by many Moslem organizations there. The Moslem religious community did not regard them as Crusaders.
From statements issued when Fox was abducted:
(Boldening mine)
The CPT are also active in other countries.
From CPT in Iraq Statement of Conviction, March 2005:
(Boldening mine)
Pacifism is a subset of a greater belief system, at least among the Friends.
It is not an end unto itself but rather a part of how we believe we are to live in accordance with the Light.
Not all Quakers reject the concept of self defense either.
A small group of Quakers has stood vigil in protest of the war every Friday in Washington.
I decided I wanted to address the allegation that the CPT folks were “mugging for the camera,” also, since it reveals a misunderstanding about how Quakers go about these missions. Quakers are very deliberate about examining their leadings and being sure that they are spirit-led and not selfishly motivated. The process for being given a meeting’s blessing for such a mission is self-reflective and lengthy enough (generally) to allow the person time to really examine their feelings and motivation. Quakers take this very seriously. It’s not impossible for someone to end up say, in Iraq, just to mug for the cameras - Friends are humans, too - but most Friends really deserve better even than the benefit of the doubt in cases like this.