There aren’t many people who are true, 100% pacifists - that is, the view that military war is *never *the right course of action - (I’m not sure if Jeanette Rankin would have fit this definition) - but I would like to ask what they would suggest if a country is militarily invaded. Not just bombed, i.e., Pearl Harbor, but invaded with intention of full conquest (i.e., Poland invaded by Germany).
Should the country just lie down and let itself be conquered?
What if the invader has genocidal intentions?
Run away, non-violent civil disobedience / non-cooperation, PR outreach to other countries, or lay down and die.
I don’t think Poland fighting back against Germany did it much good. Do you?
I’m not a pacifist, but if I was I’d make a few points:
– It is quite rare that war turns out to have been a good idea.
– When you start fighting, you can’t know this is one of those rare times.
As for actual true pacifists, they, like militarists, come in varying flavors. Some are just against war. Others are against almost all attempts to force an outcome, including lawsuits and voting.
Sue Hitler?
Leave Adolf’s sister out of it.
I suppose if our “true” pacifist believed in any kind of eternal afterlife dependent on behaviour in this life, I could understand a reaction of simply allowing lying down and allowing conquerors in, even to the point of genocide.
That seems unlikely, when it comes down to the guy being dragged towards the oven.
In what sense?
I would not go peacefully dragged to the oven.
If you’re not a believer in an eternal afterlife which you can go to depending on how you act in this life; I’m not surprised. I’m not one either, and I suspect I wouldn’t go quietly.
Resistance is not the same as war.
Well, Gandhi’s suggestion to the Jews of Germany was that they go gladly to their deaths, if need be, and treat it as a matter of joy.
I don’t really understand pacifists.
Gandhi doesn’t speak for all pacifists.
I’m all for any action that isn’t premeditated to cause human death - blowing infrastructure shit up real good, running away and, lastly, dying for my belief in not killing are all options, but going gladly to my death isn’t.
During the War of 1812 ---- which was admittedly a very silly war — when the British came down from the north, the Quakers, who had no liking for the British side ( or misliking: the US warmongers were mostly southern; whilst the north-eastern states contemplated secession in opposition to the war ( which was, as I said, very silly ), offered them food and shelter, as equally as they would to US forces.
They disapproved of both.
There were Quakers killed at Dachau, and no doubt at other camps. I’m not able to find a reference online for what I recall reading many years: that they died as they had lived, refusing to compromise their principle of non-violence (and that they had calmly admonished the guards, who were spurred on to greater cruelties as a result).
I’m not sure how many pacifists feel it’s a condition for salvation. I don’t know of any other quakers who do things because of salvation.
That seems to be two different arguments - whether the behaviour involved in not resisting is necessary or helpful for the chances of a good afterlife (or that the behaviour involved in resisting might work against that), and then whether that afterlife is enough of a motivation to affect that behaviour in the first place.
To which of course the first depends on the particulars of faith, and the second on the value of that good afterlife. Personally speaking, I would guess that if I believed in an eternal, good afterlife, I don’t think I’d want to jeopardise my (or other’s) admittance, and if resisting a conquering army involved potentially theologically problematic behaviour, I could see how “true” pacifism would be a good idea.
Ask the guys in Tibet. That’s probably the poster child for this sort of thing, since we can look to see what’s actually happened (though they aren’t 100% non-violent). Basically, the Chinese have crushed their culture, attempted to colonize them with their own people, destroyed or corrupted their government (by appointing the 2nd highest position, the something Lama…Panchen?..as a Chinese puppet, after the kid who had reincarnated to that roll mysteriously disappeared, and by saying you can’t reincarnate unless you get state approval…something that western media takes as a funny little bit of silliness but is really aimed at the Dalai lama, etc etc). Estimates are that something between several hundreds of thousands to over a million depending on who’s estimates you believe have been killed, thousands of temples and cultural sites have been destroyed, and it’s illegal to even speak the native language there. Eventually, there will be no Tibetan culture or people anymore…they will just be disgruntled Chinese, kind of like in the rest of the country.
So…there is your model. Doesn’t seem like there is much the Tibetans could have done or could do today, especially since no one seems to care in the international community. You’ll see someone with a Free Tibet! tee shirt every once in a while, but by and large folks don’t know or care what’s happening there (still happening there), and folks seem to give China a pass on all of the evil, nasty shit they do while focusing on the supposed good things.
Except in the example of the Tibetans, it’s not clear that a military response to the Chinese annexation would have done much good either. The Tibetans didn’t have a modern army to resist with. If you think the Tibetans should be suicide bombing Chinese police stations and such, it’s not clear that those actions would result in a better result for the Tibetan people. China wouldn’t be shy about collective punishment. The idea for such resistance is to make the invader pay a price for the conquest, until they eventually decide it’s not worth it and they pack up and head home. It’s a tactic that can work against a country involved in a neocolonial adventure on the other side of the world.
Except China knows exactly why it is in Tibet, and isn’t going to leave any time soon.
It’s not like non-violent resistance is a miracle tactic that always results in victory. Plenty of non-violent resistance movements get crushed. Violent resistance isn’t a guaranteed tactic either as I’m sure you’re aware.
I don’t believe that either of these is a concern for most FGC quakers and many FUM quakers. Salvation just isn’t much of a motivating factor for anything. Of course that’s going to vary wildly with the individual, as much as feelings about violence will vary. Not having a doctrine will do that.