Claire Villarreal: Violence effective in solving real proble

[Claire V]

Violence: When is it appropriate? and by whose authority?


I'd like to rephrase this question and address a related question: Is violence effective in solving real-world problems? What about non-violence?

To begin with, I'm a hard-core Gandhi fan, so my basic take on violence is Gandhi-inspired: Violence in any form is not a healthy endeavor, and given the choice of a violent or a non-violent response to a given situation, the non-violent response is always superior. BUT even greater than the question of violence, for Gandhi, was the duty of the individual to resist evil. He believed it was even worse to permit evil than to oppose it by force of arms. Gandhi lived through World War II and the horrors of the Nazi regime, and he was repeatedly asked whether non-violence resistance could succeed against someone like Hitler; his answer was that it would involve great sacrifices, but it could be done. And there were non-violent resisters, but not on the large scale Gandhi had in mind when he gave his answer.

The 21st century has already seen enough of violence and non-violence to begin to answer the question for ourselves, empirically. Has violence worked for al-Qaeda? Yes and no. It's raised awareness of their group and their cause, and it's goaded the US into tremendous tactical blunders that have not only lost us the international goodwill we received in the wake of Sept. 11 but also (in the minds of many) cast Osama bin Laden as David opposing our Goliath, gotten us entangled in ancient hatreds and sectarian conflicts in Iraq, and lost us much of the credibility and respect the US once enjoyed from the international community. All of this, by the way, comes as a result of our bumbling and ill-informed use of violence to counter violence. On the other hand, al-Qaeda's own violence against its fellow Muslims has increasingly isolated it from its bases of local support. At the least, then, we can conclude that violence is a dangerous weapon, as liable in the long run to harm the hand that wields it as to harm its intended victim. We can unequivocally say that answering violence with violence does not lead to peace, and we can further say that ideologically-driven violence is probably the most dangerous form of all organized violent behavior.

On the other hand, the late 20th and early 21st centuries have also offered us the example of the Tibetans and their leader, the Dalai Lama. Here we can pose the question, has non-violence worked for the Tibetans? Again, one gets a mixed answer. Here's how non-violence has not worked for the Tibetans: They haven't been able to reclaim their homeland, and they're losing ground against the vast might of China as the PRC pursues its policy of cultural genocide against what's left of Tibet. At this point they seem unlikely ever to regain freedom, and even genuine autonomy seems sadly ambitious. On the other hand, the Tibetans' long struggle against the Communist Chinese government has garnered international recognition and support--moral if not politically substantial. As we weigh the success of the Tibetans' struggle, it's important to remember that for all their heartbreaking losses in this struggle, things could be much worse. The Uighurs (ever heard of them?) are an ancient indigenous group in far western China who stuck with violent methods of resistance when the Red Army invaded their territory in the early 1950's, and though they're still recognized as a minority group within China, their traditional way of life--and even their ethnic majority in their own provinces--has already been washed away by a sea of Han Chinese immigrants. No international awareness, no non-violent resistance--effectively, no Uighur culture. Once again, then, we have a mixed bag of successes and disappointments for the Tibetans.

However, this simple "tally sheet" approach, listing so many strengths for violence vs. so many for non-violence, fails to capture an essential difference between the two approaches: What effect has Osama bin Laden had on the world, and what effect has the Dalai Lama had? Considered this way, the comparison becomes obvious. Bin Laden, through his direct leadership role in al-Qaeda, through his recorded messages to his followers and to the world, by his very presence and what he represents, has helped to spread terror, uncertainty, intolerance, and hatred through the world. The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, through his unofficial role as spokesman for the Tibetan people and through his official capacity as a Buddhist monk, through his teachings, writings, and message for the world--again, by his presence and what he represents--has spread peace, mutual respect, and understanding.

Realistically speaking, violence will always be called for, usually by an ideologue (religious or secular) with power to gain through harming others. I hope that the sane peoples of the world will always have a Dalai Lama to counter that call to violence with a call to compassion.

[bangde92]

Physical Activities

Some individuals have been created to excel at careers in golf. r9 irons These are the natural physical activities enthusiasts which are dedicated to help Ishiner the game and are giving with not a little bit associated with skill.