|
Defense of Non-violence
9-11-01
Terrorism
Alternatives to War
A Reply to Kathleen Parker -- Why Pacifism
by George Amoss
Kathleen Parker's article reveals some fundamental misconceptions
about pacifism. First, as examples of pacifists she offers "5,000 people sitting
at their desks in the World Trade Center" and "20,000 pacifists squatting
in the city of Washington, D.C." Those are images designed to conjure a picture
of relatively passive people who are not directly confronting a threatening force.
Pacifism is not "passivism": Gandhi did not liberate India simply by sitting
around. The non-violent power that produced radical change in India and later in
the United States was an active power directed against violent people who had the
law on their side.
Second, Ms. Parker assumes that pacifism won't "work" against terrorism.
That begs the question of the meaning of "work" and is backed by no evidence.
Non-violent resistance has been successfully used to free the oppressed and to save
innocent lives not only against British imperialists and American bigots but also
against Nazi butchers as well. If what we want is violence, then war is the only
thing that "works." But if what we want is peace, then non-violent resistance
is the only large-scale means of achieving our goal. War kills many innocent people.
The fact that "they started it" (again begging questions: who are "they,"
and what is "it"?) does not make moral our killing of children and other
innocents, even if we believe it to be in self-defense. If Ms. Palmer believes that
morality should be tossed out the window when one's country is harmed by terrorists,
she should say so plainly.
Third, she charges pacifists with enjoying freedom that someone else's violence
and blood have purchased. Obviously, pacifists, who number veterans among them, have
the same freedoms that everyone else in this country has, but the idea that, because
of their opinions, they somehow do not "deserve" such freedoms is absurd
and dangerous. Were our freedoms purchased with blood? Some were. Was the spilling
of blood necessary? Perhaps some bloodshed was necessary, but not in war. Non-violent
resistance could have acquired the same freedoms, and committed pacifists are willing
to shed their blood in such active resistance. What they are not willing to do is
shed the blood of others, especially the many innocents who inevitably are killed
in war.
Finally, Ms. Palmer asserts that "Pacifism in the face of terrorism is
strictly an emotional response." On the contrary, retaliatory violence is the
emotional response: "kill or be killed" is a reflex, not the result of
a logical analysis. Non-violent resistance to evil is possible only for those who
have worked to overcome their visceral reactions of fear and anger and to give priority
to their respect for human life. Violence is not a "necessity," even in
times of terrorism, if a society has the vision and the courage to use non-violent
alternatives to paying or forcing its young people to kill and die.
George Amoss Jr.
Editor, Universalist Friends
Quaker Electronic Archive:http://www.qis.net/~daruma/
Bread Not Bombs: http://www.breadnotbombs.org
|