![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Heroes live, cowards die
This whole rant is apropos of this thread on the Forge. Ron has this bit where he says this:
I'm talking about the straightforward and undeniable observation that asserting one's position through violence is absolutely required in real life. No ifs. No arguments. No possible bullshit denials. We all know that "finding one's warrior" is part of living life - the alternative is living in some form of fear.
Yes, pacifists too. That's a matter of finding someone who will be the warrior for you. Without machine guns emplaced somewhere, no Mother Theresa.
I'm not going to mince words around this. This is macho bullshit in its purest form.
The opposite of fear is not violence. The opposite of fear is courage. That is what it means to find your "warrior within" and, frankly, if you need violence to do that, you are one pitiful sunnuvabitch. Courage isn't violence, and to confuse the two is to make yourself and every other man into a monster. More often than not, violence is cowardice.
Or, as I said in Vincent's post, I just can't bring myself to call a Quaker any less of a man.
Something I should clarify -- I am not a pacifist. We are not perfect people, we do not live in a perfect world. There may be a time when I will need to perform some act of violence, and I'm probably not even going to hesitate about it if I need it. But damned if I'm going to mistake that weakness for manliness, or that cowardice for courage.
Courage is about a lot of things which people mistake violence for -- it is about striving, about struggle, about confrontation, about difficulty, and about pain. Courage is the ability to look through the confusion of a desperate situation and see with perfect moral and rational clarity the right thing to do. Courage is having the will to do the right thing, even if it means your life, even if it means someone else's life. And not a scrap of that has anything to do with the wretched, miserable impulse to hurt other people and make yourself feel big.
Cowardice is courage's opposite, with all that entails. It is retreating from the right path because it is too hard, less fun, difficult to see. It is about giving into the suffering of life, not striving, about backing away from confrontation, about backstabbing, about avoiding pain, about purposefully clouding your own moral vision so that you can say "I didn't know" when they come to lay the blame. Cowardice is about doing the easy thing, even if it means your life, even if it means someone else's life. And that often has an awful lot to do with the wretched, miserable impulse to hurt other people and make yourself feel big.
Mother Theresa didn't walk the streets of Calcutta untouched because the crooks were afraid of someone else's machine gun emplacements, and to say that is an insult. She walked the streets of Calcutta because other people, even thugs, could see in her rightness, propriety, a sense of purpose and a sense of holy dignity that they could never violate. The Quakers didn't live in peace because of the Puritan's massacres and the Southerner's slavery, but in spite of them and opposed to them. Ghandi didn't have a militia backing him up, just a sense of human dignity, a helluva good organizational talent, some charisma, and the courage to never back down from the right path.
To say otherwise is a cowardly lie, and I will not stand it from anyone.
To be courageous is to live with moral certainty. To be a coward is to live in fear.
Sometimes, the most courageous thing to do is to take the hit. Sometimes, it is to get up and walk away as fast as you can. Sometimes, it is to say what they want you to say. Sometimes it is to pull the trigger. Sometimes it is to not pull the trigger. Sometimes it is to embrace the other man. Sometimes it is the say "I love you still." Sometimes it is to say "I will not countenance this." Sometime it is to just sit there and take it. Sometimes it is to cry uncle. Sometimes, it is to cry.
It's complicated, contextual.
But it has fuck to do with violence.
I'm talking about the straightforward and undeniable observation that asserting one's position through violence is absolutely required in real life. No ifs. No arguments. No possible bullshit denials. We all know that "finding one's warrior" is part of living life - the alternative is living in some form of fear.
Yes, pacifists too. That's a matter of finding someone who will be the warrior for you. Without machine guns emplaced somewhere, no Mother Theresa.
I'm not going to mince words around this. This is macho bullshit in its purest form.
The opposite of fear is not violence. The opposite of fear is courage. That is what it means to find your "warrior within" and, frankly, if you need violence to do that, you are one pitiful sunnuvabitch. Courage isn't violence, and to confuse the two is to make yourself and every other man into a monster. More often than not, violence is cowardice.
Or, as I said in Vincent's post, I just can't bring myself to call a Quaker any less of a man.
Something I should clarify -- I am not a pacifist. We are not perfect people, we do not live in a perfect world. There may be a time when I will need to perform some act of violence, and I'm probably not even going to hesitate about it if I need it. But damned if I'm going to mistake that weakness for manliness, or that cowardice for courage.
Courage is about a lot of things which people mistake violence for -- it is about striving, about struggle, about confrontation, about difficulty, and about pain. Courage is the ability to look through the confusion of a desperate situation and see with perfect moral and rational clarity the right thing to do. Courage is having the will to do the right thing, even if it means your life, even if it means someone else's life. And not a scrap of that has anything to do with the wretched, miserable impulse to hurt other people and make yourself feel big.
Cowardice is courage's opposite, with all that entails. It is retreating from the right path because it is too hard, less fun, difficult to see. It is about giving into the suffering of life, not striving, about backing away from confrontation, about backstabbing, about avoiding pain, about purposefully clouding your own moral vision so that you can say "I didn't know" when they come to lay the blame. Cowardice is about doing the easy thing, even if it means your life, even if it means someone else's life. And that often has an awful lot to do with the wretched, miserable impulse to hurt other people and make yourself feel big.
Mother Theresa didn't walk the streets of Calcutta untouched because the crooks were afraid of someone else's machine gun emplacements, and to say that is an insult. She walked the streets of Calcutta because other people, even thugs, could see in her rightness, propriety, a sense of purpose and a sense of holy dignity that they could never violate. The Quakers didn't live in peace because of the Puritan's massacres and the Southerner's slavery, but in spite of them and opposed to them. Ghandi didn't have a militia backing him up, just a sense of human dignity, a helluva good organizational talent, some charisma, and the courage to never back down from the right path.
To say otherwise is a cowardly lie, and I will not stand it from anyone.
To be courageous is to live with moral certainty. To be a coward is to live in fear.
Sometimes, the most courageous thing to do is to take the hit. Sometimes, it is to get up and walk away as fast as you can. Sometimes, it is to say what they want you to say. Sometimes it is to pull the trigger. Sometimes it is to not pull the trigger. Sometimes it is to embrace the other man. Sometimes it is the say "I love you still." Sometimes it is to say "I will not countenance this." Sometime it is to just sit there and take it. Sometimes it is to cry uncle. Sometimes, it is to cry.
It's complicated, contextual.
But it has fuck to do with violence.
no subject
I'll try (note 'try') to keep it brief.
I agree with:
Violence /= courage
Non-violence /= cowardice
Pacifism can = courage
I disagree with:
Willingness to do violence = weakness
The idea that pacifism has any chance of thriving without those willing to do violence for righteous causes.
Fact is, pacifism has two possible forms, one of which is courage, the other of which is cowardice. Some do no violence out of conviction, others do no violence out of fear. In either case, pacifism when confronted with violence will either break, run, or die unless there is someone, a warrior or a soldier, willing to do violence to protect the pacifist.
Mother Theresa wasn't harmed because she was holy? THAT is bullshit. Maybe some, possibly even most did not harm her because of her aura of sanctity, but there are always those who will do violence no matter unless counter-motivated through fear. Perhaps she never would have countenanced violence to protect her life, but whether she willed or no, the threat of violence against those who would do violence to her is a big factor in why she lived as long as she did.
"If you would have peace, prepare for war" isn't a bullshit saying, nor is "walk softly and carry a big stick". These are adages for those who don't want to do violence, who want peace, but are willing to respond with like as necessary to defend themselves and others.
Some would rather die than fight. That IS courage, I won't deny. Many would rather flee than fight. That's cowardice. Personally, I'd rather fight than die, or fight than flee; If you think this makes me a coward, then to hell with you.
no subject
When you say: "there are always those who will do violence no matter unless counter-motivated through fear" I disagree with you, not on the basis that I know you're wrong, but on the basis that I don't know you're right. But that's another discussion.
no subject
Thing is, I know I'm right. I know people who are violent by nature, held in check only by fear of imprisonment or death. If you don't know people like that, then you are fortunate and possibly sheltered. If you are a pacifist, then I hope that the police, myself and my fellow soldiers are able to afford you the luxury of never having to face violence. If we fail in that, then I hope you've the courage of your convictions, because they will be pressed unto death.
no subject
Ralph, It's Ben's LJ, man. He's allowed to go rant without first verifying Ron's meaning.
General: In a perfect world, violence would be abhorrent. But so long as there exist men who will do violence for less than noble causes, violence will remain a necessary and vital tool to protect and promote peaceful society. It should not always be the first resort, but likewise sometimes it should be, even must be.
Ron's comments: I gives a damn about. I haven't bothered reading the spawning discussion, my responses are purely based on things said in this thread. For the record however, I agree with what Ron said in general terms, and say that it was either unfortunately phrased, or deliberately phrased to be inflammatory, and I can't blame anyone for reacting badly; But I can and do hold people responsible for holding views I feel to be wrongheaded, just as I would expect any decent human being to do.
no subject
no subject
I am not ready to make the judgment of a person I know, "this person is violent by nature, held in check only by fear of imprisonment or death." There may well be people who I do not trust not to be violent, and around whom I would desire some kind of protection. There are definitely people my wife knows or knows of (she's a social worker and deals with mentally ill people all day and has come into some dangerous situations) whom I would not trust not to be violent. I'm not going to go a step further and say they're "violent by nature" and decide that the reason they're not violent at any given moment is fear of punishment. I do not know that to be true.
I don't think that I would trust fear of retaliation to protect me from a person whom I feared would be violent. Fear isn't very good at restraining people, as far as I can tell. I'd much rather remove myself from the presence of someone whom I did not trust not to kill me than rely on his fear of punishment or retaliation to protect me.
I think there are people whom we know of no better way to restrain from violence than by force, and I'm quite happy to have that force used as a last resort. I'm *glad* when serial killers, child molesters, whatever, end up in prison. I do not know a better way to protect people from them. I wish I did, but better to use force than nothing.
But restraint by force is not the same thing as threat of punishment. I accept the former when we cannot think of any better option (though I'd prefer we try to think of better options). I am not convinced threat of punishment actually works.
Those are just the way I see things right now -- I may have changed my mind in a year's or a decade's time. It happens. But that's the way things look to me right now.
no subject
The point I'm making is the same made about nonviolence in Vincent's blog: that it is a response to violence that doesn't allow the aggressor to gain that power. Real nonviolence says, "Do what you want, it doesn't matter. You have no power over me, even if you beat or kill me." Violence = power. Remove power from the equation and the whole idea that violence is necessary for a peaceful world goes right out the window.
In fact, your assertion that pacifism either breaks, runs, or dies without a soldier to protect it is disproven by numerous historical examples wherein pacifism/pacifists did none of the above. Ghandi's nonviolent protests being the most obvious example of such, and others detailed in (again) the discussion at Vincent's blog.