Violence in Movies

Why do we spend vast amounts of money each year to watch violence? Within the past several years, people have spent money to see some of the greatest violent portrayals ever created. Consider the following several movies: Hostel, Saw, 300, The Matrix, The Passion of the Christ, Nightmare on Elm Street, and the list goes on.

It seems strange that we would want to see such barbarity. I believe that we enjoy seeing violence in movies, in stories, on television, etc. because it is an outlet. People like seeing it because it exists on the fringe of reality.

I think we also enjoy the good vs. evil dichotomy. Anyone who has ever watched an action movie has certainly rooted for the “good guy” (or the bad guy if that is the intent). In “Indiana Jones”, we are constantly rooting for the hero. We admire his abilities and see justice in the use of his violence. He is violent and remains within our perception of positive social conduct. When he uses violence it is perceived as good, exciting, an escape, and it is why we are willing to pay $7 for a chance to see it.

Whether this is a positive outlet is debatable. It creates a mindset of apathy and desensitizes individuals towards violent behavior. Certainly, violent movies are not the sole influence of violence, but it makes it seem more tolerable in contemporary society.

Censorship

I have trouble with the concept of speech being violent. I understand that certain language is unnecessary and inappropriate, but to actually consider a word or set of words violent seems strange.

An example of this is music. Censorship is a perpetual annoyance. I always felt like monitoring of music should be an individual/parent’s job and not the music distributor’s. I understand that people do not want children exposed to certain lyrics, but on the same note I feel that the music I enjoy should be readily available as it was made; rather than how a minority of people prefers to listen to it. Wal-Mart is an example of a store that distributes censored music. I want you to consider two different stances; Of course, there are individuals who feel that music should be censored if available in stores like Wal-Mart where it is available to the youth. However, is it not just as violent to keep someone from hearing music? Especially if that is the way the music was intended to be heard.

My personal vendetta against music censorship began when I purchased a Puddle of Mudd CD several years ago from Wal-Mart. That was clearly a mistake. The song “She Hates Me” really loses something when half of the lyrics are missing. Regardless of the particular message being sent by the lyrics, it is an artistic expression. The message that is being communicated is merely artistic expression with the goal aesthetic auditory perception.

Gender Bias

I appreciated Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakeys’ vision of androgyny. I feel that, too often in society, we assign gender roles. This is evident even in the way we raise children. For instance, the color pink is typically associated with femininity and blues normally signify masculinity. Even by monitoring the colors of children’s clothing, we are creating a gender bias.

Another example of gender bias that is seen is toy selection. Girls normally play with dolls and boys play with cars. There is no reason for this other than societal influence on their selection. A male child is not born innately drawn to toy trucks. In fact, I believe that a boy raised without any gender bias would be just as likely to play with a Barbie doll.

One gender bias that is deeply ingrained in our society is that men and women cannot just be friends. That of course is false, but it is evident that the majority of society has been socialized to think in such terms. To this day, I have about an equal number of male and female friends and I attribute that to my parents’ lassez-faire style of parenting.

The vision of androgyny appeals to me because it seeks equality. Its goal is to eliminate any socialized gender bias and create a level playing field for men and women. I was raised with very little gender bias. By growing up with very few gender biases and seeing equality, rather than patriarchy, I feel that my relationships with others have been immensely, positively impacted.

Crude

I attended the documentary “Crude” for my Spanish class, and was appalled by the violence that is occurring in Ecuador. The violence was not direct, physical abuse. Instead, the land of the Ecuadorian people was left in shambles in corporations’ (mainly Texaco) pursuit of crude oil. They left many areas with pools of oil, seeping into the ground and into the water. This subsequently affected the Ecuadorians because now, in certain areas the cancer rate is extremely high, safe drinking water is not always available, and there is oil even in the ground.

It is astounding to me that such an act of violence could perpetuate. How are the individuals heading the Texaco oil company able to sleep at night knowing that there are people dying because of their ignorance and incompetence? One of the most heartbreaking stories in the movie was of a man talking about losing two sons to the effects of the oil. He said that one died soon after birth and the other drank from a stream that was polluted with oil and then died within 24 hours.

What did I learn from this documentary? That corporations can be cruel. I will never buy gas or support Texaco again. I feel that it is the responsibility of the people to take action when injustice is occurring. We were asked in class several weeks ago if there was a cause that we would be willing to fight for. This is certainly something I could see fighting for. People should be more than a means of attaining material wealth.

Patriarchy

Patriarchy is a very strange thing. Why should an individual’s sex create inequality? I was brought up in a church which clearly preached female submission. It was not as strict as many churches. For instance, women were not required to wear skirts. However, it was expected that a woman was to submit to her husband. It was also faux pas for a woman to preach. That was a “man’s job”. The Hierarchy was as follows: children submit to their parents, women submit to their husbands, men submit to God.

My personal belief is that female submission is just another way of saying misogyny; it’s a system based on distrust and mistreatment of women. Furthermore, it is a degradation of women’s basic human rights. Why should a woman ingratiate herself to appease her husband? Such ideology is deplorable.

Clearly, these biases extend beyond the church. I’ll never forget reading about inequality in the workforce in Sociology. My textbook started off by saying that there is a secret in our society that can allow you to make more money and be more successful with less effort. To do that, all you have to do is be born male. If you want to make even more money, also be born white and tall

Much of the social interaction between men and women has sexist undertones. For instance, we see the glass ceiling and the glass escalator in the work force. Women, when in positions primarily occupied by men, must take on masculine characteristics in order to attain the same level of respect and promotion. Men on the other hand, when placed in positions primarily occupied by women are often promoted rapidly. I think this is because people associate masculinity with power and competitiveness and femininity with nurturing and caring.

What I learned from Bruce Kokopeli and George Lakey’s essay merely reaffirmed my beliefs and understanding of sexism in contemporary society. This is a cause that I would be willing to fight for. I cannot stand to see such a violation of human rights.

Denmark

Denmark’s strategic resistance to the Nazi occupation serves as a testament to the power of nonviolent action. The Danish movement tied in with the class discussion on power. By not working and not completely conforming to the Nazi’s will, the Danish took away the power held by the regime.

Wealth and availability of resources drove the occupation of many countries during Hitler’s reign. One of the main factors in Denmark’s success was making the resources more difficult to obtain or inaccessible. The Danish used noncooperation to regain some control over their country. By making the access and production of resources extremely difficult, the Danish made the Nazi’s occupation more trouble than it was worth.

The Nazis also expected the Danish to work. So, when the Danish people refused to labor, the Nazi’s place of power was compromised. By separating the Nazi’s from their means of production, the Danish were empowered. The Nazis tried to gain control of the country by making living conditions uncomfortable for the Danish people; but the Danish did not cave in to the pressure. They remained steadfast and continued to not cooperate with the Nazi power.

Through noncooperation, omission of action, and resistance in the form of collateral damage, the Danish drove the Nazi regime out of Denmark. I feel that, even though some Danish people were killed, the numbers were far less because of the nonviolent action used.

The Center of Gravity

I was fascinated by the center of gravity theory. I was considering how our own nation functions. My perception - The US is run by two driving forces: 1) the government, which is of the people and for the people. Within the democratic confines established in our constitution, the lay-person is capable of influencing political action. 2) The corporations which, according to Annie Leonard, are now bigger than the government. The government is currently in the pocket of big business.

In class, one of the students mentioned the energy crisis. I was trying to figure out where the center of gravity is in the struggle for alternative energy. Is it with the corporations? Is it with our government? The answer is with the money. Even if the power was with the government, which is supposedly controlled by the people, then the government’s power to change is still largely affected by the corporations that will be financially impacted.

If the power is with the people, it is only marginally so. Consequently, the majority of power is with the elite. If we expect change, it must be through corporate influence.

In order to have change, there must be a will to change. Are the corporations willing to make change that will not be in their best interest? Oil companies are driven by people’s dependence on their fossil fuels. I feel that the corporations pushing the fossil fuel industries will continue to make alternative energy, which is in the public’s best interest, very difficult to obtain.

198 Methods of Nonviolent Action

Sharp’s 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action were interesting in that he had a well defined list of interventions that had proven useful in the history of peaceful intercession. He tried to make nonviolence almost scientific by categorizing different techniques.

I feel that the methods listed in Sharp’s list do not always produce the desired results. One must be selective in the form of action they use. For instance, it would not make sense to use religious processions (Method 40) to advocate separation of church and state. However, one of PETA’s campaign slogans was, “I would rather go naked than wear fur.” Demonstrators then performed protest disrobings (Method 22) to drive their point home.
One nonviolent action that I never previously considered is turning one’s back (Method 54). It’s remarkably simple and rather effective in many circumstances. By turning your back to someone, you are empowered. You are showing them that what they have to say is no longer important.

I also appreciated method 174, establishing new social patterns. That technique seems to encompass many different nonviolent acts. The whole purpose of nonviolent action is to alter social patterns.

It was a very useful teaching tool for individuals interested in the application of nonviolence. It can give them a clear picture of how many options are out there.

Poland

Poland, a formerly communistic country, has a history strewn with violence and suffering. During the Warsaw Uprising alone, more than 200,000 people were killed and the capital was destroyed. Due to their military struggles, Poles referred to their country as “the Christ among Nations.” It was not until the 1970s and 1980s that nonviolence was truly embraced.

The nonviolent movement in Poland was largely centered around the Catholic Church. Poland was and is a primarily Catholic nation, so when Cardinal Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II, the church’s connection to the movement was strengthened. He desired for transformation in Poland. Like in the civil rights movement, the church became a place where ideas could flow freely. People could talk at the church openly, without being silenced by a communist oppressor.

The movement for freedom from communist oppression in Poland became known as the Solidarity Movement. In 1989, it led to the democratization of Poland. This was the first time that a communist country was converted to a multi-party democracy. Originally, the goal was not for democratization, but rather a more liberal communist rule.

This movement showed me how people become empowered. The church was one of the main motivating forces. It helped create a sense of unity and allowed for people to express their ideas and feelings.

Andrew Young

Andrew Young portrayed King in a very different light. It was interesting to read that he may have been pushed into his role as a nonviolent leader, rather than choosing to do so from the beginning. His pursuit was not in leadership, even though he naturally displayed leadership characteristics. Young explained that the only reason King went to Montgomery in the first place was to have a quiet place to finish his doctoral dissertation.
It is hard for me to imagine that the same Martin Luther King, Jr. who delivered history altering speeches and was so integral to the civil rights movement, would have been pleased with a life of preaching and writing.

It was fascinating to read about King taking his role as a leader in the civil rights movement more serious as time progressed. So serious in fact, that Young expressed fear for King’s health. This was because he was not sleeping, and he was getting stressed about things. He would practice his speeches in front of Young even.

It seemed very odd to me that the government should bug King’s motels. Young described in some detail the government’s agents bugging the rooms of the civil rights activists. The history classes that I have taken have always portrayed King and the government as parallel entities, moving forward without necessarily keeping in check with one another. The fact that the government bugged his rooms seems to imply distrust as well as fear of opposition.

This reading taught me not to take contextually distorted history as fact. I had always assumed that King took leadership because of his desire for equality. Surely that wish was present, but this reading helped me better understand the struggles and the external influences that impacted the life and decisions of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Albany

Albany, Georgia was a learning experience for those involved in the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. described it as his greatest failure. It was however a success in that it was the first large scale movement with an end goal of desegregation.

There were many factors that made the Albany Movement less successful. First and foremost, there was very little publicity. At the beginning of the movement and after Martin Luther King’s arrest there was national media coverage. However, its impact was lessened by local authorities who bailed him out of jail. They did this to knowingly avoid media confrontation. They also used nonviolence by simply making arrests. There were not beatings and therefore there was no negative publicity. Those sent to jail were not sent to the same one. The authorities did this in order to avoid overfilling the jails, which was one of King’s strategies.

Religion played a powerful role in this movement. The church was at the forefront of the Albany Movement. It was a place where the oppressed minority could go for support, reinforcement, prayer, companionship, understanding, and togetherness. They would also sing together. Song was a strong force in maintaining togetherness. They would sing in church, and when they were imprisoned, they would sing together there too. Undoubtedly, the church was essential to the civil rights movement.

Means and Ends

I loved Ferdinand Lassalle’s quote, “For ends and means on earth are so entangled that changing one you change the other too.” People tend to think of means as justifiable as long as a desirable goal is reached. Cady argues that ends are defined by their means and in that, the products of war would reflect violence.

In the reading “Means and Ends”, Cady explains that one way people have tried to settle the problems of war is with religion. However, spiritual principles differ from religion to religion, and often from sect to sect. I know, within my own church I have seen disagreements between members in their interpretations of the doctrine. So clearly, a common ground cannot always be found and there will be disagreements if this method is used to try and bring peace. It is for that reason that I believe religion is an inappropriate medium for conflict resolution. Furthermore, church and state are to remain separate. It would be unconstitutional for us as Americans to use religion in order to bring about a desired result. If the means used to attain peace are the views of a particular religion, then the ends will surely reflect that.

She wrote about the “just-warist”. What a strange term. She said that a just-warist is a person who argues that the ultimate good of war outweighs the negativity. I would argue that there is no such thing as a just-warist because war is never justifiable. There are pacifists and there are those in support of war. Anything in between is just violence with varying shades gray. She further describes that some just-warists would go as far as to believe that war should be fought even if defeat is certain, because it is better to go down fighting than to surrender. Why should one fight at all if loss is inevitable? Why subject more to violence than necessary? Those thoughts echoed in my mind as I read the chapter. In my opinion such logic has no place in society. By victimizing more people with the brutality of war, we are only creating an undesirable end with an unnecessary mean.

Refusing to be a Victim

Women throughout history have been perceived as weak. They have been socialized into roles of submission and victimization. I don’t say that to sound sexist, nor do I agree that weakness is characteristic of women; but society as a whole has typically believed that women are in some way inferior to men in that they are in some need of protection. This view has enabled women to play the role of victim, because it has been in accordance with society’s views, thus giving them certain sway in the decisions of men. This façade of weakness has at times brought women great influence. However, it has also made it difficult to gain roles of leadership and power.

In “Refusing to be a Victim” the author was taken aback by the thought of women as victims. She grew up in the south and the black women she was raised around were emotionally strong, knowledgeable individuals who refused to act as victims. These women were powerful; however they did not gain their power through the perception of victimization. Instead they gained power through mental and emotional strength.

Some women, “privileged-class white women” in particular were able to use a victim identity in order to get positive, nonviolent results during the civil rights movement. They could see that, as victims, they were less likely to be attacked by the police and assassinated, thus giving them a clear upper hand. In this case, using victimization worked in women’s favor.

The author further explained, “The image of blacks as victims had an accepted place in the consciousness of every white person.” I don’t know that I completely agree with that statement. Like in the case of women, people often held the belief that a role of submission was a black individual’s place in society. I think that many people did not view blacks as victims. They were not perceived as weak, they were seen as lesser. Whites saw them as a group of people not needing help, nor playing the card of the distressed; but as strong group of people, that regardless of their knowledge, were inherently inferior. It is in that belief that they moved out of the role of victim, and into the role of inborn subordination. That was also the reason whites had such a struggle with cultural solidarity, where blacks and whites could be accepted as equals.

Personally, I view people across the board as equal. A Caucasian male is not inherently superior to an African American female. As far as sexism, as a society we are thankfully moving closer to equality. Racism is a little more complicated. I think that we are for the most part perceived as equals. However, I think we as society have moved in the direction of reverse discrimination to level the playing field. I understand that they were victimized, but I am in no way at fault for what occurred and I am not responsible for fixing it by experiencing discrimination of my own people. Hopefully, racism and sexism will someday be obsolete and no longer integral to our society. We are at a point in history where people are getting closer to equality; but we still have a long way to go before we reach unity.

Pilgrimage to Nonviolence

I never realized how little I knew about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and there are several topics in this reading that I would like to discuss. First of all, I thought that it was interesting that he had studied Gandhi. He said, “My study of Gandhi convinced me that true pacifism is not nonresistance to evil, but nonviolent resistance to evil.” Addams, Stone, Gandhi, King, and many other pacifists and nonviolent activists seem to agree on that idea. In order to fight violence, there must be nonviolent action.

King’s view of Gandhi fascinated me. He at one point described him as being Jesus like in his social effect. I feel that Gandhi was a great man, but never before had I considered him to be savior-like as King implied. He did seem to possess qualities of kindness, compassion, and altruism that were ever present in his quest for human civility.

“A religion that ends with the individual, ends.” I was intrigued by that quote because it is rather contrary to what is often taught in the Christian church, and yet fundamental to King’s teachings. You can see that traditional denominations within the Christian church are crumbling because there is a lack of outreach. I grew up going to a traditional Methodist church, which at the time was a flourishing church in the Huntingdon area. Now, it is dwindling down to its last few members. There is little missionary work, very little youth involvement, and therefore, a very bleak future. I now attend a church that is flourishing and will probably do so in the future because of the involvement with the youth and outreach programs. King used this quote when describing that religion was clearly meant to be understood in physical terms, as well as metaphysical. For King, the gospel was more than just an instruction manual to get into heaven, it was concerned with the whole individual; mind, body, and soul. I agree that if you do not in some way profess your beliefs, then those beliefs will die with you. Because of his willingness and persistence in professing his beliefs, even though King has long passed, his beliefs and are ever present, shaping our society.

Nonviolence in the Talmud

Reading “Nonviolence in the Talmud” makes me think of one of my dad’s favorite quotes, “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” He used to say that when my sister and I would bicker. That saying used to annoy me, but now I can see now how insightful it was. The Midrash explains that one should not return evil for good, nor should one return evil for evil. This idea of not returning a negative act with another negative act is at the heart of nonviolent theory and practice.

The Midrash further explains that an act of kindness may offset previous acts of cruelty. In Prov. 3:17, a man’s enemy comes to him in a time of need, and the man assists him. His enemy then reconsiders his previous dislike of the man, and decides that if his enemy is willing to aid him, then he might not be an enemy at all.

“It is not good for the righteous to punish (Prov.17:26).” I enjoy that message mainly because it implies that no moral man or woman has the right to punish. One principle of violent behavior is that those with power have a monopoly on violence. They determine whether or not it is “acceptable” to issue the use of violent acts. I was interested by this proverb because, if no man can use violence as a means of punishment because of moral confines, then violence becomes nearly obsolete. If a government then finds that violence as a means of punishment is unacceptable based on the individual assumption previously stated, offensive violence should hold no place in political practice.

So often in our society, violence is seen as an appropriate measure of controlling those we don’t agree with, or whom we have judged unfit for society. The perfect example of this is capital punishment. We, as a society, take it upon ourselves to decide who lives and dies. If violence was used for defense rather than punishment, the death penalty would not exist, because it would serve no purpose in a society driven by a people who consider violence as a means of punishment unacceptable. Even though evidence against a criminal may seem irrefutable, we are still human and therefore inherently capable of making mistakes. Furthermore, even if the convicted felon was certain to have committed the crime; would not using violence against him merely extend the pain? Gandhi himself said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.”

Address of Mrs. Lucy Stone

Lucy Stone’s address at the hearing of the Woman suffrage association was awe inspiring. One question that she posed that is fundamental to any nonviolence movement warranting government action was, “How much do we spend for war, and how much should we save if this peace element were only represented in the Government?” That principle applies not only to the woman suffragist movement, but in any area of oppression and/or war.

The way she gave this speech was, in my opinion, nonviolent action at its best. She presented her argument to the committee without verbally attacking the men in the audience and in a way that made her point very clear. She pointed out various injustices towards women, such as inequality in marriage, difference in legal power, and of course, the right to vote.

I appreciated how she spoke of the injustices towards women. She used the example of Jefferson Davis. This man received a punishment, which at the time was considered the worst sentence they could impose on him. They took away his right to vote. Stone went on to say that in Massachusetts, only idiots, felons, and lunatics don’t have the right to vote. By using these examples, she made it clear that women should indeed have the right to vote, for there was no logical basis for withholding it. Certainly, every woman was not crazy, or a felon, or an idiot, and did not deserve to receive the punishment of a criminal. Clearly, at this point men were just trying to hold a monopoly on the power to vote. As Mrs. Stone pointed out, there was no real reason that men should deny women that simple, but deeply important right.

I learned a great deal from Lucy Stone’s address and the movie shown in class about the women suffragists. Never before had I considered how deeply the right to vote impacts an individual. I remember when I was younger, I thought when I reached the age to vote; I would refuse to do so. After reading this article, and seeing what these women were willing to suffer in order to acquire that same right, I can think of no reason why an individual would refuse to vote.

Jane Addams

In “Personal Reactions During War”, Jane Addams explained that the principles of militarism are contrary to civility. She clearly states that she believes that, even though human beings are capable of great atrocities and violent actions, we are not inherently violent. Instead, in order to do a violent task, violence must be taught and pushed on an individual. She spoke of those who fought in war, explaining that they killed, but were not necessarily advocates of war. There had to be some influential, external stimulus to get a soldier to plunge his bayonet into the body of an enemy fighter.

“Was not war in the interest of democracy for the salvation of civilization a contradiction of terms (p.3)?” That is my favorite quote from this reading because it revisits the idea of previous pacifists and philosophers, in that violence can never beget peace. Addams was certainly a pacifist, one who felt that non-action was inappropriate. She explained that “quietism” accomplished nothing and that in order to get desirable results, one must use nonviolent action. I think by nonviolent action she meant the use of things like picketing, fasting, and protesting.

This reading was very interesting and complemented my feelings towards aggression by nature. I have always felt that humans mean well in most of what they do. We are not malicious by nature. Her use of evolution as an example of why war is not inherent in a species was very interesting. I have always enjoyed humanistic psychology’s belief that people are generally good. This theory is complemented by the thought that evolutionary forces have not made war an inborn process. I have come to believe that societal influence and power struggle have made war a social norm, and aggression an acceptable means to an end. We fight because in the minds of most people, violence is an appropriate way to get what you want, and punish those who have done you wrong.

Gandhi - Theology

Gandhi had some very interesting theological beliefs. His thoughts on God and religion affected everything he did. Religion, he explained, is not what an individual believes; it is how they live (p.42). That is a fascinating concept, and very different, backwards even, to many religious views. I was brought up with a Christian background, and to hear religion referred to as more of a belief than a way of life is intriguing.

Something I found interesting was that, instead of rejecting many religious beliefs and accepting one, Gandhi embraced many. Most religious people have a very concrete, narrow view on religion and spirituality. Their thoughts are set in stone, and are not subject to change; especially change from other religious doctrines. My understanding is that his beliefs were fluid. He thought that each religious doctrine had its own beneficial ideas and that something could be learned from each. He felt that no one was truly a Christian, or a Hindu, or a Muslim; but instead we are all humans capable of taking meaning and insight out of multiple religious teachings.

This reading section taught me about my own feelings toward religion and spirituality. My favorite quote was Gandhi’s famous, “Truth is God (p.35).” That may be one of the most powerful, thought provoking statements I have ever heard. Gandhi’s description of God makes me think of an omniscient, benevolent energy; rather than the typical anthropomorphized deity presented in most western religions. He said that God is “indescribable in words.” So, even though God is truth, we only have a finite potential for understanding that truth. According to that principle, finding truth is only incrementally possible, therefore the entirety of God is impossible to attain. Gandhi believed that our lives should bring us as close to knowing the whole truth as possible. It is fascinating to consider the perspective that the pursuit of the knowledge is truly the pursuit of God.

A Pacifist Continuum

According to Cady’s “A Pacifist Continuum” my beliefs make me a collective pacifist. I believe that violence is only ever acceptable as a means of self defense or in defense of others. Certainly, any offensive violent act should not be condoned. Even though I don’t agree with war, I feel that there are times when no other options are available. I disagree with war as an offensive, outwardly violent attack, used as a means to an end; but rather a defensive retaliation against a malicious assault.

Violence as a method of self defense is appropriate because it is a natural response to a negative stimulus. Naturally, an individual reacts to negative stimulus by getting away from it. For instance, if you lay your hand on a hot stove, the natural response is to move your hand and distance yourself from the harmful object. In the same sense, if one is being attacked, the natural response is to rid oneself of the harmful stimulus. If the only means by which one can escape an attack, is to attack in retaliation, that is completely acceptable.

I feel like I contradict myself with my beliefs on war. Personally, I could not fight in a war. I do not like it; it saddens me to think of the men and women who are forced to fight for their country and it is horrible that their families should suffer for the sake of power struggle. I know that I personally could not point a gun at the head of an enemy soldier (who may have been forced into service), and pull the trigger. However, lack of reaction in cases of attack shows weakness and lack of governmental power. Lack of some form of retaliation would render a country more likely to fall victim of subsequent attacks.

Working for Peace

I very much enjoy learning about various religious principles and practices. In the article “Working for Peace”, Hanh explains that in Buddhism, the pursuit of awareness is imperative. That is such a thought provoking statement. If nothing more, our existence should be driven by the quest of knowledge.
I appreciated how he personified the trees, rivers, planet, and the sun, making everything seem more alive. He describes us as being focused on the small body (our own physical embodiment) while obliterating the large self (everything around us). I just attended Annie Leornard’s “The Story of Stuff” and that statement has never seemed so true. We are gradually destroying our planet with a focus on the individual where we should be focusing on future preservation.
Hanh also explains that people typically focus on one side of a situation. Too often we see what we want to see. Such a view can truly inhibit our ability to attain awareness. Hanh therefore encourages people to try to acknowledge and understand both sides of a given disagreement.
I learned from this writing that I should open my mind and think about the implications of both sides. One should try and consider the personal experiences of others and how that has impacted their current actions and behaviors.

Voluntary Servitude

“Time to change has come and gone. Once your fears become your God. It’s your decision…” Those lyrics from the song “Your Decision” by Alice in Chains reverberate in my mind as I consider the profoundness of La Boétie’s “Voluntary Servitude”. I find it fascinating how the lyrics of the song corresponded with his message. The only power a dictator truly has is given to him by the people. But, time and time again, those people make a decision to be conquered. Some do so because they are afraid to oppose a tyrant. Others do so out of apathy.
La Boétie says, “A people enslaves itself.” By this, I believe he means that a blasé people would rather live in oppression, than act in opposition. It is not necessarily easier; but more comfortable to put on a façade than to deny power to a tyrant. But that is exactly what people have done throughout history.
It is also suggested that, violence is not the solution to tyranny. La Boétie says that, by not conforming to the forces a tyrant, people leave him with nothing. I believe La Boétie’s message is that, the true power when opposing a dictatorship comes from nonviolence. Violent action often leads to equally violent reaction, whereas, nonviolent action is the pulse of the oppressed, and has proven to be a powerful tool when defeating a dictator.