Turn the other cheek, or pop him on the nose?

[FearlessFreep]

From http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-kurlansky20apr20,0,3514037.story

In 1933, Mohandas K. Gandhi wrote this about his strategy of nonviolent activism, which he called the law of love: "The law will work just like the law of gravitation will work, whether we accept it or not."

I think he was right. History, from ancient China and the early Christians all the way up to the dismantling of the Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa, shows that it does work. You would think that after Gandhi's uprising in India, and after the civil rights movement in a violent and hateful American South, no one would ever again doubt that fact. And yet, even today, the most common response to nonviolence, as though it has never been tried, is, "Nice idea, but will it work?"
...

This may belong in The Study, but it has some aspects of violence as a means of resolution that I thought may be applicable to martial arts

 

[theletch1]

Depends on whether we're talking about changing the world or self defense against a thug.

 

[Nolerama]

Here's a question: does the uniformity of the military make us more like ants, and if so, is there anything to either make our soldiers more self-sacrificing, or more independent and socially conscientious?

Is all of that a bad thing in your opinion?

Whew...

I was recently debating the mindset of Russian and Chinese Space Programs versus the US Space Program.

The premise was that the US Space Program was so much more concerned with bringing astronauts back home safely, that their progress and drive in the past 20 years is eclipsed by that of other nations, especially the Chinese.

The Chinese are willing to spend human live in order to achieve a goal. If two out of 10 Chinese Cosmonauts make it back from the first Mars mission, then it's okay. Mission accomplished. Progress has been made by sacrificing the few for the many.

As ironic as it sounds, we're violently social creatures. And we love to draw a line stating "Us vs.Them."

That's why its so breathtaking when someone turns the other cheek. We extend beyond our biology and utilize our humanity.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I should think after the 1960's/70's it should be clear that protests achieve nothing anymore exactly BECAUSE they aren't violent anymore. If those protested against stand to lose neither blood, nor money from the protests, there is no incentive for them to take it seriously. It's not brain-surgeon hard.

 

[Nolerama]

I should think after the 1960's/70's it should be clear that protests achieve nothing anymore exactly BECAUSE they aren't violent anymore. If those protested against stand to lose neither blood, nor money from the protests, there is no incentive for them to take it seriously. It's not brain-surgeon hard.

I beg to disagree. I think that the 60's and 70's protests (I'm assuming against the War in Vietnam) made a point to the government that the war was an unpopular one. It also made a change, for many Americans, in the way they think of how to change the government and to actively do it. Non-affluent people from working-class families felt it was accessible to run for office; and if they were unwilling to do it, they actively backed their candidate.

On a societal level, look at Martin Luther King Jr. Do you mean to say that made no change? I'm now happy that I can sit at the front of the bus. There's no "No Asian" signs at public water fountains. I'm pretty stoked on that kind of thing.

It doesn't have to be brain-surgeon hard to make a difference. It does take persistence.

Call me naive, but isn't Democracy a conduit in which we can at least attempt to settle differences and find a solution to government? I believe we're better than bonking someone on the head to get our points across.

Loot at the political climate today: it's becoming more and more apparent that it takes money to run things. Conscientious protest, boycotting consumer goods made for the sake of consuming, that's where protests should lie. Being able to get "off the grid". Look at Enron and how it choked the life out of California. Look at the oil companies making record profits, while pump prices skyrocket. If you're against that kind of thing, then fire must be fought with fire, in the form of nationwide boycotts/protests/backing local politicians. Violence only serves as an excuse for government to tighten its hold on society.

It might seem like we have no choice, but that's where persistence should become apparent. It simply takes some sacrifice. We're too comfortable in this country. We like our fast food and soccer mom SUVs and celebrity worship. We ARE Rome, complacent with our decadence. Look beyond that. Look at yourself.

From the American ant colony's perspective I ask you this: Are you more an American, or a Consumer? Then apply that to the people around you.

The answers will frighten you at first, and then become eerily calming, since you have an edge on the other ants around you. Think!

I thank you for your comment. It motivates me to become more politically and socially active to make change. Peace.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I beg to disagree. I think that the 60's and 70's protests (I'm assuming against the War in Vietnam) made a point to the government that the war was an unpopular one. It also made a change, for many Americans, in the way they think of how to change the government and to actively do it. Non-affluent people from working-class families felt it was accessible to run for office; and if they were unwilling to do it, they actively backed their candidate.

On a societal level, look at Martin Luther King Jr. Do you mean to say that made no change? I'm now happy that I can sit at the front of the bus. There's no "No Asian" signs at public water fountains. I'm pretty stoked on that kind of thing.

It doesn't have to be brain-surgeon hard to make a difference. It does take persistence.

Call me naive, but isn't Democracy a conduit in which we can at least attempt to settle differences and find a solution to government? I believe we're better than bonking someone on the head to get our points across.

Loot at the political climate today: it's becoming more and more apparent that it takes money to run things. Conscientious protest, boycotting consumer goods made for the sake of consuming, that's where protests should lie. Being able to get "off the grid". Look at Enron and how it choked the life out of California. Look at the oil companies making record profits, while pump prices skyrocket. If you're against that kind of thing, then fire must be fought with fire, in the form of nationwide boycotts/protests/backing local politicians. Violence only serves as an excuse for government to tighten its hold on society.

It might seem like we have no choice, but that's where persistence should become apparent. It simply takes some sacrifice. We're too comfortable in this country. We like our fast food and soccer mom SUVs and celebrity worship. We ARE Rome, complacent with our decadence. Look beyond that. Look at yourself.

From the American ant colony's perspective I ask you this: Are you more an American, or a Consumer? Then apply that to the people around you.

The answers will frighten you at first, and then become eerily calming, since you have an edge on the other ants around you. Think!

I thank you for your comment. It motivates me to become more politically and socially active to make change. Peace.

Not necessary to "beg" anything, you're well within your rights to disagree.

But do you see why, in response to the above, i kind of view those examples as having made at least a part of my case for me?

The examples you cite were not bloodless or "nonviolent". That was my point, was it took people dying before enough people started looking and saying, hey, this system is broken. Those involved,to use one of your examples, Dr. King, may not have intended on *their* part to be violent but it always ended ended up costing them along those lines( many of Dr.King's later speeches seem to me to openly imply that he expected someone or a group of someones to punch his ticket, yet he went on anyway knowing it would cost him. Likewise did Ghandi. That's in no way meant to take anything away from what I do, in fact, consider highly courageous sacrifices, but the point remains, you can't get something for nothing.


EDIT: It just occurred to me after reading my initial post that it could be taken to mean I was *including* the 60's/70's in the time frame of ineffective protests. I was not. I refer to most that have come after.

 

[Bodhisattva]

I should think after the 1960's/70's it should be clear that protests achieve nothing anymore exactly BECAUSE they aren't violent anymore. If those protested against stand to lose neither blood, nor money from the protests, there is no incentive for them to take it seriously. It's not brain-surgeon hard.

It's true. Violence is being bred-out of the human race, and it is being done to us for the same reason it is done to the other forms of domesticated animals (yes, humans are domesticated animals..)

But I disagree that non-violent protest does NOTHING.

Non-violent protests are STILL better than sitting at home, watching TV or cruising the internet, going off on people who actually have the motivation to protest.]

--

The trouble with VIOLENT protests is that the people bring sticks and stones to a well armored gun fight.

Or in the case of Americans, we bring hunting rifles and home defense pistols and find ourselves meeting tanks, helicopters, and men with full riot gear, including a shatterproof, see-through shield, and assault rifle, and varying forms of nerve gas (yes, tear gas is "nerve gas.")

With all the cameras, spy drones, heartbeat sensors, star light vision, tracking systems within cell phones, etc. etc. it is going to be really hard to protest safely in the near future.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Fearless,

I'm Catholic. The Catholic doctrine recogizes self defense as not only being moral but as a necessity. Christians do turn the other cheek TO INSULTS. Not body blows. Even Jesus's own carried swords and he never told them not to.

Christians are to show they are peacefull by not responding to insults with insults. That is what turning the other cheek is about. They are to forgive transgressions but that does not mean they forgo self-defense when their life is threatened.

And as for violence. Not all violence is bad. If it was, then Jesus would not have torn up the money changers tables nor made whips to drive them out. There are times the only way to stop evil is to use force. It's not wrong, it's not bad, it's just force (violence) needed to stop unjust attacks.

Deaf

 

[Josh Oakley]

Fearless,

I'm Catholic. The Catholic doctrine recogizes self defense as not only being moral but as a necessity. Christians do turn the other cheek TO INSULTS. Not body blows. Even Jesus's own carried swords and he never told them not to.

Christians are to show they are peacefull by not responding to insults with insults. That is what turning the other cheek is about. They are to forgive transgressions but that does not mean they forgo self-defense when their life is threatened.

And as for violence. Not all violence is bad. If it was, then Jesus would not have torn up the money changers tables nor made whips to drive them out. There are times the only way to stop evil is to use force. It's not wrong, it's not bad, it's just force (violence) needed to stop unjust attacks.

Deaf

Not only did Jesus not tell his followers not to get a sword, he specifically told them, because of the coming times, TO get a sword, and to sell their cloak to get it if need be.

 

[Grenadier]

There are some times when the peaceful approach is very effective (turn the other cheek). However, there are also going to be times where the use of violence is the only way to stop someone. Deaf Smith summed it up quite nicely.

If we look at past history, such as during Hitler's regime, it was unfortunate that groups such as the White Rose folks, ended up being nothing more than a small afterthought until well after the war had been over. The Scholl siblings, Professor Huber, Christoph Probst, etc., were all executed by guillotine, and their deaths really didn't accomplish anything at all.

What did have much more of an effect, were the actions of spies, saboteurs, resistance fighters, and so forth, who were able to take direct action against someone who really didn't care about peace. That, plus the impending martial might of millions of soldiers closing in on Berlin...

 

[terryl965]

There are some times when the peaceful approach is very effective (turn the other cheek). However, there are also going to be times where the use of violence is the only way to stop someone. Deaf Smith summed it up quite nicely.

If we look at past history, such as during Hitler's regime, it was unfortunate that groups such as the White Rose folks, ended up being nothing more than a small afterthought until well after the war had been over. The Scholl siblings, Professor Huber, Christoph Probst, etc., were all executed by guillotine, and their deaths really didn't accomplish anything at all.

What did have much more of an effect, were the actions of spies, saboteurs, resistance fighters, and so forth, who were able to take direct action against someone who really didn't care about peace. That, plus the impending martial might of millions of soldiers closing in on Berlin...

Excellent post

 

[Mr G]

This is a great discussion for those who possess violent skills. As we become more powerful, we need to use the power less. Often the best defense against a thug is to provide a honorable escape and avoid the fight. Part of learning when to to use a technique, is when not to....

(I appreciate the opportunity to think this through for myself, and thank you for tolerating my ramblings)

 

[shihansmurf]

There is the cliche of "Violence is rarely the answer but when it is it is the only answer".
I think that there are times when the only thing that will work is a shot to the face. Those times don't come around often but when they do no amount of talking will suffice. Wisdom is knowing when you're faced with such a situation.
Mark