More Thoughts on Pacifism

I’ve had a little more time to contemplate and all it has brought me is more confusion…What I have left to offer is my personal ethic as clearly as I can formulate and articulate it.

Very rarely could I be convinced that violence is the solution to any problem. Violence begets violence, and more often than not change brought about through violent means only serves to establish new pathways for violent acts. Just look at the current situation in Iraq, the countless violent coups throughout the histories of Asia, South America and Africa, or The Troubles of Northern Ireland.

These nation’s identities are rooted in a history of bloodshed and the minds of the people have become engrained with the paradigm that violence is the only means available to accomplish ends (this is also true of gang culture in the US).

That said, I don’t believe pacifism as an inflexible moral policy is feasible either. As Mr. Antagonist poignantly and aptly stated, it’s “a borderline criminal stance when confronted with genocide.” In response to a terrifying and destructive regime such as Nazi Germany, pacifism amounts to nothing more than apathy, which at its core is no better than condoning the atrocity.

Herein lies the trouble: my ethic walks a precarious line on which we entrust ourselves to determine right moral action. The problem is that A) we most often are only given bits and pieces of the larger story (whatever the media wants us to see), and therefore lack the complete information necessary to make educated decisions, B) as a species, we have proven ourselves time and again to be irredeemable fools, and C) my moral determinations have absolutely zero impact on the decisions of the country and its leadership.

The current situation in Iraq is a prime example. At the time of the invasion, the majority of America supported President Bush and his decision to go to war. At the time, we were told Saddam Hussein had vast supplies of WMD’s and was aiding Al Qaeda. Both of these points were later revealed to be false, but we had incomplete information. Very few people foresaw the chaotic civil war that became the result of the invasion. We should have, the signs were all there. Bitter sectarian divides, years of oppression, economic hardship. But we were foolish. And to complete the trifecta of point C, it wouldn’t have made a bit of difference had I been vocally opposed to the war at the outset.

I believe it’s nearly impossible to determine the “justness” of a war from the beginning. Only in retrospect will the full truth be revealed and will the consequences (good or bad) be realized

The “justness” of war is determined by posterity, not by its actors.

To go back to Mr. Antagonist’s statements, there are notable exceptions in cases of clear cut genocide (Nazi Germany), but in this regard we as Americans are enormously hypocritical. For all of our big talk about fighting “just wars,” we fail to act in most cases where mass murder has predetermined justness. Think of the countless examples of American indifference as hundreds of thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered across the globe. The Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Darfur, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda (do you want me to keep going with the African nations?) Murderous regimes in Latin and South America have been funded and trained by the CIA, for God’s sake.

We stood by and did nothing. Why? Because we had no invested interest. Because none of these nations had oil. Don’t tell me America is concerned about “just war.”

P Corcs, following Monday’s post you stated that “we need to take each situation as it is and react how we believe we should,” yet you also disagreed with my position that pacifism is more applicable to individuals than it is to a country. I’m having trouble understanding your stance. The problem is that “we” (as in you and I) have little control over the actions of our country (unfortunately…but maybe soon…).

Since I have no control over the decisions or actions of our leaders, it is possible (actually probable) that my ideas of morally right action in any given situation will not be in line with the governmental stance. Do you see the disconnect? We determine morality individually, and therefore it can’t be applied nationally (unless you want to get into groupthink – 1984 anyone?). To react in the manner that we believe we should, it’s absolutely necessary for tenets such as pacifism to be individualistic, and nearly impossible for them to be applied to a country.

Thoughts?

Tomorrow, I’ll be exercising pacifism by participating in an online protest with a group of bloggers around the world. The aim of the protest is to show support for the people of Burma. For those of you not familiar with the situation, a brutal military junta has been controlling the country and oppressing the people for years. Recently, protests lead by Buddhist monks took to the streets following an unexplained 500% increase in the price of gas, and the military has met their nonviolent resistant with unrestrained force; arresting, beating, and killing monks and citizens nationwide. To learn more, check out these links:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/10/reports-4000-mo.html

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22515138-661,00.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-10-02-voaburmaun.cfm

http://www2.free-burma.org/index.php

As part of this nonviolent protest, there will be no formal post tomorrow. In its place, I will be displaying one of the images created for the campaign. Visit Zizzle-Zot, etc to show your support.

Thanks for reading.