Date: Sat, 13 Feb 1999 23:22:00 -0600
From: Sandi & Scott Spaeth <vespags-AT-stlnet.com>
Subject: Re: nonviolence


At 07:19 PM 2/13/99 PST, Ben B. wrote:
> Anyway Nelson saids that its the opressor and not 
>the opressed who has the choice in these things and that the means of 
>change should simply be the most effective. So the choice of violence or 
>no belongs to the government and we need only do whats most effective 
>without worrying about it much.

Two things strike me about that.  First, the question of 'effective' asks
towards what ends?  It seems to me that Howard Zinn has a point when he
notes that the means we use cannot contradict the ends we desire, and a
violent society is certainly not what most of us are looking for.
Secondly, governments will nearly always use violent means against any
significant social change.  To say that this opens us up to the use of
violence (beyond self-defense) not only lowers us to their level, but puts
us in a situation where we cannot win.  The military of any country are
much better armed than an indigenous rebel group.  In the words of the wise
Obi-Wan Kenobi: "You can't win, but there are alternatives to fighting."

anyway, that's how it looks from here, I could be wrong.

cheers,
Scott 



--------------------------------------------------------- 
Hard Luck S.C. 
http://home.stlnet.com/~vespags/hardluck/index.html
Piston Ported Vespas:
http://home.stlnet.com/~vespags/piston-ported.html
words
http://home.stlnet.com/~vespags/words.html
----------------------------------------------------------