Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 07:43:28 -0400
From: Unka Bart <mendicant-AT-buddhist.com>
Subject: Re: Lame pacifists in Eugene


Hi Again,

>Maybe taking shit isnt the point of Pacifism, but in my perception thats what
>it amounts to.

I think that this is the way most of us see it.  Butt (it's a *big* "but,"
so it earns the extra "t" - but I digress...)

>I do think it would be great if non-violent resistence could really bring
>peace. If I thought there was hope in it, I would help promote it. Then again
>I dont really buy into the war for peace concept either.

There is a time and a place of everything, to paraphrase the famous "good
book,"
and the time for pacifism is when you face an overwhelming force that would
crush you without hesitation if you showed any sign of aggressiveness.

I offer the Civil-rights movement of the sixties as an example of what I mean.

It was the images of the contrast between the peaceful resistance by the
protestors, and the violence of the forces of the state, that ensured the
success of the movement.  Those images, seen on television round the world
(well, in those parts of the world where both TV and the western media were
available - said for the benefit of the contingent who tend to worry about
whether or not "anal-retentive" should be hyphenated or not - but I
digress...) made the general public "sit up and take notice."

Any other response would have been met with a "ho-hum, serves the
ill-behaved little varmints right" as they clashed with the forces of the
state.

Contrast the sympathetic view engendered in the public at large with the
opposite view of the anti-war protestors of the later sixties.

While I admit that the media coverage of those violent moments got a lot of
attention and in the end, was effective; it didn't win the movement any
friends among the general public.  It was effective only to the point that
it *awakened* people to the tragedy that was war in southeast asia.  What
really ended the war was the great number of US youth that were returning
in bits and pieces, not the violent tactics of the protestors.

>Really I believe there is no chance for peace as long as the us and them
>attitude exists among people. As long a one group feels superior, and the
>other group feels resentment, there will be conflict. It really has nothing
>to do with violence or non-violence, just the fact that no matter what change
>is brought someone will feel oppressed by it and in effect the problem
>remains. Nietzche called this Master/slave morality.

I agree, to a point.  What I said above.

Yer Kindly Ol' Unka Bart