From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Re: Nonviolence, defense and America (Was Re: Violence, defense and Islam)
Date: 23 Jul 92 20:54:01 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Jul23.120857.57470@cc.usu.edu> slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
>
>   Ahh here we come to a very interesting point. This goal of change was
>sought by the world against the Nazis. The world sought to confine the
>nazis within their own borders. Many of us now seek to change racist
>America and the question is "Is self defense practical/necessary/
>justified?"
>   One possible answer is that when you strike out against someone
>striking you then you have already lost this battle. If you do not
>strike back but you refuse to get off the bus, or leave the building
>or whatever what choice do the authorities have. They can physically
>move you, kill you and move you, or let your remain. Usually they
>choose the first but if there are 100,000 people sitting on buses
>or in buildings then it stops being a manageable problem. The
>remaining choices are to kill the protester or let them remain.
>   This brings us to the Nazis. If a person or a country has chosen
>a tradition of non-violence their approach to interpersonal/foreign
>affairs is quite different to one that has violence as a possible
>alternative. A truly non-violent nation would have realized at the
>end of World War I that if Germany was not given the means to
>rebuild itself and feed its people then an even stronger threat
>would grow out of such suppression. Sure enough the lack of adequate
>food, shelter and clothing in Germany led the populace to seek
>alternatives. When the leadership could not give them a chance to
>earn a living then the Germans turned to a group that was determined
>to take from the world what they would not freely give. Thus
>the economic suppression of Germans, at least in part, may have
>led them to consider radical alternatives, e.g. the Nazis.
>
	I have reproduced the text because I wish for everyone to read it at 
	least twice. Nonviolence cannot succeed at once in a world where rules
	are set and enforced by the threat of violence. The bane of violence
	is that it forever condemns us to live by it until we choose to
	break thru it by an extraordinary will of courage. This is what
	Throeau, Gandhi and King taught.
 	
	What you say about the Nazi violence is only too true - it had its
	origins in the violence shown by the superpowers of that time in
	wanting to humiliate the Germans. This is happening in Iraq at the
	moment. Can you imagine an Iraqi, even one virulently opposed to
	Saddam Hussein, approving of the continued violence and humiliation
	of the people? Can this lead to anything but continuous strife?
	Isn't this similar to how Nazi Germany came into being?

>   Surely you can see the analogy between then and now. Rich folks,
>mostly white males, are suppressing a class of people, the poor folks
>(mostly minorities). These oppressors have not learned from the past
>and do not see that unless they make it possible for the poor people
>to earn a living then civil war must result. 
>   If the rich people in this country will not provide poorer people
>with the oppurtunity of education and economic well-being then
>as sure as you are reading this the poorer folks will eventually
>rise up to take it.
>   I only hope this can be done non-violently. We shall see.
>
>> 
>> BS>Malcolm X, as a Muslim, said that he accepted the use of violence for defens
>> BS>against violence.  He said, in fact, that if the violence is in self-defense
>> BS>he wouldn't even call it "violence," he would call it "intelligence."  He
>> BS>said --and I am praphrasing-- "We are only non-violent to those who are
>> BS>non-violent to us."
>> 
>> Well, now we got another problem. *WHO* defines, what "defense" is and
>> when it is necessary? Hitler was defending the lebensraum of the Aryan
>> race, Bush was defending the "free" world in Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam
>> etc., Breshnev defended The Only Ideology in Afghanistan, Khomeini
>> defended the Islam against the evil West, especially evil heretics
>> like Rushdi. Are the lyrics of the song "Cop killer" an appell for
>> self-defense? The German army knew a term called "Vorne-Verteidigung"
>> ("forward defense"). What does this mean exactly? Doesn't it sound more
>> like attack? I mean, this is slippery ground, by this way "defense"
>> becomes quickly something different and uncontrollable.
>>
>
>   This is the sticky wicket, the proverbial catch 22. What one says
>is aggression others do not agree with? So people like Suddam Hussein
>recapture lands that he claims once belonged to Iraq. Indeed Hussein
>always maintained that Kuwait were territories that were once part
>of Iraq. Thus his "reclaiming" them against western usurpation was
>self-defense. Now everybody didn't see it that way. So George Bush
>decided to help DEFEND those poor kuwaitis. For this he sent missions
>INTO Iraq but these troops were DEFENDIND Kuwait, right. See you
>can interpret it any way you want which is exactly the "slippery
>ground" that Carl was referring to I think.
> 
> 
>> BS> Behnam Sadegi
>> 
>> Thoughtful, Carl.
>> 
>>  * OLX 2.1 TD * We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-throwing...
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                
>   I respectfully request that all attacks on William Carter Franklin
>cease. We are sisters and brothers, regardless of our points of view we must
>stick together if we are to execute any change in racist America.
>
>
>Peace, but not without justice,
>zip