From: slzm9@cc.usu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Nonviolence, defense and America
Date: 28 Jul 92 15:03:23 MDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Utah State University

In article <1992Jul28.150227.57563@cc.usu.edu>, slzm9@cc.usu.edu writes:
> In article <1992Jul23.205401.2378@u.washington.edu>, ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan) writes:
>> 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.
>>
> 
>    Martin Luther King said that violence is an endless circle. What
> we take with violence will be returned in kind. Thus you must find
> the courage in yourself to stand up for yourself and other oppressed
> people by speaking out against oppression and answering violence with regret
> and perserverance but no counterattack if you seek to live as MLK 
> taught us.
>   	
>> 	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?
>> 
> 
>    Yes, and you are correct I think. We are building a terrible foe
> if we do not stop oppressing the Iraqi people. Those who fight
> in desperation fight for their lives. I would not care to meet
> such an enemy.
> 
>>>   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 DEFENDING 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...
>>>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Peace, but not without justice,
> zip
>