An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind Essay - 352 Words “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” -Mohandas Gandhi The world can be a very unfriendly place. Not everyone has good intentions at heart and not everyone wants to do “good.” On the contrary, there are many good people who make a mistake every now and then. That person is not a bad person, it is just part of our human nature. An ugly aspect of the human race is the act of revenge. Revenge occurs because of the inability to forgive. We, as humans, often lack the virtue of forgiveness. Revenge is just as bad as the original offense. If we can’t forgive, we will be forever fighting with each other. I think this is exactly what Mohandas Gandhi was trying to say when he made the statement quoted above. Not everyone is perfect. We all make mistakes. If we can’t accept that everyone makes mistakes then we will all be “blind.” What this means is that if everyone was to receive the same punishment as the action they committed (an eye for an eye), than everyone would be getting punished because we all make mistakes.

If the world were like this, people would be constantly getting punished several times a day. Gandhi trying to make us aware that forgiveness is such a crucial aspect to love and peace. All people should learn to forgive. I can relate to this quote. Every day people treat me unjustly in such a way that I want revenge (an eye for an eye). Sometimes I give in, but most of the time I rationalize and forgive. Forgiveness is not always ‘I forgive you.’ It is different in every situation, but in the end, forgiveness feels much better than revenge. Revenge is just as bad as the original offense. If we can’t forgive, we will be forever fighting with each other. Not everyone is perfect. If we can’t accept that everyone makes mistakes then we will all be “blind.” If peace is what we want, then we, as a worldwide community absolutely must learn to forgive. An Eye for Eye Makes the Whole World Blind Essay ...meaning for “AN EYE FOR EYE MAKES THE WHOLE WORLD BLIND”?

(A) An eye for an eye - revenge, believing doing something back to someone who has wronged you in some way as the way forward e.g if someone kicks you, it's only fair you kick them back. If a country bombs you, you bomb them back. If a religion kills some of 'your' people, you kill them back. If someone takes your... 364 Words | 1 Pages An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind ...An Eye for An Eye Leaves the Whole World Blind Is it right to kill a person? Is it sensible to teach a person not to kill by killing? What makes the prison guard who fires the shot or the doctor who inserts the lethal injection less of a murderer than the person whose life they just ended? What makes the judge and jury who just sentenced that person to death row any better than the man who... 562 Words | 2 Pages eyes Essay ...﻿Eagle eye From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Eagle Eye (disambiguation).

Eye of a Golden Eagle The eagle eye is among the strongest in the animal kingdom, with an eyesight estimated at 4 to 8 times stronger than that of the average human.[1] An eagle is said to be able to spot a rabbit 2 miles (3.2 km) away.[1] Although an eagle may only weigh 10 pounds (4.5 kg), its eyes are roughly the same... 1237 Words | 4 Pages Essay on The Eye ...Chapter 9: The Eye * Light is electromagnetic energy that is emitted in form of waves; waves crash into objects and are absorbed, reflected, scattered, and bent * Half of human cerebral cortex is involved with analyzing visual world * MAMMALIAN VISUAL SYSTEM: begins with eye, back of eye is retina (contains photoreceptors specialized to convert light energy to neural activity) * Eyes have features to...

1338 Words | 5 Pages Essay about Their Eyes ...Gillian Wagner April 30, 2011 ENGL 3353 Modern American Fiction Dawn and Doom in the Branches “There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside of you.” Zora Neale Hurston Zora Neale Hurston’s novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God, was written in 1937 at the tail end of the Harlem Renaissance. It is a passionate tale of Janie Crawford’s evolving self as she goes through three marriages and a life of triumphs and tragedies. The novel starts off with Janie retracing... 1498 Words | 4 Pages An Eye for Eye Essay ...An Eye for an Eye," she states how the death penalty and her have nothing in common. She claims that the killing of one human being as punishment for the killing of another makes no sense and is inherently immoral. She tries to relate to her readers by using imagery, stating her opinions, and by appealing to the emotions of her readers. Throughout her argument, she also uses many examples to back up her opinions. She gives examples of situations that...

1373 Words | 4 Pages An Eye for an Eye Essay ...to be put to death and you were innocent? According to Webster’s Online Dictionary, “Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime.” Why does the United State use this “eye for an eye” concept? It seems like such a medieval practice, one in which we continue to use in a civilized time. One professor of law explains that, “because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy –... 2065 Words | 5 Pages Are There Blind Spots in Our Eyes? Research Paper ...Are There Blind Spots in Our Eyes? ABSTRACT Our eyes are vital organs because they help us visualize our surroundings. But are our eyes perfect in seeing what’s right in front of us? Sadly I learned in our evolution, nature messed up at one point and gave us blind spots in our eyes. This project shows why we have these blind spots, how to discover them, and how big they are. I researched on...

1472 Words | 5 Pages An Eye for Eye Makes the Whole World Blind Essay - 364 Words An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind Essay ...“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” -Mohandas Gandhi The world can be a very unfriendly place. Not everyone has good intentions at heart and not everyone wants to do “good.” On the contrary, there are many good people who make a mistake every now and then. That person is not a bad person, it is just part of our human nature. An ugly aspect of the human race is the... 352 Words | 1 Pages An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind ...An Eye for An Eye Leaves the Whole World Blind Is it right to kill a person? Is it sensible to teach a person not to kill by killing? What makes the prison guard who fires the shot or the doctor who inserts the lethal injection less of a murderer than the person whose life they just ended? What makes the judge and jury who just sentenced that person to death row any better than the man who...

562 Words | 2 Pages eyes Essay ...﻿Eagle eye From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Eagle Eye (disambiguation). Eye of a Golden Eagle The eagle eye is among the strongest in the animal kingdom, with an eyesight estimated at 4 to 8 times stronger than that of the average human.[1] An eagle is said to be able to spot a rabbit 2 miles (3.2 km) away.[1] Although an eagle may only weigh 10 pounds (4.5 kg), its eyes are roughly the same... 1237 Words | 4 Pages Essay on The Eye ...Chapter 9: The Eye * Light is electromagnetic energy that is emitted in form of waves; waves crash into objects and are absorbed, reflected, scattered, and bent * Half of human cerebral cortex is involved with analyzing visual world * MAMMALIAN VISUAL SYSTEM: begins with eye, back of eye is retina (contains photoreceptors specialized to convert light energy to neural activity) * Eyes have features to...

1338 Words | 5 Pages Essay about Their Eyes ...Gillian Wagner April 30, 2011 ENGL 3353 Modern American Fiction Dawn and Doom in the Branches “There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside of you.” Zora Neale Hurston Zora Neale Hurston’s novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God, was written in 1937 at the tail end of the Harlem Renaissance. It is a passionate tale of Janie Crawford’s evolving self as she goes through three marriages and a life of triumphs and tragedies. The novel starts off with Janie retracing... 1498 Words | 4 Pages An Eye for Eye Essay ...An Eye for an Eye," she states how the death penalty and her have nothing in common. She claims that the killing of one human being as punishment for the killing of another makes no sense and is inherently immoral. She tries to relate to her readers by using imagery, stating her opinions, and by appealing to the emotions of her readers. Throughout her argument, she also uses many examples to back up her opinions. She gives examples of situations that...

1373 Words | 4 Pages An Eye for an Eye Essay ...to be put to death and you were innocent? According to Webster’s Online Dictionary, “Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a person by the state as punishment for a crime.” Why does the United State use this “eye for an eye” concept? It seems like such a medieval practice, one in which we continue to use in a civilized time. One professor of law explains that, “because of the goals that our criminal justice system must satisfy –... 2065 Words | 5 Pages Are There Blind Spots in Our Eyes? Research Paper ...Are There Blind Spots in Our Eyes? ABSTRACT Our eyes are vital organs because they help us visualize our surroundings. But are our eyes perfect in seeing what’s right in front of us? Sadly I learned in our evolution, nature messed up at one point and gave us blind spots in our eyes. This project shows why we have these blind spots, how to discover them, and how big they are. I researched on...

1472 Words | 5 Pages An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind | Quote Investigator An Eye for an Eye Will Make the Whole World Blind Mohandas Gandhi? Louis Fischer? Henry Powell Spring? Martin Luther King? Dear Quote Investigator: Mohandas Gandhi’s policy of non-violence was famously used during the campaign for independence in India. There is a well-known quotation that helps to express the rationale for this non-retaliatory philosophy: An eye for an eye will leave everyone blind. I have read that Gandhi spoke this statement or something similar, but I haven’t yet found a precise citation for this. Could you find out when and where Gandhi said this? Quote Investigator: One of the world’s top quotation experts, Fred R. Shapiro editor of the Yale Book of Quotations (YBQ), has examined this question. This is what the YBQ says [YQG]: “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind” is frequently attributed to M. K. Gandhi. The Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence states that the Gandhi family believes it is an authentic Gandhi quotation, but no example of its use by the Indian leader has ever been discovered.

The YBQ notes that an important biographer of Gandhi, Louis Fischer, used a version of the expression when he wrote about Gandhi’s approach to conflict. However, Fischer did not attribute the saying to Gandhi in his description of the leader’s life. Instead, Fischer used the expression himself as part of his explanation of Gandhi’s philosophy. QI thinks some readers may have been confused and may have decided to directly attribute the saying to Gandhi based on a misreading of Fischer’s works. The epigram is a twist on a famous Biblical injunction in the Book of Exodus [21:24]: Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. These words appear in the King James English translation. There is a more elaborate version of the clever maxim based on these two phrases: An eye-for-eye and tooth-for-tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless. QI has located relevant variants for this longer expression in 1914 and 1944. Below are selected citations in chronological order. In 1914 in the Canadian House of Parliament a member named Mr. Graham argued against the death penalty.

He mentioned the well-known verse of Exodus and then employed it in a trope about the members of the Parliament [CHP]: Mr. GRAHAM: We can argue all we like, but if capital punishment is being inflicted on some man, we are inclined to say: ‘It serves him right.’ That is not the spirit, I believe, in which legislation is enacted. If in this present age we were to go back to the old time of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ there would be very few hon. gentlemen in this House who would not, metaphorically speaking, be blind and toothless. In 1944 a version of the maxim was used by Henry Powell Spring in his book of aphorisms, “What is Truth”. The acknowledgment section of the book indicated that Spring was a follower of Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy [HPS]: The Spirit and Beings continue unselfishly to maintain life upon our planet, restoring us nightly, and forgiving us our wilful blindnesses far beyond our spiritual or bodily capacity of repayment.

If the Spirit, Who is Life, exacted an eye for an eye, or a tooth for a tooth, this world would indeed be peopled with the blind and the toothless. In 1947 the book “Gandhi and Stalin” by Louis Fischer was published. Fischer’s work contrasted these two archetypal figures, and it contained a version of the saying mentioning eyes (but not teeth) that is often attributed to Gandhi today. Fischer used the phrase while discussing Gandhi and his approach to conflict resolution, but he did not attribute the words to him. This is the earliest cite located by QI that connects Gandhi with the saying [LFGS]: The shreds of individuality cannot be sewed together with a bayonet; nor can democracy be restored according to the Biblical injunction of an “eye for an eye” which, in the end, would make everybody blind. Any attempt to introduce democracy or to check totalitarianism must constantly emphasize the rehabilitation of personality. Freedom and responsibility help. Rigid authority hinders. In 1950 an important early biography of Gandhi called “The Life of Mahatma Gandhi” by Louis Fischer was published.

Fischer used the maxim again while explaining the concept of Satyagraha, but he did not attribute the words to Gandhi. This cite appears in the YBQ [LFLG]: Satyagraha is peaceful. If words fail to convince the adversary perhaps purity, humility, and honesty will. The opponent must be “weaned from error by patience and sympathy,” weaned, not crushed; converted, not annihilated. Satyagraha is the exact opposite of the policy of an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye which ends in making everybody blind. You cannot inject new ideas into a man’s head by chopping it off; neither will you infuse a new spirit into his heart by piercing it with a dagger. In 1958 the major civil rights leader Martin Luther King who was influenced by Gandhian ideals used the aphorism in his book “Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story” [STF]: Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Ralph Keyes writing in the Quote Verifier mentioned the above citation [QVG]. He also noted that the 1971 movie version of the popular musical “Fiddler in the Roof” contained the longer saying. This production appeared on Broadway in 1964 and is based on stories by Sholom Aleichem. Here is an instance of the saying in a script published in 1970 [FTR]: FIRST MAN: We should defend ourselves. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. TEVYE: Very good. And that way, the whole world will be blind and toothless. In modern times the Oscar-winning 1982 biopic Gandhi helped to popularize the connection between Gandhi and the saying. The film depicted the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the ensuing violent riots. The following two lines were exchanged between a close political ally and Gandhi who was played by Ben Kingsley [MGBK]: 01:43:20 – After what they did at the massacre? It’s only an eye for an eye.

01:43:24 – An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind. In conclusion, Mahatma Gandhi may have used the expression, but no conclusive evidence for this has yet been discovered. It is also possible that the ascription is inaccurate and the books of Louis Fischer may have inadvertently helped to establish the attribution. A more extravagant version of the adage with the words “blind and toothless” was used by 1914. Thanks for your question. May all your faculties remain intact, and may peace come someday to planet Earth. Update history: On February 25, 2012 the citation for the 1982 Gandhi movie was added. [YQG] 2006, The Yale Book of Quotations by Fred R. Shapiro, Page 269-270, Yale University Press, New Haven. (Verified on paper) [CHP] 1914 February 5, Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada: Third Session – Twelfth Parliament, Mr. Graham speaking, Page 496, Volume CXIII, Printed by J. De L.

Tache, Printer to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, Ottawa. (HathiTrust full view) link [HPS] 1944, “What is Truth” by (Henry) Powell Spring, Page 10, The Orange Press, Winter Park, Florida. (Google Books snippet; Verified on paper) link [LFGS] 1947, Gandhi and Stalin by Louis Fischer, Page 61, Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York. (Google Books snippet; Verified on paper) link [LFLG] 1950, The Life of Mahatma Gandhi by Louis Fischer, Chapter 11: Gandhi Goes to Jail, Page 77, Harper & Row, New York. (Verified on paper) link [STF] 1958, “Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story” by Martin Luther King, Jr., Page 213, Harper & Row, New York. (Google snippet; Verified on paper) link [QVG] 2006, The Quote Verifier by Ralph Keyes, Page 74-75, St Martin’s Griffin, New York.

(Verified on paper) [FTR] 1970, “Best Plays of the Sixties” edited by Stanley Richards, Fiddler on the Roof, Page 322, Doubleday & Company, Garden City, New York. (Verified on paper) [MGBK] 1982, Gandhi film, Directed by Richard Attenborough, Screenplay by John Briley, Ben Kingsley in the role of Gandhi, Production: National Film Development Corporation of India (NFDC) and Goldcrest Films International. (Movie clip with dialog viewed at wingclips.com on February 25, 2012; Data from Internet Movie Database) link link An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - GCSE English - Marked by Teachers.com An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind Extracts from this document... Introduction ﻿An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind When turning on the television, radio, or simply opening the local newspaper, we are bombarded with news of arrests, murders, homicides, serial killers, and other such tragedies. It is a rare occasion to go throughout a day in this barbaric world and not hear any of these things.

It has been discovered that 10% of the crimes were committed following the principle of ?An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.? This astonishing statistic aroused a controversy of whether or not ?An eye for an eye? is the correct basis of determining an appropriate punishment, as it not only touches upon political, but also cultural, ethical, or even religious issues. It would be easier to analyze the notion mentioned above on a relatively smaller scale. I believe that almost every single one of you have seen the scene of two students standing in the school principle?s office, and one of them saying that he or she just hit the other person in return with no purpose of actually harming them. More frequently, you would hear people saying things like? Oh, I just wanted to revenge and show him my power. ...read more. Middle Hence, a murderer should have his life taken from him. This kind of perverse logic, which has seldom been supported by the victims' families themselves, fails to be convincing. In a similar vein, several other questions regarding the effect on society, ?restitution being denied, the rights of the convicted, and the possibility of the innocent being accused?, are not addressed convincingly by supporters of capital punishment.

How often do we hear on the television that a handful of evidence from a strong lawyer could condemn someone to death for simply walking down the wrong street on the wrong day and at the wrong time? The potential for such miscarriage of justice, in my opinion, cannot be conquered. According to the news-reporter of CCTV channel, 5% of people that were served death penalties are either innocent or at least partly innocent. Moreover, ?life is a precious gift from God. Even when a person has no material possessions, life is still possessed.? In light of this quotation, it is logical to assume that a murder, the taking of another's life, is the most heinous of crimes for any reason. In the face of such arguments, the proponents have responded to in a number of ways. ...read more. Conclusion When Gandhi warns us of the dangers of an eye for an eye, he tells us that there will never be an end to violence as long as there is someone who always provokes it. And his method was proved to be successful in defeating the British. The action retaliation bears a resemblance to domino effect, where one event causes a series of similar events to take place one after the other. The reality forces us to consider whether to take revenge.

In retrospect, I strongly recommend all of us to actually ponder about the disadvantages of taking revenge. The images of the whole world being blind are reappearing inside me constantly, as I am finishing off this article. Instead of turning yourself from a victim to a sinner, make an attempt to compromise by mutually understanding the ?potential offender?. It might turn out to be that the person who hit your hand did not do it on purpose, or even if he did it deliberately, do not take revenge, as you will be harmed and punished as well. We have a model leader, Gandhi, who succeeded without committing anything gruesome or violent. In the end, I would also state my opinion that the death penalty should be banned as it follows the principle of life for life. ...read more. The above preview is unformatted text This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Writing to Argue, Persuade and Advise section. Found what you're looking for? Start learning 29% faster today 150,000+ documents available Not the one? Search for your essay title...

Search Join over 1.2 million students every month Accelerate your learning by 29% Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month Over 160,000 pieces Want the latest Marked by Teachers news? Get our newsletter Sign up An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind | The Huffington Post An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind 11/25/2015 10:33 am ET | Updated Nov 25, 2016 John Dear Catholic priest, peace activist, author of "The Nonviolent Life," John Dear That Friday evening I was just beginning to lead a weekend retreat at the Kirkridge Retreat Center in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, when we received word about the terrorist attacks in Paris. Like everyone else, we were grief-stricken, but we regrouped and became even more determined to dive deep into our retreat. Our topic was "Living Nonviolence, with Jesus, Gandhi and King." I had been planning it for months. Many of us around the world believe with Mahatma Gandhi and Rev.

Martin Luther King, Jr., that nonviolence is the world's only hope, the world's only solution to insane violence, the world's best pathway toward peace. As we heard the news from Paris, we turned again to the ancient teachings of nonviolence, and spent the weekend trying to deepen our own nonviolence so we could do our part to hasten a more nonviolent world. We began by recalling the famous scene in the Gospels, when the nonviolent Jesus approached the city of Jerusalem, after his long campaign of nonviolence, and broke down weeping: "As he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it saying, 'If this day you only knew the things that make for peace--but they are hidden from your eyes.'" (Luke 19:41-42) I invited everyone to enter into the same spirit of Jesus who weeps over our violence and then takes nonviolent action in Jerusalem to resist injustice and proclaim a new world of nonviolence. We agreed that we would try to be people "who know the things that make for peace." On Saturday, we studied the Sermon on the Mount, which Gandhi considered the greatest teachings on nonviolence in history.

Gandhi read from Matthew 5-7, every day, for the last forty years of his life. In particular, he studied the great neglected commandment: "Offer no violent resistance to one who does evil." So we studied it too: "You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,' but I say to you, Offer no [violent] resistance to one who is evil." (Mt. 5:38-39) The Torah had tried to regulate fair punishment so that the punishment for violence would not exceed the injury. But here, the nonviolent Jesus prohibits any form of punishment or violent retaliation. The Greek word used in the text is "antistenai," meaning "violent resistance," or "violent rebellion against evil or one who does evil." Jesus explicitly forbids "antistenai." We are not allowed to resist violently. The days of violent retaliation are over. No one who claims to be a follower of the nonviolent Jesus is allowed to retaliate with violence ever again. Jesus wants us to break the downward cycle of violence by refusing to practice further violence. Violence in response to violence will only lead to further violence, he teaches, so do not retaliate with further violence.

Break the chain of violence. Stop the killing. Later, he calls us to become instead people of universal love and compassion. Does that mean sitting back and do nothing in the face of violence? No, quite the contrary. Jesus also forbids passive resignation or indifference to evil. Instead, he demands an active, creative nonviolent response that will disarm our violent opponent without using their violent means. We resist violence but don't use the means of violence, so we do not end up becoming a mirror image of our violent opponent. Through our nonviolent resistance, we insist on the truth of our common humanity, until through our suffering love, the opponent's heart melts, scales fall from his eyes, he repents of his violence and agrees to treat us with respect as human beings. When someone strikes you on the right cheek, Jesus says for example, turn the other one to him as well. As we ponder that teaching, we notice that it's not possible to strike someone on the right cheek. A right-handed blow in a right-handed world would land on the left cheek, so Jesus is talking about something different--about humiliation and oppression. The only way to strike someone's right cheek with your right hand would have been to use the back of your hand.

This is what a Roman soldier standing over a subdued peasant would do. He would slap him with the back of his hand to humiliate him. But Jesus taught his disciples to resist such violent humiliation and top down oppression. Do not be humiliated. Do not be oppressed. Do not let others continue their violence upon you. Be creative. Take action. Turn the other cheek and show the Roman that you are a human being, that you demand to be treated as a human being, that you do not accept his violence. Then watch him back off in dismay. During the retreat, we looked at Jesus' many teachings and examples of nonviolence. On Sunday, we studied Luke 10, where he sends 72 disciples on a campaign of nonviolence, "as lambs into the midst of wolves," to disarm the world and proclaim the coming of God's reign of nonviolence. Throughout the weekend, as we studied the methodology and spirituality of active nonviolence, we also read the words of Dr. King and Mahatma Gandhi. "The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy," Martin Luther King, Jr. taught.

"Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." "Nonviolence is the greatest and most active force in the world," Gandhi wrote. "One person who can express nonviolence in life exercises a force superior to all the forces of brutality. My optimism rests on my belief in the infinite possibilities of the individual to develop nonviolence. The more you develop it in your own being, the more infectious it becomes till it overwhelms your surroundings and by and by might oversweep the world." Last year, on the day the United States started bombing ISIS, a group of friends and I were arrested in front of the White House for nonviolent civil disobedience. We opposed this latest U.S. war.

I held a sign that read, "There is no military solution." That September, our action was part of a nationwide week of 237 protests across the nation called "Campaign Nonviolence." We organized another such week this past September, this time with over 370 demonstrations across the nation in every state against war, poverty, racism, nuclear weapons and environmental destruction, and for the coming of a new culture of peace and nonviolence. We'll do it again next year. (See: Thousands, millions, of us believe that war doesn't work; that war cannot end terrorism because war is terrorism; that our warmaking is breeding a new generation of terrorists around the world. Millions want the killing to stop, beginning with our own killing sprees. We want a new nonviolent response to the violence in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. We don't want to keep on inspiring millions of oppressed people to join ISIS or Al Qaeda. We want to stop the killing, make reparations, and start the healing. We even want nonviolence here at home--toward everyone, beginning in the streets of Ferguson, Chicago and Baltimore. ISIS is normal. It's the normal outcome of twenty five years of U.S.

warfare on Iraq. We did not behead several thousand people; we killed some two million people, not to mention militarize the entire Middle East, fund the Palestinian occupation, and use drones to kill tens of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere. What is needed instead is a new global nonviolent response to violence. As many others have said before, the United States should halt all its bombing raids and drone attacks everywhere and pursue immediate ceasefires everywhere. We should start a massive reparations program to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine, and every land we have bombed, on a scale greater than the Marshall Plan. We should cut off all funding to ISIS from all quarters, and fund nonviolent peacemakers throughout the Middle East. Creative nonviolence should become our new foreign policy, and the policy of every nation everywhere if we are going to have a more nonviolent world. Of course, we are going to have to spend billions, even trillions of dollars, on nonviolence, just as we once spent that kind of money for war. That money is available. All we have to do is close all our nuclear weapons plants, disarm our nuclear arsenal, and allocate those billions of dollars for nonviolent solutions.

We have spent some seven trillions dollars on nuclear weapons since Hiroshima. It's time we spent that kind of money on nonviolent conflict resolution. Our greatest people have always advocated nonviolence. The greatest thinkers of the last hundred years all taught nonviolence--people like Leo Tolstoy, Jane Addams, Mahatma Gandhi, Dorothy Day, A.J. Muste, Muriel Lester, Martin Luther King, Jr., Bayard Rustin, Thomas Merton, Daniel and Philip Berrigan, Mairead Maguire, Thich Nhat Hanh, Joanna Macy, Pema Chodron, Aung Sang Suu Kyi, the Dalai Lama, Howard Zinn, and Leymah Gbowee. Furthermore, all the world's religions advocate nonviolence, even though their nonviolence is usually ignored. But we now know that active nonviolence actually works, that unlike war and violence, it brings lasting, peaceful results. Erica Chenoweth's ground-breaking book, "Why Civil Resistance Works," proves through scientific data that wherever nonviolence was used in response to state sanctioned violence or violent rebellion over the last one hundred years, it led to lasting nonviolent transformation.

Her book is one of the most important works of our times and should be read by everyone. She demonstrates that violence in response to violence only increases violence, but that nonviolent conflict resolution brings a more peaceful, just solution. "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind," Gandhi said famously. That sad truth is being played out every day now. We need to have the courage to stop the cycle of violence and use the methodology of creative nonviolence to end this madness and pursue a more nonviolent world. This is doable and achievable, but it requires that everyone get involved in building a global grassroots movement of nonviolence, like our "Campaign Nonviolence." We need to stop the warmakers on all sides who are intent on furthering the cycle of violence and war and become peacemakers. "To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world," Martin Luther King, Jr. said. "Along the way of life, someone must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives." "When evil men plot, good men [and women] must plan," King continued.

"When evil men burn and bomb, good men [and women] must build and bind. When evil men shout ugly words of hatred, good men [and women] must commit themselves to the glories of love. When evil men would seek to perpetuate an unjust status quo, good men [and women] must seek to bring into being a real order of justice." I hope everyone will stop listening to the voices of violence, listen to the voices of nonviolence as we did on that weekend retreat, and join the grassroots movement of active nonviolence in pursuit of peace. *** Rev. John Dear is the author of three recent books, "Thomas Merton Peacemaker"; "Walking the Way: Following the Nonviolent Jesus," and "The Nonviolent Life," as well as thirty others. He is on the staff of Pace e Bene, which organizes Campaign Nonviolence, a week of actions across the US every September.

See: and More: An Eye For An Eye Makes the Whole World Blind An Eye For An Eye Makes the Whole World Blind An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind WINNER of the 2003 PEN Oakland Josephine Miles Literary Award As the swords of war are being rattled, an archive of American poets’ responses to 9/11 and its aftermath has been collected and published in AN EYE FOR AN EYE MAKES THE WORLD BLIND – POETS ON 9/11. Edited by Allen Cohen and Clive Matson, with a foreword by political analyst Michael Parenti, this anthology presents 120 poems by more than 100 poets. The anthology includes celebrated poets Robert Pinsky, former US poet laureate; Lawrence Ferlinghetti, founder of City Lights Books; Robert Creeley, renowned poet of The Black Mountain school; Michael McClure, beat poet and playwright; Diane di Prima, author of Revolutionary Poems and Memoir of A Beatnik; Coleman Barks, translator of Rumi; and many more poets, both known and unknown.

This important book creates an alternative poetic response to the din of collective madness that has characterized our national dialogue since 9/11/2001. The editors, Allen Cohen and Clive Matson, saw the need to establish a historical record of poetic responses to the events of 9/11. They put out a call through the internet and received, in just a couple of months, over 800 poems from all over America, from which they chose the most illuminating. Reading these poems, written by so many diverse poets, one sees a deepening of perception, a renewed seriousness about the human predicament, and a sense of necessity to evolve into our full humanity. We hope the poems will help readers feel more deeply, think about our future, and ultimately act to achieve a more peaceful and just world. CLIVE WINS PEN OAKLAND JOSEPHINE MILES NATIONAL LITERARY AWARD 2004 for An Eye for an Eye Makes the Whole World Blind: Poets on 9/11.

CLIVE’S COLUMN ON WORDS: “CONSCIOUS HIP-HOP” AT 924 GILMAN As appeared in the Berkeley Times on January 14, 2016: Just as expected: a concrete floor in a warehouse at 924 Gilman, and on a black wall “Hectic” and “Gloom” in block letters. But overhead? “Welcome to Woodstock” in stark white on a girder, alongside “Sweet Children.” Two performers on mics paced back and forth, interweaving, waving in rhythm. One guy at a sound console. “Another Chapter” introduced themselves, “Drove out from Las Vegas, ready … to get this shit off my chest.” Come from streets so foul, leave ya’ all on ya’ back. I have to sleep in the cab. I have to be who I am. We’re pushed around by our own culture, the gangsta style an apt metaphor. “Between you and me, I hate people … I love life but I hate people.” Full Story CLIVE’S BLOG Structure of Large Work The first topics of our new class, “Structure of Large Work,” seem straightforward enough.

“Whose Story is It?” “What’s at Stake?” “Plot Works through Character,” “Sequence of Challenges,” and “Subplot.” What these compact phrases leave out are the intricacies. Each topic is highly articulated, so much so that you could lose sight of why we write. Our texts, Field’s Screenplay and Vogel’s The Writers Journey, lay out schemes that are layered and absorbing. We could, instead of developing our writing, become entranced with getting each page to line up with what the guides propose.

Question: An eye for an eye makes the whole world what?
Answer: Blind