"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breed that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." -- Starship Troopers, p. 27.
Justin (1) tried to list "nonviolent heroes," but concluded his list wasn't anywhere near exhaustive. Belle (2) posted that:
You can spend hours and hours trying to convince someone to do something verbally, but at any point they can change their mind and back out. When violence is involved, it usually only takes a few seconds to get a person to do what you want them to.
And Ariel (3) stated:
I don't know when or why, but sometime in my 18 years, I realized that humans are not a inherently nice race. Granted, there are individuals who are good and make huge contributions to society, but when it comes to International relations and cooperation on a systemic level, I lean towards a realist perspective.Evidently, the majority of us are pessimistic. And I can understand how refreshing US History's Trail of Tears and the effects of violence on Native Americans can impact a perspective.
To counter some made claims - (1) - not being familiar with more nonviolent heroes is a matter of knowing our world history. Please see this slideshow, and additionally consider Otpor (see image), the Serbian Youth Movement that stirred up the whole nation and overthrew the corrupt and tyrannical, President Slobodan Milošević in 2000.
(2) - As goes for convincing, I believe the best way to influence someone's actions is to think of the matter in terms of their point of view, and clearly present to them their interests and potential benefits. Could Indian removal and the Trail of Tears have been solved differently by Jackson? Maybe this is silly, but with the right incentives, could a compromise be reached between the moving settlers and the Native Americans?
I believe violence is the "human," natural, impulsive, instinctual thing to do - but that does not mean it is right, or actually, most effective. There is truth to the statement that violence has settled issues, that wars have granted freedoms. (This is kind of like null hypothesis in Stats... I fail to reject, but that does not mean I accept.) Frankly, I do not think I am doomed to pay for my optimistic thinking with my rights and freedoms.
Also, from what is seen to me in daily life, at the least, is that ones who restrain that instinct to infuriate and use bodily force achieve more of their aims. Really, to think about it, do we think we would resolve more personal conflicts by fist-fight, yelling, or respectful discussion and consideration of the other person's needs?
Perhaps it would be best to counter out instincts and resist the urge to violence. Don't we resist an array of "naked" and animal impulses and instincts to fit into society, anyway?
Posts
2 comments:
I really appreciate you vivid examples- I had never heard of the Otpor movement before- I was excited to later learn that they were students of Gene Sharp's teachings on non-violence. However, I would take the evidence you gathered even further, to argue that this shows that violence is not humanity's inherent, automatic response to conflict; they offer evidence that non-violent protest is just as viable a solution.
That's true I hadn't provided evidence on the human race's inherent violence, but I base myself on assumed biological and evolutionary facts. And I exactly agree with you - non-violent protest is just as viable a solution. Just as the human race has extirpated the practice of cannibalism and normed it a societal atrocity and taboo, so in the same way, I believe, we can go about eradicating violence and war.
Post a Comment