"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." -- Starship Troopers , p. 27... p. 26 in my book though. But, regardless, it is time to tackle this quote by Mr. Dubois.
To start, I think that people who subscribe to the belief that violence is the overpowering force in the world, which this quotation advocates for, are going to have to pay for it with their "lives and freedoms as well," (Heinlein 26). It can not be forgotten that when violent means are used, people do not die on one side, but rather there are always casualties on both. This is only one of the ideas that I will have to discount. Also, just to merely have the notion in one's mind that this quote is true is very disturbing because it strips life of meaning: if everything is only going to come back down to survival of the fitness and who can exert more power, in this case a violent sense of it, on another, then all of life's existence is geared toward the day where one will have to use violence in order to survive. But what's wrong with living and surviving for the sake of life.
When I began thinking about this quote I realized the easy thing to do would be to agree with it. I mean if it wasn't true then armies would be disbanded and people would not continue to join in order to protect America or for that matter any country's ideals. However, I think that the threat of violence is always a guiding factor in life, but it is not the sole or most used factor that people go utilize in order to come to a conclusion on a pressing issue. I am going to have to agree with this post in that it is not accurate to attribute violence as the one and only factor that is able to change the outcome of a situation the most times.
I find it disturbing that Heinlein describes the denial of this quote as being correct as "wishful thinking at its worse," because it conveys blatant disregard and strips the legitimacy of the thoughts on whomever holds a contradictory opinion (Heinlein 260). Thus, he definitely tries to deter one into disagreeing with him. Nonetheless, I have to disagree because as a human who has the ability to not fall susceptible to violence, I cannot morally think that he is correct. Also, I guess Heinlein never heard of Mahatma Gandhi who used nonviolent methods (hunger strike) to pursue his goal in gaining India's independence from British rule. Oh, wait did Heinlein also never come across Henry David Thoreau who advocated for civil disobedience and did not pay poll taxes due to his disagreement with the government's handling of Mexican American War and the existence of slavery to convey a statement on the injustices he saw in the government. And we cannot forget about Rosa Parks. She did not pick up a gun, but we all know her story and how it impacted the Civil Rights Movement. Thus, we cannot attribute violence and progress as being equatable because doing so is ignorant and it refuses to acknowledge the existence and the effectiveness of other ways in which to enact change and "settle issues" (Heinlein 26).
At first glance, this quote of Heinlein's seems logical, and in some cases it does apply. But to say that violence has been the most effective measure in changing the course of history is not only disturbing, but also incorrect. And what Heinlein categorizes as "wishful thinking" is not naivete, but rather another way of looking at history and the ways in which we can nonviolently and effectively achieve progess (26).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment