Challenging my pacifism
July 7, 2007 | 6:29 pmMy closest and dearest friends are those that challenge me and challenge my beliefs… I find that by having to justify with people who are in the know and who can play devil’s advocate, is actually the best way to find out what you truly believe in.
I don’t even know how we got on the topic, but a friend of mine, this morning, challenged my pacifism… It was a great discussion… I’m a pragmatic pacifist, that means I don’t believe in violence, i don’t think it will ever be the answer… but, and yes, there’s a but, there are situations where you can’t avoid it… so is being a pragmatic pacifist, a cop-out? no, it’s just realistic.
I believe that war is never the answer, EVER! but i also believe that once a war has started, you have the right to defend yourself and stop those who, otherwise, would continue to do harm. Concrete example, I believe that the only way to deal with Hitler was to kill him and I believe that each country invaded by the Germans and Russians had a right to defend themselves and get their country back. I don’t believe that peace negotiations would have worked at that point, and if we are unfortunate to have psychopaths like Hitler and Saddam Hussein at the head of a country, force is the only way to get rid of them… And yes, that might be violence, but compared to the violence that would continue if they weren’t removed from their position, it’s the solution with the least amount of casualties.
The problem, of course, is where is the line? When is it ok to use violence and when isn’t it? I mean, it’s a slippery slope, right? Technically, then, Islamists would be right to use terrorism in order to send the message that the USA should stop causing casualties in countries like Iraq, right? Wrong. Wrong, because we all know that no matter how many western civilians die in terrorist attacks, no matter how many US troups and Iraqi civilians die, the government will not get out of Iraq, because now, it’s about prooving something, it’s about prooving that our way is the better way and that a democracy MUST be set up in Iraq… pppfff… 
but that’s another topic altogher…
So, no, I don’t think that my version (well, it’s not just mine, i mean, it’s in Wikipedia, so it’s gotta be real, right 
?) of pacifism is a cop-out, i think it’s a realistic version of an ideal concept.
But that’s just me. What do you think?
Loading ...
I agree with you but I believe that distinguishing those
Amin | July 8, 2007 | 6:09 pmI agree with you but I believe that distinguishing those points is sometimes difficult and not practical..The point is that every side of the battle would see itself as being right and the other side to be wrong and they always have something to justify their ideas!!
It's important to remember that - history books are written
Sonja | July 12, 2007 | 10:35 amIt’s important to remember that - history books are written by those that won. As crazy a concept this might be - would we still view Hitler as the evil man he was if he had won?
If we had adopted that mentality as our own , would we not now all hail him as a prophet or savior of sorts?
Crazy I know … still.
I think that the truth lies not in war but in education. Brain washing is in existance on any side of the war. So who is right? Is Capitalism and all it’s ugliness the way to go? or the other side with it’s oppressive ways towards woman … is it even a true choice? are people getting to choose - or are you born into that choice?
Win back your country? how did you come by it in the first place? Why do we humans feel the need to “own” the land in the first place?? Who are we to lay claim at any time in our history. Look at France? who has rights? the Brits who invaded for a time? the Spanish?
Violence never solved anything “cleanly” - but it does resolve things for time, anythign gained in war can and will be challenged in the future… it always comes to bite you in the ass eventually.
War is simply a “to date” reflection of the state of humanity. We are self distructive on many levels yet we are a balance - we are able of such trememdous beauty and constructive, positive impact. And we can undo it in the blink of an eye. We are as a species, both a plague and cure.
great last paragraph, i agree 100%. with regards to winning back
CosmoChick | July 12, 2007 | 12:15 pmgreat last paragraph, i agree 100%.
with regards to winning back a country, the thing is, i think that the human race went through an evolution. It’s only in the last 200 years that we’ve started seeing the borders being permanently established, and territorial wars are now only localized. i mean, france, one can forsee, will pretty much always be france (give or take an alsacian border or 2), i’m not seeing the romans coming over and saying “you know, 600 years ago, we lived here”. At least not now. Maybe it’s a cycle, and maybe eventually, we’ll start re-drawing the map… but for now, territorial wars are only very localized. when hilter walked into paris, he was walking into france. people in paris speak french, eat french food, have a strong french national identity that had been built up over generations. They don’t speak german, so paris is french, it’s not german. so i believe that french people would have a right to defend their city and take it back from an invasion.
i realize it’s not remotely as cut and dry in other regions, because regions that have been fought over for generations have a complete mix of cultures, and it’s hard to say who’s right and who’s wrong, but since we’re on the topic of hitler, yes, i believe that it was a question of the french gettting their country back (i didn’t say “winning”, they’re nothing joyful here).
hitler, the norm, yes, absolutely, had he been successful, we would have seen him as the brilliant orator he was, and the smart war tactician that he was early in his life (he kinda lost it eventually, and his neurosis was his downfall), and a few generations later, people would have idolized him. yes, i can imagine that as an alternative course of events… scary… but interesting…