Violence is always an answer but whether or not it's the best answer is up for debate. It's certainly effective, quick, and fulfills our primitive need to exert dominance but in the long run it is the worst answer. Violence creates its own enemies. Kill a man and any moral high-ground you once held is gone. He could have raped your daughter and killed your wife but as soon as you kill him, you've made an enemy of his brother, his father, his mother, and his sons.
Look at the conflict in the Middle East. With each bomb we drop, each man we torture . . . I mean "aggressively interrogate" we turn the collateral damage, the families and friends, against us. Shock and Awe is great if you're fighting a political force like the Nazis but when your fighting people who fear you then shock and awe just validates their beliefs that you are evil and to be feared.
But history is written by the winners and often times that means the most violent. The point is what is written by violence is HISTORY. In the past it was easy for the winners of a war to write the history books. It was easier to erase the pasts of those who opposed the "strong." *cough American Indians cough*
Today things are shifting. Our world of internet and instant information sharing gives those receiving the beating a voice. Those who are violent are more likely to be held responsible for their actions. Similarly it is easier for one occurrence to become the rallying point of a cause.
If violence is no longer a viable long term option and opening a can of whop-ass only creates more problems, then what is the answer?
I wish I could say the Gandhi had the answer but that kind of "peaceful protest" only works in certain situations and it certainly doesn't work between nations. Imagine sending soldiers to hold a "sit in" to overthrow Saddam or hunting Al-Queda with a march. You can't because it's absurd.
I can't pretend to know the Best way and neither can our world leaders but I do know what doesn't work and that's a start.
No comments:
Post a Comment