Turtle (way of warrior) - who speaks for wolf? Long reply

[Chris Corrigan]

Paul:

Thanks for posting this, because it brings to mind a number of questions and
helps me to clarify the change I see our worlkd currently swirling within.

The problem I have with Michael Kelly's thinking is that it doesn't make sense
anymore.  We are indeed in a new world.

What is "left-liberal" in an era where left-right political dynamics have
suddenly been replaced by fundamentalist - moderate?  Or something else?

What is pacifism in an era where "war" in the sense of a military conflict
between two nations states, is an outdated concept?

What pacifist does not also believe in the rule of law?  If these acts that took
place on September 11 are seen as horrific crimes, then peace loving people can
join the fight against the perpetrators.  As long as the US portrays these acts
as crimes (which the Administration has done a little, but not enough) then I can
get with them in terms of bringing the perpetrators to justice.  In fact I think
the answer IS to bring the perpetrators to justice.  Not unlike Mr. Kelly's
sentiments.  By all means bring down the groups that did this.  i know not a
living soul that would defend them.

But WAR?  Stil no one has told me who our enemy is in the WAR.  I know who we are
after in the police action, but who are we fighting in the war part?  Is Islam
our enemy?  And if so what does that mean?  Last time around people pinned stars
on Jews, because the Nazis felt that the enemy within was Jewish.  They felt that
the Jewish religion was fundamentally against the interests of the German
people.  Before that time, my own ancestors were slated for both cultural and
literal genocide at the hands of North American governments.  indians were bad.
We stood in the way of progress and our religions were inherently against the
Christian ideal.  I have those images in my mind when I hear of VAST sweeping
generalizations against Islam.  It resonates that deeply in my gut.  I am against
that.  I reserve the right to be against that and not be evil or immoral.

If "pacifism" (whatever that means) is pro-Facist, then so is the First Amendment
of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are they
not?  I don't know that pacifists would agree that the reason they were anti-war
in 1942 was because they supported Hitler.  In the same way the First Amendment
does not speak about protecting Nazis, but rather for the freedom to speak.  It
allows Nazis to spread their message (though not to kill or incite hatred) but it
ain't inherently Facist.  I think the anaolgy is a straw man.  It occurs to me
that everyone who has been making these arguments has quoted thinking that is 50
years old.  I really wonder what Orwell would say today.  He would be fascinated
i think by how vaguely familiar a lot of it all seemed.

It makes no sense to me to say either you are for justice or you are a pacifist,
and therefore evil.  Mr. Bush's duality "either you are for us or for the
terrorists" is invalid.  I can be against terrorism and yet utter dissent against
methods for fighting terrorism. Or I can be pro-American and pro-terrorist (if I
was, for example, a member of a Colombian death squad).

My point I think is that all of this thinking about who we are, and who we are up
against is really just very out of date.  Calling people immoral and evil seems
to serve the terrorist purpose of sowing chaos and internal fighting to the
benefit of a de-stabliized West.  Luckily, democratic traditions such as free
speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly will both accomodate all
thinking, including dissent, and strengthen democratic principles against the
threat of authoritarian terrorism.

I want to finish by saying to all that I am done debating the "war" openly on
this list.  I am happy to engage off list, but I will keep my posts from now on
limited to Open Space type issues.

Peace to all,

Chris

J. Paul Everett" wrote:

>
> Michael Kelly / Syndicated columnist
> In the face of such evil, pacifism is immoral
>
> Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are,
> and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet, it
> is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their
> appeal.
>
> It is worth it, first of all, because the idea of peace is inherently
> attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractive the idea
> becomes.
>
> It is worth it, secondly, because the reactionary left-liberal crowd in
> America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What
> happened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance
> and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an
> argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and
> imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support. This argument will be
> made with greater fearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered
> recede.
>
> It is worth it, thirdly, because the American foreign policy establishment
> has all the heart for war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver
> titmice. The first faint, let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be
> heard: Yes, we must do something, but is an escalation of aggression
> really the right thing? Mightn't it just make matters ever so much worse?
>
> Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the side of a higher morality,
> and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even for those who dismiss
> pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument is rooted entirely
> in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence only begets more
> violence.
>
> There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to the moral high ground,
> notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestly evil purposes.
> So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for the Nazi
> cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) as
> occupying the moral position.
>
> But in the situation where one's nation has been attacked - a situation
> such as we are now in - pacifism is, inescapably and profoundly, immoral.
> Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifism is on the side of
> the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murder again.
>
> In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review, this of Great Britain's
> pacifists:
>
> "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If
> you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of
> the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as
> the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.' "
>
> England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logic was implacable. The Nazis
> wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis
> would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to
> not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi
> victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.
>
> An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organized terrorist groups
> have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The
> American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do
> not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such
> attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists,
> therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are
> objectively pro-terrorist.
>
> There is no way out of this reasoning. No honest person can pretend that
> the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again. Nor
> can any honest person say that this attack is not at least reasonably
> likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. To not fight
> in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murder again;
> to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, support
> this outcome.
>
> As President Bush said of nations: a war has been declared; you are either
> on one side or another. You are either for doing what is necessary to
> capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or
> you are for not doing this.
>
> If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to
> continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that
> it is better to allow more Americans - perhaps a great many more - to be
> murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.
>
> That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.
>
> Michael Kelly's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times.
> The Washington Post Writers Group can be contacted via e-mail at
> writersgrp at washpost.com.
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html

--
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Consultation - Facilitation
Open Space Technology

http://www.chriscorrigan.com
corcom at interchange.ubc.ca

RR 1 E-3
1172 Miller Road
Bowen Island, BC
Canada, V0N 1G0

phone (604) 947-9236
fax (604) 947-9238

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html