One thing that has come up repeatedly at this program is that it's hard to teach about nonviolence when we haven't been taught it ourselves. Most of us grew up with Social Studies classes that were more like lists of violent conflicts than actual "social studies." One of the most profound moments for me, in my own journey of nonviolence, was learning that there IS another way. And I honestly believe that our students are looking for a better way, too. Even those who are invested in the military or who have loved ones in the military-- our work is so that they don't have to put their lives in danger for a living. One of my best friends is a veteran of the Iraq war, and he is headed back to Afghanistan this summer, and I constantly tell him that he's the inspiration for so much of the peace work that I do. I hear the horrific stories he shares with me, and I want to help build a world where those nightmares don't happen. And while I know it seems idealistic, I can't believe that it is just an ideal. I, after all, am part of a statistic -- before 2011, I did not, in any way shape or form, believe in the power of nonviolence. I would have been one of the many who think that it's impossible for a minority to gain power over a majority, and that war was how we had always done things, and there really wasn't an alternative. All it took to convert me was an exposure to nonviolent conflict its strategies. It made sense. Gandhi's Hind Swaraj made sense to me. I want to share an excerpt from Hind Swaraj that particularly resonated with me (Gandhi is the "Editor" and his detractor(s) is the "Reader":
Reader: From what you say I deduce that passive resistance is a splendid weapon of the weak, but that when they are strong they may take up arms.
Editor: This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How, then, can it he considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical-force men are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes? Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do they, then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing else. When they succeed in driving out the English and they themselves become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of a cannon.
What do you think? Wherein is courage required -- in blowing others to pieces from behind a cannon, or with a smiling face to approach a cannon and be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior be, who keeps death always as a bosom-friend, or he who controls the death of others? Believe me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive resister.
This however, I will admit: that even a man weak in body is capable of offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well as millions. Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not require the training of an army; it needs no jiujitsu. Control over the mind is alone necessary, and when that is attained, man is free like the king of the forest and his very glance withers the enemy.
Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing a drop of blood it produces far reaching results. It never rusts and cannot he stolen. Competition between passive resisters does not exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It is strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be a weapon merely of the weak.
How powerful is that? I teach all this literature that defines courage and heroism as using violence -- but really, when you step back and think about it, it's so clear that it's not. We've been conditioned to think that not fighting is cowardice, and this is an education we can reverse. Students know that to be a "man" isn't to be violent, despite what society suggests. Whenever I read Harry Potter (or watch it!), I think of this -- notice that Harry never uses the violent spells, but always the disarming one. He's an example of nonviolence in action! :) But our students also need affirmation in the real world... they need to be made aware of the "real men" they see every day. But that these are in fact, "real men" is so rarely validated. One thing we can do is to validate that opinion is to show we feel it ourselves. And to ask them about it. Ask them to think about who some of the bravest people they know are -- when it comes down to it, in all of our hearts, I believe we share the same nonviolent values.
Reader: From what you say I deduce that passive resistance is a splendid weapon of the weak, but that when they are strong they may take up arms.
Editor: This is gross ignorance. Passive resistance, that is, soul-force, is matchless. It is superior to the force of arms. How, then, can it he considered only a weapon of the weak? Physical-force men are strangers to the courage that is requisite in a passive resister. Do you believe that a coward can ever disobey a law that he dislikes? Extremists are considered to be advocates of brute force. Why do they, then, talk about obeying laws? I do not blame them. They can say nothing else. When they succeed in driving out the English and they themselves become governors, they will want you and me to obey their laws. And that is a fitting thing for their constitution. But a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience, even though he may be blown to pieces at the mouth of a cannon.
What do you think? Wherein is courage required -- in blowing others to pieces from behind a cannon, or with a smiling face to approach a cannon and be blown to pieces? Who is the true warrior be, who keeps death always as a bosom-friend, or he who controls the death of others? Believe me that a man devoid of courage and manhood can never be a passive resister.
This however, I will admit: that even a man weak in body is capable of offering this resistance. One man can offer it just as well as millions. Both men and women can indulge in it. It does not require the training of an army; it needs no jiujitsu. Control over the mind is alone necessary, and when that is attained, man is free like the king of the forest and his very glance withers the enemy.
Passive resistance is an all-sided sword, it can be used anyhow; it blesses him who uses it and him against whom it is used. Without drawing a drop of blood it produces far reaching results. It never rusts and cannot he stolen. Competition between passive resisters does not exhaust. The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard. It is strange indeed that you should consider such a weapon to be a weapon merely of the weak.
How powerful is that? I teach all this literature that defines courage and heroism as using violence -- but really, when you step back and think about it, it's so clear that it's not. We've been conditioned to think that not fighting is cowardice, and this is an education we can reverse. Students know that to be a "man" isn't to be violent, despite what society suggests. Whenever I read Harry Potter (or watch it!), I think of this -- notice that Harry never uses the violent spells, but always the disarming one. He's an example of nonviolence in action! :) But our students also need affirmation in the real world... they need to be made aware of the "real men" they see every day. But that these are in fact, "real men" is so rarely validated. One thing we can do is to validate that opinion is to show we feel it ourselves. And to ask them about it. Ask them to think about who some of the bravest people they know are -- when it comes down to it, in all of our hearts, I believe we share the same nonviolent values.
Cesar Chavez once wrote, "Perhaps we can bring the day when children will learn from their earliest days that being fully man and fully woman means to give one's life to the liberation of the brother who suffers. It is up to each one of us. It won't happen unless we decide to use our lives to show the way." He also said, "You know, if people are not pacifists, it's not their fault. It's because society puts them in that spot. You've got to change it. You don't just change a man - you've got to change his environment as you do it." And this is part of our job, right? To help change the environment. And part of changing this environment is bringing to light all of those examples of nonviolent conflict that history textbooks ignore, and all those examples of "real men" that students need to see. How else will anyone see nonviolence as an alternative? How else will students listen to debates about entering a war, and be able to say, "Hey, what about nonviolent alternatives? Have we exhausted all nonviolent possibilities before resorting to violence?" This dialogue can't happen unless someone shows them that it's a real possibility -- and this is something we can do, because it's been done before. I stand as an example of the power of simple exposure to nonviolence; 3 years ago, I couldn't say more than a sentence about Gandhi, had never heard of nonviolence or ahimsa, and confused Cesar Chavez for Che Guevara (true story). And now I consider it one of my core values, and simple awareness has transformed my teaching. That's the beauty of nonviolence -- it fills the gap so many of us are searching for, and it does it without force or coercion -- it does it simply by existing.
I'm so fortunate to have the opportunity to be with you all to share our passions and questions and support, because one of the most important elements of nonviolent resistance is community support. 5%, right Kristy? :) So thank you for listening to my rant (it wasn't my initial intent!), and thank you for being here in India. Love you all :)
And now, the original point of this post, haha, was just to share that link to learn more about nonviolent conflict, both as a strategy and to learn more about examples is history: http://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment