How to Revolt
Human civilization is rent with revolutions, and people fighting the inequality that generally arises out of power and differences. However, these revolutions fall very generally under two separate categories: violent or non-violent. Within these differences, there is much debate about which method is “best”. But whatever conclusion you come to on the non-violence versus violence debate, it is based on how you define “best”. Having looked into examples of both options, I conclude that the best result is one which has the most long lasting results, and costs the least number of lives. Non-violence seems to fulfill this definition better, and has better results in general than violence. Therefore, although violence has shown its merits in multiple historical situations, non-violence is a better option because of its result.
Throughout history, there are many examples that on first glance seem to contradict the theory that violence is less effective. It is true that many times violence has been used as a highly effective way to revolt. However, my argument is not that violence cannot be used but that in many situations it is less effective in the long run, and costs more lives. One example of a successful violent revolution was the South African revolution under Nelson Mandela; however, this revolution began as a non-violent protest against the state of equality in South Africa, and only escalated when they were backed into a corner by the continuous legislation passed by the government. As Mandela stated in his speech: “We first broke the law in a way which avoided any recourse to violence; when this form was legislated against, and then the government resorted to a show of force to crush the opposition to its policies, only then did we decide to answer violence with violence.”(Mandela, 1964) His point is that they could choose, ultimately, to either give in or fight back in the only way that was still available for them to fight. They were forced into violent actions by the continued violence of the government. They would prefer to settle their differences in a way that avoided these clashes, but they were rejected at every turn. He is showing them, rather than telling them, how he got backed into a corner. Throughout his whole speech, he is portraying this air of “can you blame us?” So, in the end, this revolution was violent, but they had tried nonviolence for almost 50 years before they were forced into a position of violence by the actions of the Afrikaner party. So, on the surface, violence has seemed to be effective in many cases, but in reality non-violence is the constant running undercurrent.
For a violent revolution to be successful, it must have some aspect of the ideas of non-violence: investigation, education, negotiation, boycott, and popular non-cooperation. (Deats, 1991) This lends credence to the theory that non-violence is more successful, with this fact that violence must be supplemented with these theories. For example, the Civil War freed the slaves, but it wasn’t until the 1960 during the civil rights movement that they were equal in their rights to the white race in America. Nelson Mandela used non-violence to perpetuate his cause, using violence only when necessary, and even then targeting symbolic targets only, avoiding loss of life. Mandela’s revolution really started picking up steam when the South Africa international divestment campaigns began, cutting South Africa off from trade with much of the rest of the world. In essence, the revolution started to become successful when the rather radical non-violence tactic of boycotting was used. Here we can come to the conclusion that for a revolution to be successful, you must have some aspect of non-violent policies. Non-violence lends itself to triumph.
In either a violent or non-violent revolution, education is the most effective tool in changing the opinion of both sides. It is an excellent choice to precede any sort of massive revolution, because it is very effective on its own. In his speech to the supreme court of South Africa, Nelson Mandela stated, “Africans want a just share of South Africa; they want security and a stake in society.”(1964) He used his chance to defend himself to instead defend his entire revolution, tear apart the governing system and rules of south Africa, and most importantly, show the fact that he was indeed a human, in fact that his whole race was. He was educating the white race at the only opportunity he got, even at the expense of his own defense. He saw the necessity of the education of both sides. He wanted to show not that his race wanted things handed to them, but that they simply wanted equal opportunities in their own country. He was showing that he was equal, and deserved better. It becomes much harder to oppress someone when you know that they are people like you and deserve the same rights as you do. You would feel that much crueler oppressing someone that you could see has rights. It sort of follows along the same lines as the idea that if someone has a gun pointed at you, you are supposed to tell them personal facts about yourself, so that they are less likely to shoot you. People are not inhumane. If you can get them to understand, then you have more of a chance to succeed.
One of the biggest barriers in the fight for equal rights in these revolutions is fear, on both sides. The oppressed fear the oppressors because of the threat of violence should they attempt to resist. And the oppressors fear the oppressed. They fear that should the oppressed gain the rights that most people agree they are entitled to, they will no longer be in power, and they see that as being an immensely vulnerable position for anyone to be in. Nelson Mandela summed this up very well in his speech before the Supreme Court of South Africa: “Above all, we want equal political rights, because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know that this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country, because the majority of voters will be Africans. […] But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all.” (Mandela, 1964) He was directly addressing this idea that the whites were afraid of change. He saw their fear, and he spoke directly to it, as he would confront an entity posing an obstacle for justice and equality. His point was that as the blacks were 70% of the population, they should be able to hold power in their own country. Now, looking on this from the modern perspective that we have nowadays, it is reasonable for us to say that of course they should hold power in their own country. However, imagine that you are the oppressor that stands to lose everything. Do you really want to put your life and country in the hands of the people who have been oppressed by your race for 50 years? Even if you see the power struggle, and you know what you are doing is wrong, this fear holds you in this rut of domination. Those oppressing are just as limited as those oppressed, albeit in a different sense. Here lies the importance of education. In this fight for equality, the ones in power need to feel safe, in some sense. If they are free of this fear, they are free to accept equality. There must simply be equality in the end result, not revenge. For any non-violent revolution to work, fear must be shrunk if not entirely eliminated on both sides.
Violent revolutions, especially ones dealing with racial tensions, leave scars on a culture, population, and country. The result does not erase the divisions in the culture. Rather than changing the mindset of the people involved, you are forcing them into a new way of acting, without teaching them the value of such an action. People will resist this unless they are shown how they are wrong. And without the acceptance of everyone involved, no real change has occurred. For example, in South Africa there is still much division among the races, just in terms of money and housing. In essence, they are still struggling out from under this oppression. In addition, in the civil war, the slaves may have been freed, but they were second class citizens until the non-violent civil rights movement in the 1960s. For a revolution to have a lasting effect on a culture, country, and way of life, requires not that just the policies change, but actually that there is a shift in the very way of thinking on all sides. The end result must almost be a result of the negotiations of both sides, so that everyone can feel that they have ownership of the end result, and therefore carry more self-motivation into the end result.
Non-violent revolutions have much more of a feeling of “pathetic underdog” to the outer world, and this helps encourage the support of outside countries. The power in a non-violent revolution is that it can affect the image of the oppressor, and the reactions of foreign countries. For example, in India, a large reason why the British eventually pulled out had to do with being unable to control the country without violence. This shatters the illusion that they had been operating under: that the British were there to help “civilize” the country. They were unable to retaliate without using violence, and the violence was showing them in a very different light to the foreign countries. The amount of force needed also shatters the oppressor’s illusions of sainthood. They can no longer justify their presence and oppressive behavior to the world, to their people, or most importantly, to themselves. The power of non-violence is in its ability to affect the emotions and logical side of people. You have so much more emotional strength if you can stand up to someone or something without using violence. You can maintain this image of constant underdog, even if these tactics put you in a position of power over the oppressor. You can also paint yourself as the civilized ones and the logical ones, if you use this tactic. This can help you fight accusations of savagery which are common in many revolutions of equality.
Non-violence is the best way to go in any revolution, because of the power it holds in its very powerlessness. Ultimately I would have to hope that this shift in conflict resolution to non-violent means would become a permanent thing, and remove the necessity of war and violence. There will always be pain and suffering in this world, and differences that seem insurmountable at first glance, but the reality is that every problem has a solution. The resolution of non-violence allows for continued negotiation, as a sort of constant process, rather than a one-time fix. The solution may not be obvious, and it may require a huge amount of strength, but I believe in humanity’s ability to be peaceful. Non-violence as a solution, and a resolution of everyone, is one step on a road to a peaceful world where everyone has rights. You may be a cynic who believes that this is impossible, but the truth is that humanity has consistently strived to be better. We must continue to strive, and non-violence can help break us free of the devastating cycle of pain and inequality. We must implement this process as a lasting solution. It will make our world free not just in reality, but in the minds of all people, and that is all we can ever ask or hope for in this world.
Bibliography
Deats, Richard. “Active Nonviolence: A Way of Life.” Active Nonviolence, The Fellowship of Reconciliation. Fellowship of Reconciliation. 1991
Mandela, Nelson. “An Ideal for which I am Prepared to Die.” Defense Statement. Supreme Court of South Africa. Pretoria. 20 April 1964.
Jihad versus McWorld
Jihad is one of the options our world is looking at as we go into this new era of human kind. It deals with the differences between people. In essence, Jihad is a division of the world into separate camps of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, etc. We can already see it happening in India, for example, between differing groups of people there. I chose to show this force in my poster as a negative one, because I feel that its premise is that of inequality and division, something that we’ve been fighting for centuries. Having just celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. day, it is especially important to see where our world has come from and where it is still going. In my poster, I used pictures of different ethnicities and cultures on one side, to show the “positive” aspects of Jihad, like identity and community. But I wanted to show that as false, so I had that being ripped away to show the truth of Jihad, which I see as being very destructive and a generally negative force. I tried to apply a sort of idea of betrayal, in the sense that x is what Jihad says it is, but they are hiding the truth and lying to you. I used general emotional words to more explain some of the pictures I used to convey my idea. Basically, I wanted to expose the truth in my poster, and I believe the finished result does indeed convey what I wished it to.
"The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas."
Before Omelas
Dark clouds travel somnolently across the sky, not caring about the chaos below. They are lumbering; they carry a heavy weight across a black-streaked sky. And they care not of the perils and trials of the dark red-roofed encampment below.
A man, clothed in robes red as the blood of the deaths he is responsible for, stands in confidence. He is the giant in front of the crowd, preaching horrors.
The air is thick with the twisting song of misery and the weighty scent of flesh. It wraps not only the crowd, but the entire town, with despair, and the dark metallic taste of violence.
This is the town before Omelas. This world is full of darkness, and horror. The dark clouds above the city are not as peaceful as they seem, having been fed the waste of a society that contains nothing but destruction.
***
In a cellar, past the burning, past the man clothed in blood there sit several people. They had been conferring, while the gathering provided them protection,but they now sit in silence. They are together in actuality, but alone in each of their thoughts; they contemplate the massive change they have just implemented.
“Is it worth it?” A small voice weaves through the shadows, full of doubt, but also repressed hope.
In the corner, a mother and her three year old son huddle, knowing that their time together is almost gone. They are there of their own choice, refusing to live forever in a world of misery, but they know what it means. The child will never leave this cellar.
***
Back in the main square, the crowd roars, becoming less human, faces and souls twisted with the constant violence that disfigures them. The blood clothed man continues preaching poison to the twisted crowd, as tension builds…
And the clouds open.
In what can only be described as a surging cascade, something falls from the clouds. It is water, but water like never before. You had best hope that you will never encounter it. As it falls, the crowd, as one being, looks upward, and screams.
They scream as the truths of their destructions fall, and they drown in the pain that they have caused.
The rain washes them all away, and subsides as quickly as it came.
They come creeping out of the cellar, and drift, wraithlike, through the empty town. They aren’t done. The mission of the group: to bring joy into a joyless world.
The boy and his mother are sleeping when the wraiths come, and steal the boy away, to fulfill the biggest hopes of the village: he brings happiness in the form of suffering. As the boy is spirited away, his mother awakes and gives a huge wail. “Please! No! He is just a boy!”’
The wraiths say nothing, but spirit her away from the boy, leaving him alone. Forever alone.
He now holds the hope, and the happiness of all the people of Omelas. Him, the child sitting in the same cellar the fate of the world was decided in; all depends on him.
***
Gradually, Omelas brightens. The fields are green and vibrant, music trips through the streets, finding its way into the cellar with the boy. Nothing remains of the village before but the roofs, still red as blood; and the boy, who sits in the cellar, and never speaks.
But he remembers the sunlight, and when he closes his eyes, can still feel it, sharp as needles in his eyes that now see nothing but the mops, and the door.
Endless nothing but the needles of reality, tormenting him, alone in the basement.
***
Seminar Reflection Part 2 Question 3
The story of Omelas has several powerful, but subtle, messages about the relationship between guilt and happiness. The people of Omelas certainly have a joyful society, but at what cost to their conscience? You would assume that the people of Omelas managed to bury their guilt in the idea that the child in the cellar was “too degraded and imbecile to know any real joy.”(Paragraph 12) The people of Omelas tried to bury their grief in the idea that even if they freed the child, it could not enjoy the freedom. They essentially turned the child into less than human. Because of this, they were able to live their lives without guilt. And the people who walked away were the ones who couldn’t live with the guilt of living happily because of the suffering of the child. This is my impression of the conclusion we came to in seminar yesterday.
However, having thought about the lives of the people who stay and the ones who walk away, I came to a different conclusion. The people who stay live happily because they know the alternative. As it says in paragraph 12, “It is the existence of the child, and their knowledge of its existence, that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science.” Because they know of the existence of the child, they can treat each other better. I had initially thought that this sentence was evidence to the fact that you must have contrast, you must have happiness and sadness together, but I would like to expand on that theory now. They see the child, and they know what could happen to them if they go down the road of unkindness, and so when they see a child, they treat it with kindness. The guilt that I thought they didn’t feel actually fuels their whole lives. As in the sentence I quoted in the first paragraph, they do think that the child is too far gone to ever enjoy true life again. But they can ensure that no one else suffers like that, and the guilt over this child keeps the reminder of kindness fresh in their minds. Not only is the guilt there, but it is what forces these people to be genuinely kind and happy people.
Being Peace
Happy: the state of being generally content and enjoying your life. This definition sounds deceptively simple, but attaining actual happiness is a fairly difficult task that requires some amount of mental discipline. One way to access this state of mental, or synthetic happiness, is to follow these trainings I actually feel that they are designed to encourage the production of synthetic happiness, as well as make the world a generally more pleasant place to live in. As it says in the fifth mindfulness training, “The human mind is always searching for possessions, and never feels fulfilled. Bodhisattvas move in the opposite direction and follow the principle of self-sufficiency.” This sentence can be interpreted in many different ways, but how I read it, I see it saying sort of the same thing that I am. The trainings of this person include being happy with where you are, instead of looking for more. Manufacture happiness, because that is easier, and will stay with you for longer.
However, I am not sure that trying to follow these trainings would actually make me happier. I think that if I was capable of actually doing all of these trainings, then I would be a happier person for it. However, humanity is intrinsically flawed, and I believe that it is not actually possible to completely adhere to these trainings. Reflecting on myself, I realize that I tend to be a bit of a perfectionist, and I think that not being able to hold myself up to these standards would be extraordinarily stressful for me, and ultimately, I would be in a less happy place because of it. I realize that in the book, it states, in essence, that these trainings are not rules, but simple guidances, but I believe I would still have difficulty not punishing myself for not following the trainings,
That being said, a solution for me would be to take the trainings one by one. As I incorporate one training, when I feel that I have a handle on it I could bring in the next one, until it is a more unconscious thought process. I would not go in order, though. I would choose the ones that I considered the most important, and start with those, in the hope that they would make the rest easier, as well as have the most positive impact on my life. The training I would choose to begin with would be the fifth, because as I stated in my previous paragraphs, I believe that is the training most conducive to happiness in terms of all around contentment. Release our attachments to material things, and you will find yourself happier with your present situation.
Found Poem from Being Peace
Is our world safe?
Sometimes we suffer lose ourselves in the existence of suffering
We are caught
All living beings
Suffering.
But
We are determined
We are committed
Committed to cultivating our ideals
Rooted in peace
Free from fanaticism.
Get out of suffering
Because
Life is precious…
Reactions
In the seminar yesterday, I sometimes had difficulty following the train of conversation, but there is no doubt that there were some opinion changing going on. One comment that really stands out was when India was talking about how we each had a lie to help us keep living, and that Billy’s time travels are his beautiful lie, to explain his passivity. I thought that this comment was really powerful because I had not thought about it this way before, but it made total sense in my perception of the book. It also connects to the only other book that I’ve read by Vonnegut, which was Cat’s Cradle. That whole book was talking about the lie that was religion, but more than that, it was talking about how people need something to believe in. Maybe Billy Pilgrim felt powerless about his life, so he created this story to tell himself that he couldn’t have power over his life even if he tried. That would make things easier for him, but he’s not even living anymore.
Detailed Response
This book is impossible to classify, because it is neither anti-war nor pro-war at face value. Indeed, in the beginning of the book, Vonnegut is having a conversation with a movie maker about hi idea for the book, and says, in response to the question ‘Is it an anti-war novel?’ “Yes. […] I guess.” He doesn’t want to have a black and white view on a grey problem. This is why, in his interview he says “I never argue the point.” He takes offense at people who can look at war and say it’s one thing or the other, because he sees the shades in between. I don’t necessarily think he is wrong in his thought process, either.
However, after reading this novel, you would definitely have difficulty defending a pro-war statement with its evidence. The way he writes this book makes you come around to his way of thinking without knowing that you are doing that. There aren’t really any specific sentences that defend this idea, because the theory is in what is not there and not what is. He writes about his various events in an emotionless voice for the most part, and the manipulation is in the evidence he chooses. All of his war events illustrate the grimness of war, or the patheticness of everyone involved. For example, on pg. 80, the book reads “Billy Pilgrim was lying at an angle on the corner-brace, self-crucified, holding himself there with a blue and ivory claw hooked over the sill of the ventilator.” Despite that this whole book doesn’t seem very intense on much, if you take a close look at his imagery it is pretty horrifying. When it’s mixed into the book it seems not that bad, but look at the imagery closely and you realize what a bad light he puts on war. He convinces you that war is horrible without ever saying it straight out.
Outside Connection
In my first paragraph, I talked a little bit about the other novel I’ve read by Vonnegut: Cat’s Cradle. In that book, the creator of this religion fully claimed that all his sayings are lie. This connects back to when Billy is in the hospital, recovering from the plane crash, and his hospital buddy is talking to the psychiatrist about how they are going to have to come up with better lies, or people aren’t going to keep on living. Among the themes in Slaughterhouse 5, this is a small one, but I think that it would be interesting to see if this theme travels over in other books as well. Everyone tells themselves lies to keep living, so why is this any different? In addition, this connects back to what India said in seminar, about the beautiful lie of the structure moment. This theme is in everything!
Lori’s Choice
The whole premise of Slaughterhouse 5 is the “So it goes” saying. Billy is passive and emotionless throughout the whole book, and this causes the whole book to feel this sense of inevitability, which comes with the feeling of so it goes. I feel like this really connects to the end of All Quiet on the Western Front, where Paul loses his friends, and just shuts down. I feel like his shut down was an attempt at a so it goes attitude, but because he has already cared and lost, he is unable to truly shut himself down, and so dies from his loss more than anything. The difference is in the ability or lack of ability to totally distance yourself from the events of your life. These two books are very different, but in the end, the connection lies in the coping mechanisms of soldiers.
Reactions
Yesterday in seminar many worthwhile opinions were expressed. However, one that really stood out to me was when we were talking about how instead of dying, he could have gone home and created a new life for himself. Someone mentioned that because he was still forming opinions of life when he went into the war, coming out of the war he had been formed by that. War had decided his lifestyle, and his very character. This comment intrigued me, because I hadn’t thought of it in that way and it seemed like a reasonable assumption to make. The book even talks about that, one of the times that it is talking about after the war. It says something along the lines of the older generations already have roots, and they have things to go back to after the war, but their generation had not had time to form roots, and so at the slightest gust, they were torn from their life and now cannot go back. That is a depressing outlook on being able to come back from war, but it makes sense to me and I can see that in the book as well. This was one of many intriguing comments made yesterday, but the one that I connected to the most.
Detailed Response
Paul’s death was a cop-out. He spends most of this book fighting for his life, for this war, only to die of nothing on the most notable day on the front. The day is was literally “All quiet on the western front”. He simply gave up. After all that fighting, he gave up. Now, I am aware that he lost all his friends at the end. But to die so close to freedom, when there was talk of peace, of armistice, is a loss. He may have been through a lot, but there have been experiences like him for as long as there has been war, and while he may not have strong roots, he has his family. That is the biggest loss, I think. In his death, Paul is extraordinarily selfish. Did he stop to think that he was leaving a single father to care and pay for a dying mother? That his death could send his mother over the edge? He may have felt like he had no roots, but they were there. He just didn’t want to acknowledge them, because that would mean that he would have to take the hard road, and turn his life into something meaningful. He was too tired to see that he had other options and that by giving up so close to the end, he was being weak.
Under the extreme circumstances that Paul experienced, his death was the best thing that could have happened to him. It concluded the book in the only way I feel would have been satisfying to the reader, but it’s also more than that. After Chapter 9, when he has the revelation about the true nature of war, the tone of his voice begins to change. He had already given up his whole life for this war effort, and his friends were all that he had left. Once his friends start leaving, either through attempted desertion, as Detering did, or death, as all the others, his soul starts leaving with them. Finally, when only Kat is left, Kat, the staunch survivor, and he is hit, dying in Paul’s arms, this is the point that Paul died too. At the end of the passage with Kat’s death, he states “…the Militiaman Stanislaus Katczinsky has died. Then I know nothing more.” In a way, you could argue that this passage is where he dies, soul departing with his last remaining friends’. From this point on, he is apathetic and resigned to his fate. He had nothing left, nothing to go back to, and so death was a mercy for a dead man walking.
Connections
During the seminar yesterday, when we were talking about how the people in the war really don’t have anything to do with its starting, and often don’t even understand why it is happening anyway. This led to me thinking about the Linkin Park song Hands Held High, on the line that says “When the rich wage war it’s the poor who die”. This line and the song in general really sum up this section of the seminar, because it’s so true. The people who start the war, who see it as necessary, are not the ones who fight and die for their supposed cause. Maybe the world would be a more peaceful place if they did. You are less likely to call for war if it is you that is dying. But I just really saw this connection when we were discussing this yesterday, so this is the main connection I made with other materials.
Lori’s Choice Questions
“Comrade, I did not want to kill you. If you jumped in here again, I would not do it, if you would be sensible too. But you were only an idea to me before, an abstraction that lived in my mind and called forward its appropriate response. It was that abstraction that I stabbed. But now, for the first time, I see you are a man like me. I thought of your hand grenades, of your bayonet, of your rifle; now I see your wife and your face and our fellowship. Forgive me, comrade. We always see it too late. Why do they never tell us that you are poor devils like us, that your mothers are just as anxious as ours, and that we have the same fear of death, and the same dying and the same agony—forgive me, comrade; how could you be my enemy? If we threw away these rifles and this uniform you could be my brother just like Kat and Albert. Take twenty years of my life, comrade, and stand up—take more, for I do not know what I can even attempt to do with it now.” Page 223, paragraph 2, sentence 2.
I chose this quote as the one that symbolizes the truth of war, both for me and in the book, because this is where Paul discovers his truth of war. He realizes that the other side is populated by people just like him, and the only thing that comes between them as friends is the fact that world leaders have decided that their nations are completely opposed, and must fight their problems out. He realizes the randomness of war, as well; if he had run two meters to the left they might both be alive, living in their separate worlds. His truth of war becomes: that it is arbitrary, as well as against human nature. Brother fights brother, and the whole world goes mad.
I f I were to choose a form to express this truth of war, I would choose poetry, for several reasons. Firstly, out of all creative endeavors, this is usually the most effective method of artistic communication for me. Secondly, I feel that words are a medium that have huge potential to be very striking, and even life changing. Thirdly, I don’t like the idea of putting images to the saying, preferring to evoke images in the mind if I can manage that.
