Monday, August 20, 2012

Obsession with Non-Violence: Detrimental to Oppressed People


          I recently watched a video on Al Jazeera English, titled “The US and Honduras.”


          Its 24 minutes long, so I don’t expect you to watch the entire thing. The summary of it is that the U.S. gives political, economic, and military support to the Honduran government, which is ridiculously corrupt, and its military and police forces engage in routine kidnappings, torturing, executions, and assassinations of numerous Honduran civilians, including human rights activists and members of the LGBT community. Not only does the U.S. government know that the Honduran government regularly does all of these things, but it directly “supervises” and “advises” in these activities.

          Now, before we go any further, imagine how you would feel if a powerful foreign country was doing the same thing to the United States, in your state, or in your county? I ask this because many people cannot look at an international issue, and understand why people feel a certain way in it, because they themselves have not been in that certain specific situation. I have no problem doing this, but not all my readers might. In order to understand why a people feel a certain way, often they must envision how they would feel if the exact same problem was occurring to them.         

          So, I ask you, what if a powerful foreign country, such as Russia or China, was propping up an even more corrupt government here in the U.S., funneling hundreds of millions of dollars to the American military and police forces, which were in turn, kidnapping unarmed American civilians, torturing them, locking them in jail without access to a lawyer, medical care, executing them and assassinating them? Wouldn’t you feel just a tad pissed off at Russia or China? Since they are the one reason why this particular U.S. government is able to stay in power. Would you call the Russian government or Chinese government terrorist supporters? They are supporting people who are killing unarmed civilians, by the way.

          Now that we are in the right frame of mind, let’s move onto my main point. My problem with this video is that the Hondurans were not saying “You know, this whole liberal non-violent thing protest against the government just ain’t working. No matter what I say, all they’re gonna do is shoot me in the head. They couldn’t give a flying fuck about human rights. Hmmmm, maybe I should take up arms to defend my rights, as many ideologies, political philosophies, and religions support!” Only a few Hondurans were brave enough to take up arms to defend themselves, such as this older campesino (peasant):



          I am fed up with this liberal non-violent trend that has swept most of the world, the idea that there is no such thing as legitimate violence, even in cases of self-defense. These Hondurans are so brainwashed by this trend, that they think it is unacceptable to get guns and ammo to protect themselves, their families, their community, etc. They cry and cry about their situation, yet won’t try something that has a good chance of improving their situation.

          Take Libya for example. At first, in the beginning of 2011, the Libyan people tried peaceful protests against the Gaddafi dictatorship, as well as they should, because at first, the very first, they were not under attack. But as soon as the dictator’s thugs came out and starting shooting them by the dozens, in the hundreds, then the Libyans said “Now we have the right to defend ourselves.” Peaceful protests would’ve done nothing against Gaddafi. Look where armed resistance got them. They over threw Gaddafi, and now have voted in a legitimate, representative government that was chosen BY THE PEOPLE.

          The Honduran government has no legitimacy; it is corrupt beyond hope or reform. It is deliberately killing its own civilians for profit. They get weapons, ammo, training, i.e. a stranglehold on power, from the U.S., and in turn, they have to kill a few civilians to look like they’re fighting a legitimate “war on drugs.” Therefore, the Honduran people have every right to fight to defend themselves. But they refuse to.

          This state of mind is very detrimental to peoples who are under an oppressive regime or foreign occupation. The people are suffering more because they are not exploring all of their options to free themselves. Take Palestine for example. They have not fought a sustained campaign against the Israelis since the 2nd Intifada. Sure, some groups launch a few missiles every once in a while, which hardly do any damage at all. And every once in a while they do a small border attack that maybe kills like 1 Israeli soldier. But by and large, the Palestinian people have given up on armed resistance. Now, they do peaceful protests, boycotts, petitions, etc.

          And what do they have to show for it? Israel is still stealing land, water, and resources from them in the West Bank, they’re still setting up illegal settlements, checkpoints, roadblocks, settlers are attacking unarmed men, women and children, etc, etc. In Gaza, Israel is still bombing civilians with jet fighters and helicopters, shooting at children with machine guns and tanks, drone striking women in marketplaces, etc, etc. Something tells me that this whole non-violent thing isn’t working!

          We have to reverse this trend, it is only benefiting corrupt governments, terrorists, and foreign occupations. We have to let people know that yes, you have the right to life, you have the right to defend yourself from injury and death. This right is backed by, like I said before, major ideologies, political philosophies, and major religions. It is not a radical belief. It is not an extremist belief. It has been with man since the dawn of civilization. Even cavemen knew that if someone was attacking you with a club, that you didn’t have to just sit there and get whacked to death. You can defend yourself!

          This belief is not saying that violence just for the sake of violence is okay. Violence should be an absolute last resort. Violence should never be used except to defend yourself, help others who are defending themselves, or defending others that cannot defend themselves. In case you haven’t noticed, the main word here is defend. Violence is legitimate in these cases.

          At the 20 minute mark, Aldolfo Facusse, a Honduran businessman, says “What do you do if someone breaks into your house? What do you do? Do you let them do whatever they want to do to you? Or will you defend your home and your person?” I agree 100%.  

          Towards the end of the video, a Honduran man said “We don’t need guns. We don’t need bullets. We need other things that are going to improve our living conditions.” I would reply with “The fuck you do! Do you know how you can improve your living conditions? Get guns, get ammo, set up sentries in your villages to protect civilians from the police and the army, engage in the police in light, fast, guerrilla attacks, using the jungle and villages to hide and blend it. Coordinate with other villages, set up brigades, routes of smuggling and communication. Steal military vehicles, guns from the police and the army, buy weapons from smugglers in the black market, get political, monetary, and military help from other countries and foreign groups. Guess what you’re going to have after you throw off the yoke of oppression? That’s right, among other things, such as freedom, dignity, respect, opportunities to improve business, commerce, etc, you’re going to have improved living conditions.”

          In conclusion, this obsession with non-violent is not cute, it’s not sophisticated, and it is certainly not more noble or greater than legitimate violence. Non-violence has its rightful place: against governments that would be willingly to change due to political pressure, realization of a bad policy, good people in the government working to change it, etc, etc. Martin Luther King Jr. knew this; this is why he remained steadfast in non-violence in his campaign for equality and dignity. The American government was willing to listen to him; President Johnson finally passed legislation that gave African Americans rights and freedoms. This is an example of where non-violence was better to used than armed struggle. It is also important to remember that legitimate armed struggle also has in its place: in situations like in Honduras, Palestine, Afghanistan, Syria, Burma, and other countries whose governments or foreign occupation is keeping people down in the dust by depriving them of numerous basic human rights.    

(Picture is from Al Jazeera)     

No comments:

Post a Comment