Women in Non-Violence

Being a women people would obviously assume that I am biased when it comes to talking about the gender differences, and the ability of all genders. Well I would say this is very true, i appriciate that there are men out there, in our very class evene, that can do one hundred things better than I ever could but there are also one hundred things that I can do better than them, it depends on the person just as much as it does that persons gender. So when people say that women are to weak to lead social change movements and that they are not as likely to achieve success or support as a man is, I freak out. This is a ludacris statement and there are many movements that prove this. For example in the beginnning of the semester we discussed the Women's Right's movement and talked about how successful they were. These women invented new strategies there were never before thought of by men in order to gain the right to vote. What reminded me that I wanted to write a blog on this however was one of the groups that present in class on the first presentation day.
The Women's Liberian movement was a 14 year porcess that just eneded less than ten years ago and demonstrated the strength and mobilization power of women. They came together to tell their nation that the fighting needed to be stopped and if the men weren't going to do anything about it, they would. This only goes to further prove that women are just as power as men in leading and starting a non-violence movement. Which leads me to say, countering some of the opinions of the rest of class, that Rosa Parks could have elped lead or lead the civil rights movement. I am sure it would have taken a completely new face but I feel like as an assertative women she had great possibilities.

Peace

One think that I have always been intersted in is the Peace Sign. I love it i have always tried to guide my life in a carefree go with the flow manner, and although to some people this has nothing to do with the peace sign for me it does. I feel like it symbolizes the way I strive to live my life. For example I love the ways of the hippy era, and part of the reason I came to Juniata, was because when I came on my over night for track, there was some interprative dance seminar, and the campus was filled with hippies. I though to my self "any school that has enough hippies to hold a weekend like this is a school I can go to."
When you relate that to our class the connection is simple, peace is a primary aspect of non-violece, and most of the time the non-violent movement or action that is being deployed in to achieve some ultimate peace. This is why this topic (non-violence) so greaty interests me. It is a way to achieve ones goals and using peace as one of the weapons. I know that saying peace is a wepon is a bit of a paradox, but it is the truth, peace xan be used as a weapon. For those who do not want ot committ to violent action they can use peaceful tactics to achieve the ends the desire. Examples of this are things like hunger strikes and sit ins, although the end result may not be overtly peaceful, it is a peaceful act in the begining.
One small fact that I find quite intersting is that the Peace Sign was orgingated by the British Movement for Nuclear Disarmament. Since then the symbol has been recognized as a world wide sign for peace.

Children in War

Another philosopher that we discussed was Burroughs. Burroughs was very interested in the concept of power. He said that power is the capacity to conduct or resist aggression. By this definition even those who are being oppressed in a situation are holding some power. If they are acting based on the principles of non-violence and not acting violently regardless of how much aggression they are facing this means that they are resisting aggression. Burroughs would say that this aspect gives them power. This only supports the claims that say that non-violence is a tool of the strong rather than something that is resorted to by the weak in a desperate time. Burroughs also says that security means to meet basic human needs . That if those who are in the situation do not have their needs met the situation is not secure. This is I find interesting because most people do not define security based on the principles of human needs rather on the needs of the state. I agree with Burroughs that security should be centered around those who are actually engaged in the conflict.

Burroughs

Another philosopher that we discussed was Burroughs. Burroughs was very interested in the concept of power. He said that power is the capacity to conduct or resist aggression. By this definition even those who are being oppressed in a situation are holding some power. If they are acting based on the principles of non-violence and not acting violently regardless of how much aggression they are facing this means that they are resisting aggression. Burroughs would say that this aspect gives them power. This only supports the claims that say that non-violence is a tool of the strong rather than something that is resorted to by the weak in a desperate time. Burroughs also says that security means to meet basic human needs . That if those who are in the situation do not have their needs met the situation is not secure. This is I find interesting because most people do not define security based on the principles of human needs rather on the needs of the state. I agree with Burroughs that security should be centered around those who are actually engaged in the conflict.

Rawls

Civil disobedience according to Rawls is a public non-violent conscientious act contrary to law usually doe with intent to change policies or laws. In civil disobedience the minority call the majority to change. Rawls also feels that the best place of civil disobedience to happen is in a constitutional democracy. This is due to the fact that in a democracy there is room or challenge. In other forms of government is someone were to challenge the authority of the majority it could result in injury arrest or death. Living in a democracy allows its citizens the opportunity to achieve change through society rather than having to seize control of the government. I fell that although having the power of government is definitely a route to power, however social change can sometimes be more effective when weighing the cost and the gains.

Gender Neutral Housing

In class the other day we were all discussing things that we felt passionate enough about to take action. What I picked was the issue of gender-neutral housing. We discussed Vision, strategy, power, will Center of Gravity. We said that our vision was that we wanted the equality of choice based on sexual orientation, gender, and preference. Also we wanted our issue of gender-neutral housing to branch out into other issues of discrimination and help to eliminate it at Juniata. One of our strategies was to educate the community and administration about the positives, as well as end the stereotypes that people hold about this issue. Our next issue was that of power, we decided that or strongest power card would be that of the support of administration that feels that there should be gender neutral housing already. Also we thought that we should use the support of all of the students, because we would have the numbers. Will was our next issue discussed we talked about how we would make it appeal to the masses by pitching it as a unique quality of Juniata. Juniata is all about talking about there ability to be different. However there are a few things that would stand in our way, the fact that Juniata has a reputation to hold up as a brethren college and that may be ruined if we imply gender-neutral housing,.

POWER

This blog is more of a list than a paragraph but while reviewing my notes I noticed there were several things that always came up when talking about power. When anyone mentions power these things always have something to do with the conflict struggle of way a person achieved power. I feel that these things are always apparent in the situation because they are so different for so many different people. These things are; status, force (military), wealth, authority, religion, identity, ideology and also consent of the governed.

How much is a quarter worth?

If I had to pick a quote from all the movies that we watched on the civil rights movement. There is one that just blows my mind. When the marchers were walking to the courthouse to register to vote in the Selma march, the local police stopped them at the door. While at the door one of the marchers was asking the police chief some question. Simple questions that if asked today would have an obvious answer such as; why may we not register, it is the law? However there was one question’s answer that I can not believe. The marcher pulled a quarter out of his pocket and asked the policemen; is my quarter worth less than yours because it is a quarter? The police officer should have obviously said no a quarter is a quarter and they are all worth the same regardless of the owner. However the policeman did not answer him because he truly believed that the black man’s quarter was worth less because it was owned by a black man. This is outrageous how someone can believe anything along this sort just seems insane to me. I knew, and still know that racism was prevalent in the south and that there were and still are some extremists but this, this simple question was too much. Through this question it became clear to me how terrible it really was to live in the unfairly segregated south as black person.

passive violence

Something that I have been thinking about lately in class is my original conception of violence. On the first day of class I defined violence as the action of negatively affecting a person society or being that results in harm or the deterrence of ones happiness. Now although I do agree with the fact that all of this is violence I have also come to a few new realizations about what violence means to me. When I previously thought of violence I thought about it in terms of an action, more of an aggressive form. However now through certain movements I have learned about passive violence.
During the civil war one of the tactics was to fill the jails so that the police could not jail anyone else. In one particular incident the police chief prepared for this by making space and alerting all of the surrounding jails in the area. That way when someone was arrested they were transported to a different jail that was out of town, so that the local jail was never filled. This I feel like is a form of passive violence.. They were directly harming them, however they were stopping any means that the civil rights demonstrators had to mobilize, by jailing everyone. All though this may not be violence on the individual people it was a violent act towards the movement. This I feel also is what makes it a passive act of violence rather than an aggressive.
I still believe that violence is most prevalent in the way that I originally defined of it and though of it, however this is not to say that passive violence is not just as affective.

Israel Palestine

For this semester group project I chose to work on the topic of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Now our paper as well as our presentation is focusing mainly on the affect that the turmoil is taking, and has taken on the children living in Palestine-Israel, and through this area of analysis I have come a crossed a method of social change that intrigues me.
The 2001 movie "Promises" is a documentary that follows the lives of various children living all throughout the country. The narrator of the movie goes into the homes of all of the Palestinian children and asks them if they would like to meet and spend time with some Israeli children, and vice-versa. Most of the Israeli children feel that either it is too dangerous to associate with Palestinians or they just don't want. However there are two brothers(twins) who are not Jewish by religion but rather just ethnicity that are willing to go to a Palestinian city to get to know some of the children of Palestine. The narroator of the movie takes the twins to this city where they meet four Palestinian children and spend the day with their family.
The aim of this is to establish a bond and trust between the children when they are at a young age so that when they grow up there is no longer that conflict between the two batteling neighbors. However the surrmounting tension proves to be too much for the children and after just a few short years lose contact with each other. The twins end up joining the Israeli army to fight the war against Palestine, and the Palestinian children that had expierced freindship from the twins grow up to have no less destain for Israel than any other Palestinian.
Now although in this isolated case the goal of the non-violent action may not have been met, I feel as though this method of social change stands a good chance at working. The concept of educating the young so that they will grow up to be wise is not a novel concept in the least rather it is one that has been used and tested through the times. If only there had been more children that were willing to make that comprimise and meet the others; it might stand a chance at working in the future, however like I have said many times in class I believe that social change movents that are based around non-violence need to have a substantial amount of people to make an impression.

Guest speaker Sarah Worley

Last class Sarah Worley a communications professor at Juniata came to our class to talk to us about the use of technology in the pursuite of social change and non-violence practices. One of the first points she touched on was that of the Digital resistance. She said that is was a movement that uses digital technology as a form of protest by ecploiting infromation as a medium. I found this really intersting because it raises so many question about the "virtual" world and whether or not what goes on "on line" counts as non-violence.
For example does a vietual march count and a protest march? How many people do you need for it to be effected because it is online and it is harder to see the vast number of supporters. Also brought to my mind is whether not it can be as effective as the non-violent practices we had been talking about in class.
When I was comparing the differences and similarities in the movements, it really only came down the the fact that one was on line and the other was off line. Yes, there are obvious differnces, however both take coordination and organization. Both types of movements take skill a cause and people who support that goal. Also for both on line and off line protests and acts of non-violence there are people who are in the opposition.
The world that we are living in today is taking such a mondern turn, everything is run by technology and is electronically based, for example our very own college stopped printing bills it only uses "ebills" now which can only be accessed from and online account. This increase in the use of technology leads me to the conclusion that on line or virtual protests can be just as effective as off line protests.

Women in the Civil Rights movement

In class the other day the question was brought up about why Rosa Parks was not the person chose to lead the movement. Although Rosa Parks act of "disobedience" was the spark that they needed to carry the movement through the court system, she was never consider as a candidate to be the leader of the bus boycotts. Some people in class suggested that this was because women were weaker then men, especially back then. Not only do i not agree with that but i think almost the exact opposite. Black women were not only struggling with being African American in a time when diversity was not accepted but they were dealing with being a women in a patriarchal society. The women of the movement had to not only keep there own homes and families running but they also worked everyday to help their families maintain a some standard of life. These women had to follow their men into "battle" and help them every step of the way whether it was working behind the scenes or making their daily lives hell walking miles and miles so that they could follow what they were being asked to do. The women of the movement were strong and independent women that made a mark on history that will in my book never be forgotten.

Dignity

Something that I forgot to mention in my earlier post about Gandhi was perhaps what intrigued me the most about the movie that I watched and the Gandhi book. During one of his speeches, from when Gandhi was younger, when he was addressing a group of people, he addressed the topic of dignity. He said that there were many things that the British could do to them and take away from them but one thing that they could not do was take there dignity. He said that the British could beat them, lock them up, take away their freedom but they could not take there dignity . He meant that they would not act in violence that they would take everything the British could throw at them with out reacting, and that would put them above the British. This instilled a sense of power in his listeners that night it almost seemed like a weapon that he has given them that could never be destroyed. A weapon that they would be able to fight with for the duration of the battle with the British. This was the point that I realized how smart Gandhi was he not only know what he wanted and what he believed in but he was fabulous at saying it is just the right way that it inspired and rallied those who he was speaking to. Gandhi was a prime candidate to lead the movement because he was passionate about the topic, because what he was preaching was what he lived and that showed in his message. He as well as his people kept their dignity.

Gandhi Movie

When I would think about Gandhi i just pictured an old Indian man that was overly skinny. I know this is a cliche however I am sure it is what most people think. I knew that he was a practitioner of non-violence. What I didn't know about was the part religion played in his life. Gandhi was hindu, however he worked closely with, studied and taught based on the principles of many other religions, such as muslim, and christianity. He really stretched across many cultures and religions to reach out to so many people because he wasn't culturally bias. This only raised Gandhi's popularity amongst his followers.

Something else I found interesting was the fact that no matter what the opposition did Gandhi and his followers never acted in violence, and he was adamant about that. As the movie showed it was that fact that gave him so much power it made it so there was no way the British could lock them away for very long.

What amazed me about Gandhi were all the sacrifices he made in order to see his free India movement through to the end. After the British left India the two most prominent religions, hindu and muslim started fighting. When Gandhi got wind of this he stopped eating. He was willing to die in order to show his followers that fighting was not the answer for India. Because both parties in the conflict cared for Gandhi and were his followers they laid down their weapons and stopped the fighting to save him.

religion and nonviolence

I have said many times in class and very much believe that it is quite hard to separate religion and a practices of nonviolence, because religion is and has been such an intertwined part of the daily life. Especially if we are examining those who used nonviolence in the past, religion was just a choice but a lifestyle back then and that was what makes me think that it would have been difficult to use acts of nonviolence to achieve goals with out religion. This also could be hard because many religions that are practiced in the west preach about nonviolence so even if people did try to separate religion others would just assume it was a religious act.
I think that religion however can be used as a tool to make people understand why nonviolence is a good path to take, because so many people view their religion as part of their identity.

Definition Paper

When I was starting to write my definition paper, My first step was to sit down and produce a definition I was happy with that not only described nonviolence, but also helped me to establish what an act of violence looked like. However i kept finding my self getting stuck, of all the authors we have been reading the one I find my self most closely aligning with was one of the first authors we read George Coe. He believes that there is no way to truly define violence and nonviolence because any act of nonviolence to one person can be conceived as violence to someone else. This is where the principle of direct and indirect violence has found its place in my definition. How far can we stretch the arm of indirect violence before it has come full circle to direct violence?

First day of discussion!!

Anytime I start a new class I am always nervous about what the class dynamic will be like, especially in a discussion based course such as the one we are taking. That's why today's vibrant discussion shocked and surprised me. I was thrilled that there were so many other students eager to particapte in the discussion. I have found that in college the classes that I learn the most from are those that are discussion based. However when no one in the class wants to "chime in" or no one is doing the reading it turns into a lecture course. However the opposite happened today and it made for an interesting hour and a hlaf.
In todays class we discuussed the very fine line between violence and nonviolence. There were many different areas of anaylsis that were looked at in the discussion, however one interested me more than the rest; the relationship between the "opressor" and the "victim." When trying to define violence I feel that one of the most important aspects is the realtionship that is shared between those invovled. As Gorge Coe stated, the line between violence and nonviolence is unclear, however I believe that one could use the relationship of the different parties at the table to help determine whether or not an act should be considered violent. In class we discussed the act of a mother yelling at her child to get him to stop playing in the street, the action of yelling can be consider violent, however the mothers intent was to promote the welfare of the child. Also because it is a mother who is by nature supposed to protect her child the cirrcumstnaces change. The question that was looming over me all of class was; is it wrong for someone to commit an act that could be perceived as violent by thier society if it lies within the bounds of thier natural duty?