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.