On Facebook this morning, humorous cartoon from eatlocalgrown.com reads:
“The War on Drugs brought more Drugs.
And the War on Terrorists created more Terrorists.
Maybe next year we can have a war on Farmers Markets.”
“Why do we use the violent word ‘war’
when we are trying to deal with something violent?
Or we say we will “attack” a problem.
Peace Pilgrim suggests that violence begets violence.
How can we approach violence in a different way?
If we were to take violence off the table of possibilities,
what would be left of the possible responses?
In my opinion, few non-violent responses are ever tried or, if tried,
not given time to work.”
A heavy, serious response to a comment meant to be light-hearted and tongue-in-cheek. I hope I didn’t ruin anyone’s morning. But I mean every word of what I wrote. This has been my deepest sadness ever since I got hold of Ghandi’s non-violence message. He threw violence off the table of options. People died because of this, but in the long run, a mighty good was accomplished. There were many of his followers biting at the bit to attack oppression with violence, but he held on to the end.
India won its independence from Colonial rule.
What if the American revolutionaries had continued to use the English system of government to demand their rights? Would the king eventually buckled and granted them what they wanted?
What if the southern states had not been forced to remain under the umbrella of the United States? Would we now be two nations next to one another? Would slavery over time come to an end in some other way besides military rebellion?
What if….you fill in the blank.
I know this sounds naïve and I don’t believe that when one is harming another, we should sit by and let it happen. But I maintain that we jump to violent means too quickly. We rarely give peace a chance, as the Beatles suggest.
I am war weary.