Forum Post: Hypothetical non-violence scenarios
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 6:29 a.m. EST by miccheck911
(18)
from San Diego, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Many people speak of non-violence being the ultimate answer - but it also seems that people have different definitions of non-violence. While the civil rights movement and the Indian independence movement were very successful with non-violent means, there are also times where the lines are not so black and white. I have some hypothetical scenarios for you to consider:
Tibet believed in nonviolence so much that they did not have an army to protect them. Now China took over and controls them completely. Should they have fought back?
The Native Americans were mostly peaceful and the Europeans kicked them out of their land. Should they have fought back?
If someone breaks into your house and has a knife plunging towards your family and you have a gun in your hand - Should you fight back?
If you see a child being kidnapped by a man much larger than you with a weapon, would you use extreme force to stop him?
What if a bear is charging at you in the woods, and you have a weapon - Should you fight back?
I ask these not to try and promote violence, that's not my goal. I believe this movement should be peaceful, and is working well thus far. I ask because I want to know how others feel about this topic. It's something that is tough to find definitive answers for.
I presume you are really talking about the Occupy Wallstreet movement in these scenarios. In all cases effective violence is justified. Please note the word 'effective'. Getting pointlessly killed, sued, or arrested is silly. What if the man in 4. is a cop and the kid is a runaway? Avoid killing the bear if you can get away or hide. You're in his home after all. Non-violence will work if there are sympathetic people inside the government with Power to make the necessary changes. Roosevelt had a democratic congress and MLK had LBJ and Bobby Kennedy. Today we have a largely right wing congress and supreme court and media and wartime rights curtailment under the 'Patriot Act'. Cops causally torture people with pepper spray knowing they will not be tried for crimes against humanity. This really shocked me. America has changed. The only way non-violence will work in this situation is if the protesters are ready and willing to resort to effective violence if non-violence doesn't work and the other side knows it. I include sabotage. Otherwise the only response will be attempts to spin doctor the protester image into impotent fools or criminals in the media. If you're not ready to be a real and effective violent criminal against the 'man' then you're not hungry, poor, or homeless enough to win. The Arab spring didn't succeed with non-violence. Sorry but that's just the way it is.
I was taught that you should use the least force necessary to deal with a violent situation.
To your example of #1, though the people of Tibet do not have their land and country, but they still have their community, led by the Dalai Lama, who is arguably one of the most non-violent persons you can point to, he focuses on the welfare of the displaced Tibetan people, focusing on the survival of their identity, culture and religion, even though they haven't had a homeland in over 60 years.
2. I don't know. Could they have won? People always talk about the smallpox infected blankets, but the truth is the Native people would probably have been susceptible to a host of other diseases brought to the Americas by Europeans, weakening the population and reducing their ability to fight back. I will say I do not know enough about this topic to comment completely, but I do think the overwhelming force of many nations colonizing (invading) and contracts with the Native people continually being dishonored... you really can't say anything except it was one of the most horrific acts of genocide the world has ever witnessed.
3.You have a gun, the invader has a knife. You could try to take the invader down without using the gun, but in the case where you might have to use a gun, a disabling shot (non-lethal) is always preferable to a kill shot (though a police officer I had this conversation with disagreed- he said they are trained to always shoot head or heart).
4. It depends on the circumstance. If you are in an area where there are other people around, extreme force may not always be necessary. Yelling, "This man in the red shirt is a kidnapper" and pointing to specific people in the crowd for help (a passerby less likely to ignore a direct plea for help) may be enough to diffuse the situation. If you are in a place where there are not many people around, in this day of technology where nearly everyone has a cellphone, noting the license plate and description of the kidnapper might be abetter way to go, if you are a safe distance away you can scream "I see you!" or "I've taken your picture and have 911 on the line!" (even if you don't) and that, in many cases, is enough to put the predator on the run, though with that scenario, you may leave the abuser free to seek another victim... But as stated, in this age of cell phones and everyone having their own personal video camera, a description of the kidnapper may not be as hard to get as one would imagine. In these situations it is important to decide if you are of more help by being another victim (rushing the stronger predator) or a witness who could be of help to the police in capturing and stopping a predator. I think, though instinct can sometimes overwhelm, the second option is the better one. If he has a weapon and you don't, the chances of you winning are slim.
5 Obviously avoidance is the best option if possible. If there was no other way, a disabling shot would be the best option, giving you enough time to get away.
Just my own opinions, I'd be interested in what others have to say as well.