Resistance

Common Dreams (thanks to Prior Aelred for the headsup):

Nonviolence, and specifically nonviolent resistance, is probably the single most misunderstood concept in the peace movement. Many committed peace activists believe that nonviolence means simply the absence of violence. Others now use the terms "protest" and "resistance" interchangeably, as if they were equivalent.

The mass nonviolent resistance action being planned for the White House on September 26th, at the culmination of the upcoming anti-war mobilizations in Washington DC (see below), is still a rarity in a movement which regards Gandhi and King as heroes, yet which rarely discusses nonviolence as a central component of our strategies - even though it is at the core of everything Gandhi and King taught and practiced. With few exceptions, serious discussion of nonviolence strategies is absent from the journals and books of the anti-war left. Institutional funders refuse to support nonviolent resistance strategies. Large anti-war coalitions like Win Without War and ANSWER decline to use nonviolent strategies or tactics.

Once again, why? Perhaps the answer can be found in our movement’s - and society’s - strong avoidance of the peculiar discipline that makes nonviolence effective: the willingness to make sacrifices and to accept suffering.
...
Depending on one’s situation, of course, simple protest can require both sacrifice and suffering. Members of the military or their families who speak out publicly against the war, for instance, often face social isolation, job loss, serious harassment, or worse. For the large majority of us in the peace movement, however, speaking out publicly and demonstrating involves little or no risk or sacrifice.

It’s also not that simple protest isn’t necessary. It is, in fact, part of nonviolent social change strategy as outlined by Gandhi and King. But it is only one stage, and not the ultimate one. If it is not successful in achieving its goal, then the ante must be raised, and actual resistance - which includes both disobedience and noncooperation - must be employed.

But that’s what we don’t do. It’s clear that this administration regards even mass protest as little more than a "focus group," or worse still, an example of our freedoms which they can then cynically use to justify their war, yet we have generally continued to employ the same strategies, holding the same rallies, marches and meetings. It is ironic, but not coincidental, that we have a President who believes that we can wage wars without shared sacrifice at the same time that we have a movement that believes we can stop wars without demanding any real sacrifice of ourselves.
...
The nonviolent movement in India required adherents to make their own cloth, and later, their own salt, because they realized that purchase of English made cloth and salt contributed to their own oppression. In Selma they realized that riding on segregated buses only supported segregation, so they stopped riding. Our peace movement, by contrast, will proclaim loudly (and correctly) that the war in Iraq is based on oil, yet why is there nary a word about a radical (and politically targeted) reduction of our own use of oil? Should we not have to disrupt our own "business as usual" before we can disrupt the government’s?

One of the things that always frustrates me when describing non-violent action is the persistent belief that it equals either "doing nothing" or "singing 'Give Peace a Chance' at a march chock full of commies and other anti-American nutcases".  The other big annoyance is that King and Gandhi are the only two NV leaders anybody ever learns about in our country.  But then we find a spark like Cindy Sheehan, in the mold of Las Madres, and maybe that helps people at least clue in to current events a little.

Back in January, 1991, a bunch of my Colby friends and I piled into my Mazda 323 and drove down to DC for the first massive protest against the Gulf War, which had just started a couple days before.  The irony of burning fossil fuels to march against a war ostensibly waged to keep oil flowing was not lost on us, but we felt the tradeoff was necessary to add our voices to the crowd.

Once at the rally, I was a bit disillusioned with the so-called "peace movement".  There were a lot of silly "No Blood For Oil" chants, a smattering of "Send George Junior" signs, and plenty of communists for me to debate.  But I didn't have much of a sense that there was a cohesive, effective movement.  This was an event rather than part of a larger strategy, it seemed.

The points that Gordon Clark make in the article above about sacrifice are good, and such observations always hit uncomfortably close to home.  I believe I do what I can to make the world better, but there's always a healthy, nagging doubt about what else I could or should do.  I had similar angst during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia--in the end, talking with some Quakers who were doing mission work over there convinced me I shouldn't go myself.

The Saint Patrick's Four defendants are shining examples of truly dedicated people willing to sacrifice for the greater good.  They intentionally live below the poverty line to avoid paying war taxes.  They face huge monetary penalties and significant jail time for their conscious acts of civil disobedience.  They are showing us how it should be done.

Me?  I am, quite frankly, a coward.

So I'm once again getting into my car--alone this time--and driving to Binghamton tomorrow to crash at the home of NYMary and Thersites.  I am going to witness the SP4 trial and "citizens' tribunal" that is being held in the evenings.  Burning more gas, of course, but also a small form of sacrifice for me given how much work I have to do, how little I earn relative to the salad days of full-time employment, and the high price of fuel.

From there were are headed together to DC to join in the scheduled protest march on Saturday.  Had I known there was going to be stuff happening on Monday as well, I would've arranged things so I could be there for that, but it's too late for me to change plans now--I do have obligations to other people that I'm not willing to completely blow off.

That's about as much courage and sacrifice I can muster right at the moment.  Maybe that's not "enough", whatever that means, but it looks as though the majority of Americans have finally started to recognize the lies they've been fed about this war and pretty much everything else Bush and the GOP-run government have done. 

Pretty amazing when you think about it: maybe the "anti-war movement" is something even more profound than any recognizable organization or strategy, if the People on their own refuse to support the regime without a Gandhi or King or Sheehan to show them the way.

ntodd