Violence vs. Nonviolence
My Essay:
Through time, many desperate acts have been made to win a fight. And in most cases, violence is the way those acts have been carried out. Violence has been used to win equality or to force others to do something they do not agree with. But what we often overlook is the effectiveness of these acts. In the Civil Rights Act, whites used violence to quickly force blacks to “follow behind” and to “serve” them, but despite these violent acts the blacks rebelled and stood up for what they wanted, causing these acts to be ineffective . Today, blacks in the United States have complete freedom and are treated as equals. So although violence can be more of an efficient way to get views across, non-violence has a greater and longer impact.
One incident where violence has had an efficient impact but did not have a long lasting effect was the apartheid in South Africa. As Nelson Mandela made his speech before the Supreme Court of South Africa, he made it clear that violence was the only option he had left to make an impact: “I came to the conclusion that as violence in this country was inevitable, it would be unrealistic to continue preaching peace and non-violence. This conclusion was not easily arrived at. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protests had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle. I can only say that I felt morally obliged to do what I did” (Mandela 3). This violent act was Mandela’s last attempt to get the attention of the white race and bring the two races together with equality. Although this act did receive the white race’s attention, it did not have a long lasting effect. This violent act has led the South African population to mostly govern their own country, but there is still a large separation in class and income within South Africa. In addition, South Africa’s crime rates are some of the highest in the world. According to the United Nations 2011 report "International Statistics on Crime and Justice", South Africa has the most murders per capita than any other county and has the second highest rates of assaults per capita than any other country. This alone shows that even though Mandela’s violent act got the attention of others, it did not accomplish the everlasting change he was striving for.
In contrast to Mandela’s violent act in South Africa, Gandhi used nonviolence to reach a long lasting state of power and equality for the Indians. Gandhi started his nonviolent revolution in 1922 to put an end to the discrimination against the Indians there who were being oppressed by the British. To accomplish his desire for the Indians to be free, he used nonviolent acts. Gandhi used multiple actions such as marching and fasting to grab the attention of the British. In April of 1930, Gandhi marched 241 miles to the sea to make salt in order to defy the Salt Law the British created in India. Through this action, Gandhi was able to get Indians all over the country to illegally make salt on their own, defying these unjust British laws. In 1932, Gandhi began fasting to protest Britain’s choice to split India in half based on religion. His aim was twofold: first, to protest Britain’s choice. Second, he wanted to stop the violence happening within India due to the split. Gandhi’s fasting accomplished both of his goals. People in India stopped their violence in order to save his life. After Gandhi repeated his fast multiple times, the British slowly chose to give up India to avoid all the pressure and remarks from the public blaming Britain for Gandhi inflicting harm upon himself. After twenty-five years of Gandhi’s nonviolent protest, the British decided to leave and give the Indians control of their own country. Today India still governs itself and is in control of its own destiny. Although it took over two decades for India to receive control of their country, through nonviolence Gandhi was able to create something that took the world by surprise and that had an everlasting effect. And for some the long lasting effect came about from the individual change oppressors made within themselves.
These nonviolence movements allow a genuine change in views of the oppressor and the oppressed which also helps create more of a long-lasting effect. Violence tends to force people to change and accept the oppressor’s view. Through violence, oppressors can use threats to force the oppressed to follow their views. In India the British would threaten to imprison thousands of people if they were to rebel. This of course only led the people to rebel and stand up for what they wanted even more. Nonviolence can change the oppressors’ views by showing them the strength of the beliefs of the oppressed and their constant perseverance. Nonviolence can also be more effective, long-lasting and genuine by challenging the oppressors’ views of themselves as people. Nonviolence forces the oppressors to look at themselves and their actions towards the victims and ponder why the people are rebelling against them. Through nonviolence the oppressors can change their own minds, which will result in changing their actions. The oppressed and oppressors are not forced to change through nonviolence. They choose to change. Therefore the effect of nonviolence lasts much longer because the result came by choice.
Though violence can easily overpower people, it doesn’t change a person or their beliefs. Violence can threaten and force change to happen, but it cannot adjust beliefs and what someone stands for. Through the constant battle to win rights and change, nonviolence uses its power of perseverance and belief to lead a group of victims to victory. In the end, the subtleness of hope, perseverance, personal change and the act of standing up have brought nations power and success.
Work Cited:
Ball, David. "Gandhi's Non-Violence." Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.socialchangenow.ca/mypages/gandhi.htm>.
Bengali, Shashank. "Fifteen Years after Apartheid, South Africa Is at a Crossroad | McClatchy." McClatchy | News Politics Nation World Washington Economics Environment Opinion. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/19/66232/fifteen-years-after-apartheid.html>.
"Gandhi Begins Fast in Protest of Caste Separation — History.com This Day in History — 9/16/1932." History.com — History Made Every Day — American & World History. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhi-begins-fast-in-protest-of-caste-separation.Fichtner, Ullrich. "The Reality of the Rainbow Nation: 16 Years after Apartheid, South Africa Fights for Its Future - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International." SPIEGEL ONLINE - Nachrichten. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,699384,00.html>.
Mandela, Nelson. "Nelson Mandela: An Ideal for Which I Am Prepared to Die | World News | Guardian.co.uk." Latest News, Sport and Comment from the Guardian | The Guardian. Web. 17 Feb. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/23/nelsonmandela1>.
Website, Using This. "South Africa 2011 Latest Crime Statistics." Expat Forum For Expats, For Moving Overseas And For Jobs Abroad. Web. 15 Feb. 2012. <http://www.expatforum.com/expats/shebeen/76971-south-africa-2011-latest-crime-statistics.html>.
Being Peace
Seminar Reflection:
Living in the moment is to be aware of your past and future and the decisions you have made, but to not dwell on them. Instead, focus on the moment you are currently living in. In the Seventh Mindfulness Training, Thich Nhat Hanh says, “life is available only in the present moment and that it is possible to live happily in the here and now, we are committed to training ourselves to live deeply each moment of daily life. We will try not to lose ourselves in desperation or be carried away by regrets about the past, worries about the future, or craving, anger, or jealousy in the present.” To live in the moment is to be content with what you have, and what is happening in the time at hand. Living in the moment is to not be anxious for the future or to dwell on the mistakes or choices you have made in the past. You can be aware of what you have done and what you are planning to do in the future, but only as long as it does not stop you from being alive within the moment.
In our modern society, it is hard for me to live in the moment because we are taught to live for the future. We are wired to think of only the future. When we are given a task, all we think about is how fast we can get it done so we can move on to the next thing. A big example of this is school. We go to elementary school so we can go to middle school, we go to middle school so we can go to high school, and we go to high school so we can go to a good college so we can eventually get a good job. From the very beginning we are taught to work for the future. We rarely slow down to tell ourselves to enjoy the moment and experience what life has given us at hand. For us, living in the future is the normal thing to do. So it is a challenge to even think about trying to live in the present moment. But as Thich Nhat Hanh says in the Seventh Mindfulness Training, “we will practice mindful breathing to come back to what is happening in the present moment.” Meaning we have to make a conscious decision to live in the moment. And breathing is one way to do this. By breathing and consciously bringing your mind and body into that breath, you will naturally begin to start living and thinking of that moment you are currently living in.
The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas
My Short Story:
I was one of the few who walked away. And how could I not? That child was forced to live in a dark, cold, lifeless closet. The only thing it would see every day was two mops, which it feared. They say this is for our happiness and that without this daily suffering and pain, we would not and could not be happy. But I for one do not believe them. So I was one of the few who left.
I walked out of those two metal gates that we have seen a thousand times; I felt no need to turn back. I pushed open those gates with vines intertwining in and out of them, and moved forward. As my feet started down the grass hill with the well-worn dirt path, all I could see was the deep dark night sky with the sparse lights dimly shining in the rolling grass hills around me. And for some reason I felt comforted. The cold, dark, empty night did not make me feel alone or sad. But instead it confirmed my decision of leaving. So with that, I never looked back onto the city of Omelas; the city that welcomed all, and had no fear of the future or any pain within its brightly colored walls.
I walked for days with stops every now and then to regain my strength. My feet were sore from walking on the old stone path. Each stone I stepped on told a different story. For that path has been there for years. It has sustained through years of rain and winds. It has seen all kinds of people. From children running and playing in the midsummer’s heat, to old men hobbling home from a hard day’s work in the field. It has seen travelers from near and far. It has seen everything. And although it was old and falling apart, it was not ready to be done; it was still capable of holding more stories.
Because I was tired, I was starting to second guess myself and my decision. And even though I was 20, and was completely capable of making good decisions, I was worried. I lived in Omelas my whole life. Everything I knew was there. My friends, my family, my home, my life; all my memories were there. And they were good memories. I was happy. But as I got older, and the longer I knew about the child, the happiness began to chip away. All I could think of was the child suffering.
I can still remember the day I saw it. I was 12 years old. Shortly before I saw the child my parents told me about the child. They said it was the reason we were happy, the reason there was no pain, or sadness. It was the reason for our joy.
My mom woke me up early one morning telling me it was time to see the child. I got ready to go, not knowing what to expect. My mom led me down through the bright dancing city and down a hill. At the bottom of this hill was an old building with not much life to it. I had never seen this place before. It was secluded. And when you looked at the building you felt empty. We walked down to the building and met two men at the door. They opened the old squeaky doors and led us into a dark, moist, dusty room. We were all alone there. I gazed around the cold, smelly, abhorrent, dark room and saw nothing. Then we were told to follow the men down an old creaky stairway. We walk down into even more darkness. We were then led to a closet that looked like it had been untouched for years. I was scared and grabbed onto my mom’s arm. She put her arm around me to let me know it was ok. The men opened the closet door, and then I saw it. And for once in Omelas I felt sad.
I saw that poor child hiding in the dark corner, with his filthy, scrawny, thin arms wrapped around his legs. His head slowly moved up, terrified to look at us. When his eyes finally reached mine, I was speechless. There was no life to speak of in his eyes. There was only emptiness and pain. I didn’t know what to think. The only question I had was why. Why was the pain of this child the reason for such wonderful life up above in the city? Why was it his responsibility to make us happy? Why did we do this to him? Why did no one stop this madness? Why? I got flustered and turned away. I didn’t want to look at his pain. No one wants to see someone else’s pain if they have caused it. I grabbed my mom’s arm and started to pull her towards the door. She followed and we left.
From that day on, I was changed. For a time I forgot about the child and could manage to dismiss the idea of it when it came to my head. But as years passed, I could no longer do that. The sight of the child haunted me. It came into my dreams and my daily thoughts. It got to the point where the child was all I thought of. So I left.
This child was supposed to make us happy. But I was happier to leave. I could not live there knowing what that child does for us to be happy and knowing there is nothing I can do. So I left to find my own happiness. To where I was going, no one knows. But I know where I am going. I am going to a place where I can build my own happiness; for I am the creator of my own happiness. And when I get to this place and people ask why I am here, I will simply say, “I am one who walked away from Omelas”, and they will understand.
Jihad vs. McWorld
McWorld is where technology brings us together and allows us to reach our own potential. Although, at times, it can eliminate individuality and markets can trump over the people, it creates equality, freedom in what you want to do and a chance for you to create your own future.
I chose the viewpoint of McWorld because I believe that people should be able to go as far as they are capable of and that there should be no boarders between people due to their religion, race or culture. In Jihad, people are held back because of their beliefs and the “rules” of their culture. People are excluded due to their culture and cannot go past what their country offers. Whereas McWorld pushes for people to move beyond their culture and to prosper and unite with others to create an environment where people strive for equality and stability isn’t a problem.
My poster is supporting the idea of McWorld. The words in the front show and describe all the McWorld stands for. Money, education, business, markets, success, opportunity etc… are all of the things that drive McWorld. When you open the two flaps you see seven symbols that embody McWorld itself. The light bulb and for sale sign stands for the individual thinking that drives people’s success. The coin, arrow pointing up and the tree all resemble how money and success can reach new heights. The bird resembles the modern communication we have and the iPhone shows how technology moves us forward. All of these are in a circle around a sign saying “strive for equality.” To me this is the biggest point. It shows that everyone is equal (regardless of money) because McWorld invites those who are different in and gives us all a chance. It disregards boundaries and lets us all have the equal opportunity to succeed and create the future.
Seminar Reflection: All Quiet on the Western Front.
Jessie Dvirnak
Reactions:
Although this was our first seminar of the year, I felt that it went pretty good. Many people had comments and ideas that I had never even considered before, but one comment that really stuck out to me was Nano’s. Nano said that war is often used as an excuse. It gives the people in charge a way to make decisions without actually dealing with the consequences. Instead they make other people fight their problems. This really struck me because as I was reading the book I was starting to notice the same thing. The people who decided to go to war with each other didn’t even have to go out on the front. Instead they asked and forced men who had nothing to do with the decision go out and kill each other. Another comment that made me start thinking was Elizabeth’s. Elizabeth said that when Paul and his friends go to war, it was their first experience in the real world causing them to only know war. Even though I knew how old they were, I never thought about how young they really were and how much of life they still have to experience. So when Elizabeth said that this was their first experience of the real world, it really hit me that all they truly know is war because that is all they have ever done with their life.
Detailed Response:
I feel like Paul’s death was probably the best thing for him. In just the first year or so Paul started losing his hope for both winning the war and living a normal life. And as the book progressed you saw him lose all of the hope he had. In the beginning he was making it by with the company of his friends and fellow classmates that signed up with him. But when all of his friends died and he was the only one left he knew that there was no hope left for him. In the last paragraph on page 295 Paul says “I am very quiet. Let the months and years come, they can take nothing from me, they can take nothing more. I am so alone, and so without hope that I can confront them without fear.” At this point he knows that there is nothing left for him in the world. His friends are all gone and, unlike many men, there’s nothing to go back to at home.
Paul knows from his leave that his mother is very ill, they don’t have enough money to support the family and that he does not fit into a “normal” and civilized life anymore. In the second paragraph on page 294 Paul says “Had we returned home in 1916, out of the suffering and the strength of our experience we might have unleashed a storm. Now if we go back we will be weary, broken, burnt out, rootless, and without hope. We will not be able to find our way anymore.” He has come to realize that he can no longer act like a “normal” person. He was so used to getting by with hardly any food and constantly working/fighting that there was no way for him to act like everyone else. He also killed a man, and that alone sets him miles apart from others. So for Paul, I believe that his death was for him.
Connections:
One big connection I made during this seminar is how war and killing has been integrated into our daily lives. During the seminar Abe said that nowadays war is easily accepted, which made me begin to think about how true that really is. I began to realize how much we hear/ see it on the news and that these days any (or most) action film you see involves some kind of war. Whether it is with robots, people, aliens etc… it usually involves people getting shot, injured or killed. And we root for it. We have been “taught” by the media that fighting in a war is ok. We see it on the news and hear about it so much that we have gotten to the point where we just say “oh another person died, too bad.” Then immediately move on to our next thought or task. So for me, that was one of the biggest connections I made during the seminar.
Lori’s Choice:
Throughout reading this book, I felt that there were several truths of war. But the one that hit me the most is that war changes you. Although I used part of this quote earlier I feel like it really gets the point across, “Now if we go back we will be weary, broken, burnt out, rootless, and without hope. We will not be able to find our way anymore.”(Pg. 294). I feel like this quote helps get the point across because it displays some of the pain and emotion he and other soldiers were feeling. It shows how much war tore him apart and made him not know how to do anything other than war. It shows the impact of losing friends, watching people die and killing people had on him. It shows the side that we never hear about.
If I had to represent this quote in a different form I think I would do it in a collage. I would try to represent this quote by having different pictures (either pictures I took or pictures I find) showing their stages of life. I would show the before war in color and then after war in black and white and then either put part of the quote or something I write in the middle. I would do a collage in color and black and white so people could identify with what is going on and so they can compare their life from before and after the war.
Slaughterhouse 5 Seminar Reflection
Jessie Dvirnak Reactions:
After doing my second Socratic seminar, I feel like it went much better than the last one. The conversations went much smoother and more people gave ideas into the group. One idea that really stayed with me was Helen’s. Helen said that the Tralfamadorians could have been the lie that kept Billy Pilgrim going. I had a strong reaction to this because I never even considered that Billy Pilgrim was just making this all up. But after Helen said that, it made me begin to think; maybe he really did just make the Tralfamadorians up. On page 101, paragraph 5, Rosewater says “I think you guys are going to have to come up with a lot of new lies, or people just aren’t going to want to go on living.” I think that Billy went through so many traumatic events in his life, that all he could do to cope and keep going was to make up the Tralfamadorians as an excuse for going insane.
Detailed Response:
I think the truth of war for Kurt Vonnegut is that no matter what, war and the experiences you had during the war will always follow you. You can try to forget the experiences you had and the sights you saw, but war truly stays with you forever. And I believe that Kurt Vonnegut used Billy Pilgrim and time traveling to portray this idea.
In Slaughterhouse 5, you follow Billy all throughout his life. One recurring theme however, is that he always goes back to different times in the war. When I was first reading this book I thought he was merely going back to war just to explain how the bombing of Dresden really happened. But now that I am done with the book I am beginning to feel like that wasn’t his main intention. I believe that Vonnegut kept having Billy Pilgrim go back to the war because Kurt Vonnegut himself frequently went back to the war in his mind. In the fourth paragraph on page 32, Kurt Vonnegut tells us “Billy survived, but he was a dazed wonderer…” I feel like this sums up Billy’s life after the war. Even though he survived the war, it had such a negative impact on him that he was no longer the same man. Instead of going through life the way he wanted, he simply just took what life gave him.
Connections:
When thinking of Slaughterhouse 5, I tend to think of the message Kurt Vonnegut was trying to get across. For me, the message was: wherever you go war follows you and tends to have a negative effect on your life. Although that may not be true for everyone, it made me think of another book. In Suzanne Collins book, Mockingjay, there is a teenage girl named Katniss. Katniss is a typical teenager who lives with her mom and younger sister. She has a fiery personality and is very strong willed. But in the book Mockingjay, she is sent into a war and witnesses hundreds of people dying including her younger sister Prim. But even for this strong willed girl, it was too much to handle and it set her over the edge. In the end of the book she marries her friend Peeta and has 2 children. But as you read the last few pages, you can tell that she is not the girl she used to be. There is something about her that is different. She no longer has that fiery personality or the free spirit. And I believe that that was caused by the war she experienced. To me this connects to Slaughterhouse 5 because I believe that Billy Pilgrim is not the same as he was before he went to the war. “There are no characters in this story and almost no dramatic confrontations, because most of the people in it are so sick and so much the listless playthings of enormous forces. One of the main effects of war, after all, is that people are discouraged from being characters. But old Derby was a character now." (page164). I think the war caused Billy so much pain, that over time it forced him to become someone other than who he used to be. He simply gave up and let life treat him the way it pleased.
Lori’s Choice:
When looking back on All Quiet on the Western Front and Slaughterhouse 5, the biggest connection I can make between the two is the reaction to death. In both books I got the sense that people didn’t really care or strongly react to deaths. At first I thought these people were awful for not caring, but when Vonnegut used “so it goes” then I began to understand. Billy Pilgrim and Paul Baumer had both witnessed and seen so many deaths within the war that they couldn’t care anymore. If they cared and strongly reacted to every death, there is no way they would make it through the war. In Slaughterhouse 5, on page 27 Billy says “Now, when I myself hear that someone is dead, I simply shrug and say what the Tralfamadorians say about dead people, which is ‘So it goes.’” And in All Quiet on the Western Front, on page 20 Paul tells us “Once it was different. When we went to the district commandant to enlist, we were a class of twenty young men, many of whom proudly shaved for the first time before going to the barracks. We had no definite plans for our future. Our thoughts of a career and occupation were as yet too unpractical a character to furnish any scheme of life. We were still crammed full of vague ideas which gave to life, and to the war also an ideal and almost a romance.” This All Quiet on the Western Front quote shows me that in the beginning the soldiers were so innocent and held so much respect for war that they cared when someone died because it was such a shock and uncommon thing to see. But In the Slaughterhouse 5 quote, I believe it shows that they couldn’t really care anymore because death was just a part of war and there was nothing anybody could do to stop it.
