Re: [pf] Activism (definitions of violence)

At 12:42 12/02/00 -0800, Jill wrote:
>My question is for pf-ers as well - where do you draw the line in your
>own lives - what is violence to you?
>
**  As applied to people, I would include the /intention/ to seriously harm
or destroy, or to be hurtful and reduce the happiness/satisfaction of
someone. I don't agree with the dictionary definition/example of a violent
storm, though I do agree the word can be used of an explosion, whether
natural or artificial. A storm's power can be awful and frightning, and you
can "know" you're going to die, but I don't think "violent" applies to it. 


>I would argue that we all (those of us in the US, anyway, some of us
>way more than others) participate in violence to a degree through our
>taxes that go for repression at home and elsewhere, our land use, our
>tax dollars that support many destructive agricultural uses (as well
>as those food items that do so), our use of vehicles, roads, products
>that cause injury and illness to those who produce them.
> ...
>It is clear that voluntary simplicity is a path to lessening that
>violence, in that it lessens our support through taxes and consumption
>of just those things.
>
** Is a-serious-and-effective-criticism-of-someone's-concept-or-theory
doing violence to it? /I/ think not, based on the "it's all in the mind"
un-real nature of those things; however, I realise there's an overlap with
a person's self-image.

**  Were the pacifists' criticisms of New Zealand's war effort ('39-'45)
doing violence in any way? The government and judges certainly thought so:
they were jailed and otherwise ill-treated here, in contrast to Britain
(then thought of as the "Mother Country") where they were required to carry
out non-combattant roles.

**  Jill's "we all in the US participate in violence to a degree" is true
for all who continue to support* a government which uses violence
(*including paying all their legally required taxes). But her: "land use,
destructive agriculture, use of vehicles, roads, products that cause injury
and illness", while bad enough to have to be stopped (including by
activism) isn't correctly described by "violence", in my view. The nearest
to this, and here it's moot, is where settlers/developers have displaced
other people and species to their long-term detriment. The Maori (and my
own Scottish ancestors) had their clan battles with many deaths (which
involved obvious violence), but while the overall picture changed little I
don't believe the scene could be called violent, in contrast to certain
leaders (Te Kooti, Te Rauparaha, and the British and US armies in the 19th
century) nearly wiping out large fractions of the indigenous people.
Including being happy to see the natives dying from introduced diseases.
That's being violent.

**  On another list (10 months ago) I asked for opinions on whether and
when humans have lived sustainably; this could be re-worded to say that IMO
humans weren't violent towards the earth while they were few (less than a
billion?), but that since the middle of the 19th century the human race has
been increasingly violent to the earth. Now that we have a good idea of
what we're doing, I don't think there's any doubt about this.

**  This afternoon (it's about 7 PM Sunday, here at +1300) I was reading
The State of The World 2000 (Worldwatch), particularly "Anticipating
Environmental Surprise" (Ch.2) in which the synergies between different
human effects produce a much larger and almost certainly irreversible
result, sooner, than would be expected by summing the separate impacts. 
 [now it's after 7 AM Monday]
    I think the suddenness and long-term effects are parts of the
definition of violence; for example, I would use a "violent argument" to
also apply to one where words only are used, but in which one of the two so
thoroughly attacks the self-image of the other that the second person is
irretrievably changed for the worse, and perhaps loses all willingness and
ability to take the risks needed in trying to make friends in the future.


>But violence is around us - it is inherent in the existence of the
>natural world.  How do you all accept the violence of life, and
>separate yourselves from it at the same time?
>
> ... I value nonviolence highly.
>But is it more sacred than all else?  There are certain times when one
>must choose between one sacred thing and another.  (David - this
>reminds me of Mike on DE).
>**  Yes I found it quite hard to respond to what I saw as Mike's attacks
on my posts in March last year.

**  This ("inherent in the natural world") is part of why I started by
linking the word violence with the intention to seriously harm. I have many
times watched a cat attack and kill a mouse and sometimes a rat, and while
I can understand why this event is called violent by most people, I prefer
to reserve the word for what I'd call extreme and unnatural events. Jill's
quite right IMO about humans' willingness to not only contemplate but
actually use violence a great deal, in contrast with the total amount of
violence used in a lifetime by many other species. 
    I've just looked up "violate" in the Oxford English Dictionary since in
my opinion they are closely linked. Its origin is the Latin *violat-*,
past-participle-stem of *violare* to treat with violence, to outrage,
dishonour, injure, etc.  I see intention there, but perhaps others might 
not.

**  I suppose my point is, that to keep the word's power, I would restrict
it as I've described, and look for some other pejorative word to describe
the lesser "part of normal life" events that one might wish to be
minimised. I have seen a bunch of chooks pick on the one at the bottom of
the totem pole, until it has no neck feathers left and sometimes has blood
running down; that I'd call violence, in contrast to the 'normal' sudden
physical attacks used in establishing a heirarchy.

>no-one else on the list is interested in the perplexity of such a
>choice.  Or perhaps feels that it is a moot point?
>
**  What I've said shows that the main question is where to draw the line -
that's why its perplexing.
**  I can still remember, in the early days of feminism, when the word
violence was used (correctly) to describe physical attacks by men on women,
but (incorrectly) _not_-used to describe similar-effect verbal attacks by
women on men: then and now I have seen this as most unjust. _I_ know well
how extremely effective verbal violence can be; in past decades I have done
just that to a couple of members of my family. It was my realisation of the
injustice of that, which made me change my personality about 6 years ago.

David.
(David MacClement) davd@ihug.co.nz 
www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/3142/Pg1-AD11.html
 or better: http://www.emucities.com.au/member/davd/
****************************************************


_____________________________________________________________
Who will win the Oscars? Spout off on our Entertainment list!
http://www.topica.com/lists/showbiztalk