Day 3 Issues Spring 2003
1. Names. Notes on responses: I prefer emails, not attachments, single-spaced, name at end.
Sheet on WORTH and UMADAOP, again, with contact info.
Been browsing the news sites? How many have three bookmarked? What have you noticed so far?
William Pfaff, “Moral Clarity”: http://www.iht.com/articles/82657.html
The Bush economic plan (three views): http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/09/opinion/09HERB.html
Why of course the people
don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a
war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in
[the attribution says:]
"The quote (dated
about these conversations.”
Some Varieties of Nonviolence:
Just War Theory
Reframing the Discussion
“It is sweet and fitting to die for your country.”
“War is inevitable because some people just cannot get along.”
“Is war ever justified?”
“What ways can we find of dealing with our adversaries besides killing them?”
“How can we construct a world where violence is reduced to a minimum?”
OR . . .
3. Into Missing Peace
Introduction: The stuff about “redemptive violence” is especially crucial.
Is it true that we have fallen
under the “tyranny of our violent imaginations”? What examples or
counter-examples would you offer? Cf. Zinn on the
choices we are offered. The idea of “thinking outside the box” has become a
cliché, but it’s still not deemed possible in certain areas, it seems. What
about the idea of “mimetic” violence, 11? The best example, I suppose, is the
death penalty, implausible as a deterrent, incoherent as an ethical response to
violence, impractical and costly, at bottom only explicable in terms of the
primitive urge for revenge. Popular mainly in the U.S. Bible Belt and in
countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and a few other bulwarks of democracy
and enlightenment. Gov. Ryan of
What about Wink’s claim that the
myth of redemptive violence is far more influential than Judaism or
Christianity in the
“Few people remember these details of history, but we all carry a very vivid history that has been absorbed, rather than processed, and so remains unconscious.” (11) Think so? How do we operate in the world? We imagine most of it, because what we actually see and hear and touch is quite small. That imagination is based on--what?
“We believe a new historical self-understanding is essential . . . a new vision which transcends national boundaries and generates the capacity to resolve conflicts nonviolently both within and among the nations.” (14) What do you think?
What’s happened in terms of
“mutuality” post-Sept. 11? What do all those “God Bless
My point, really, and I think their point as well, is that between absolute pacifism and utter warmongering there’s a large space for negotiation. You don’t have to be a pacifist to conclude that it’s better to get through a situation without having to kill anybody, if that’s possible. What they want us to do, I think, is to consider whether violence really is as effective as we’ve learned that it is, and second to explore nonviolent alternatives that have been more viable and possible than we may have learned.
Before coming to
pointing out how peace values aren't
always stressed as much. After reading
the first chapter, I can say that I learned a considerable amount about the
Native Americans and their peace traditions.
Each individual sections talking about the specific Indian tribes or groups
brought about awareness of the legacy of peaceful means that the Native
Americans practiced and experienced during European expansion throughout
disheartening. The book states that he was cut down along
with his wife, but overall they were concerned with remaining faithful to the
nonviolent Peace Chief ethic: "Do
not go and seek revenge. Take your
pipe. Go, sit and smoke and do nothing,
for you are now a
I am always interested in how history is told and recorded. Many things have been
misinterpreted through the ages and misconceptions are seen as facts. I found the section
about Native Americans fascinating. At times, one hears of some Native American
people who are not the stereotypical war-like savage, but real examples of specific people
is never given. In grade school, I never learned about historical Native Americans. They
were never discussed. I am glad that this book describes in detail numerous examples of
Native Americans who were not only an important part of history, but people who strove
for peace which goes against the stereotypical Native American seen in old Western
Having said that, I am hesitant to agree with the section dealing with the American
Revolution. First of all, I don’t like war. It should be avoided at all cost, but I do not
believe that ALL war can be avoided. All war can only be avoided in a perfect society
which will never occur. Humans are too flawed to establish, operate, and live in a perfect
society. The author of the book points out that the colonists had a fairly good life in the
colonies under British rule. I do
agree with this. I also agree that the king of
wasn’t as tyrannical as the colonists seemed to think, but I wonder about what the
colonists truly knew about the
king. They were far from
when the king came to the colonies to show himself to his people. I can see the colonists,
at least most of the population, seeing him as tyrannical when they are taxed more and
more when the treasury had been lowered from a war that never concerned them. I’m not
defending war when saying this, I feel that the author doesn’t admit well enough that
looking back on an event after the fact and deciding what should have been done is much
easier than when it is actually happening.
I read two
stories in “The Missing Peace” The Original Peacemakers, and War for
got into reading the stories, I read the preface, which stated that we only
remember heroes that fought in wars or had something to do with a war. I would have to agree because no one
remembers the silent guys. For example,
Albert Einstein was one of the smartest men who have ever lived, yet the one
thing we remember him for destroyed so many lives. He invented the a-bomb that
“The Original Peacemakers,” tells about the many different tribes of Native Americans. To me it seemed like all the different tribes got along pretty well, until us “white people” came and caused all kinds of problems. The Native Americans were all for having peaceful relations with the Americans, but we promised them things and then never followed through. Americans were the reason that many Native Americans died; I think they had a good reason to fight with us. Americans had no right to treat them the way they did, after all the Native Americans were on this land long before the “white people” ever came.
“ War for
Personally, I believe that the greatest people are those who never receive the credit they deserve. A person that can go through his/her life making all kinds of accomplishments and in the end still be so humble in everything that he/she does. And these people who are truly the greatest people who have ever lived no one has never heard of them.
As I read our class reading assignment for
tomorrow many different events
throughout the pages caught my attention and more than once I was surprised at different
things that occur in our society that I never really thought too endepth about before reading the first section of "The
Missing Piece." For example
terrorists and kill people, as well as bomb them. Through that whole event and to this day, I wonder if we were in the right and if the return of violence from our country made us as bad as the terrorists that attacked us.
I learned from the reading that many of the Native American people of our coutry were peaceful, that was until the Europeans came over and invaded their land and brought disease that killed many of their people. Through many history books we do not see the peaceful side of these
people. In so many case we see them as savages, who attacked innocent people. We have learned one side of the stories, that of the white man. We so offen forget there are two sides
to every story and there are going to be facts left out somewhere along the way. I really enjoyed learning about the lives of some of the Native American groups and their attempts to stay peaceful as well as join together in a union when times were tough.
There were some situations throughout history that I believe war was the answer. One example was when our country was attempting to split away from its mother country. Our country did not hold much power over the country or government. However,I do not think violence is always the answer. If there was a nonviolent alternative that would have worked they people should have tried it first before unleashing a war.
There were some good alternatives listed in "The Missing Piece." Over all, I found the reading very informative and enjoyed learning about asspects of history generally not mentioned.
The Missing peace is an interesting book with interesting viewpoints. The book thus far has promoted the concept of non-violent approaches, and questions historical events that were resolved with violent wars and if war was the correct solution for the situation. The style of writing from the author is unique, the author gets their point across in a fashion that is
not appearing to be recruiting for followers, but tells the story how it was/should have been from their viewpoint. I like that aspect of the book. The book questions many rhetorical ideas from history and provides other possible solutions but fails to convince the success the alternative
solutions would have had had they been done the way the authors state.
book mentions how
It is my understanding that the authors
implement the idea of why couldn’t the
country thought was the best way to gain independence.
The question still remains “Why is war continued to be used today?”, I have
no answer for that question. I don’t think anyone can answer that, and I also believe no one can successfully answer “Why is peace the most effective tactic to use?”
Raudel Hermosillo Jr.
I’m not exactly sure where I stand on the issues covered in these first two chapters. On one hand I feel that a nonviolent approach is the best way to handle situations, but then on the other hand it seems as if sometimes violence is the only way. I didn’t find the arguments in this book to be very convincing, but I do see the point that they are trying to make.
I thought it was interesting to discover that textbooks often tell of warriors and share their stories, but the peacemakers are hardly ever mentioned (15). I’ve never noticed that, but looking back it does seem to be true. The authors said that “the ones most likely to receive attention
Throughout chapter one different peacemakers were mentioned who died for their cause. But it seems to me that their dying was in vain. What did it really accomplish? Would they have lived if they had fought for their rights? They spoke of White Antelope and Black Kettle (30). They said one chief was remembered as saying ‘Our children are dead and our property is
destroyed. We are sad. But can we bring our children back to life or restore our property by killing people? It is better not to fight. It can do no good.’ But my question is would they have lost their property and the lives of their children if they had fought in the first place? I don’t like
violence, but sometimes it seems to be the only way. And I do believe in self-defense. If they were attacked first they had every right to fight back.
Chapter two spoke of the Revolutionary War, and I must confess that I don’t know much about this topic. Were the authors correct in assuming that there were other alternatives to war? I’m not convinced, but neither can I oppose. Although I do have a hard time believing that people would give their lives fighting for independence if they thought there could be another
I, by no means, will fault them for what they did, because I know that I am
here today because they felt that
found the readings quite interesting. In being Mennonite and a pacifist to a
certain extent, I never realized how much violence and war there was in our
past. If you think about it, I can try to list all the wars that come to mind: World
War I and II, Civil War,
kind of disagreement there, for example, Bluffton and
and smoke...." Then it says "The same high mroal standard of nonviolence is continued in the
instructions given to new Peace Chifs to this day: If
you see your mother, wife, or children being molested or harmed by anyone, you
do not go and sek rge. Take
your pipe. Go, sit and moke and do nothing, for you
are now a
nonviolence but that's a bit extreme. If someone was harming someone I loved, I would definitely fight back, I couldn't just sit back and watch someone harm them.
I thought the reading last night was very interesting. At the beginning of the reading I thought
about what the author wrote about the 10 people listed and how most could only
name 5 and those people being generals or people that used violence to become
famous. When the issue is brought to my
attention I do notice that nonviolence acts don’t work as well. If you take a look at this whole war on
terror and the idea of going to war with
The revolutionary war was fought and we gained freedom from that. That was a war and we did use much violence to get our freedom. We never would have gained anything if we used nonviolent acts. One of the headings in the book was, was this war necessary? Sure all of the wars are necessary. If there is a war in the near future I am sure it would be for a good reason. There is no good reason as of right now. Should we fight over oil, I think not.
years there have been many great stands in which people never backed down and
got what they wanted. I believe though
that if we are going to do anything with
This book has three objectives and I believe that we should not try any of those I believe we should do what we have done in the past otherwise we will lose our edge and lose the power and domination. The violence thing must stay for us since that is what has worked in the past.
Response to The Missing Peace
As I think back to my high school
years, one teacher comes to mind. He was
my sophomore American History teacher and his favorite topic was the Civil
War. We spent weeks on the subject with
in depth research on the issues and the battles that took place. He wasn’t the first teacher I had that
celebrated the violent history of the
Meanwhile, home life was centered around the military.
My father had been a sergeant major in the Marine Corps. His three brothers served in
Then, I arrived at
This first part of The Missing Peace has developed this ongoing struggle further. Until I read this, I figured that the past had to be that way, that there was no other option. Nonviolent responses to war, etc. could only be applied to situations happening now. I felt angered that as a kid, my education was limited due to the fact that we were taught only one side of the story. Out if the list of ten historically important people, I was only able to identify one that was not a general. This upsets me.
During the Gulf War, I can remember
thinking that there was nothing wrong with what was going on. The