Roots of Peace: Community Voices

In this space the Community is encouraged to enter Posts on The Roots of Peace, or to comment on existing Posts.

Index to the Roots of Peace: Community Voices blog:

More about this blog, how to enter Posts, and the Roots of Peace speaker series…

The current entries follow those for the 2009-10 Roots of War series, and the blog entries from that series have been retained below.

A timely talk about the power of nonviolent movements, in light of the Occupy Movement. Rose Whitcomb-Detmold is a young student in the Introduction to Peace Studies class at Greenfield Community College. Her insights are remarkable.
__________________

On October 7^th, Senior Advisor of the International Center for Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC) Hardy Merriman came to GCC to talk about nonviolent action. This topic is always relevant, but particularly resonates today in the face of movements such as the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street. Merriman’s presentation focused on the nonviolent movements throughout history that have been successful and the characteristics they share that contribute to success.

Traditionally, groups that wish to change society have been given four options: change through elections and legal systems, negotiation, intervention by a third party, and insurrectionary violence. However, time and time again these methods have failed the oppressed. In dictatorial regimes especially, legal recourse is not effective because it is not imbued with any real power. When elections are held at all, they are often subject to fraud. Dictators have no incentive to negotiate and make compromises and no need to enforce any compromise that may be established. Third party intervention brings up the issue of finding an outside state willing and able to intervene. It also raises the question of sovereignty. When a third party steps in to free a people from an oppressive regime, it creates an opportunity for that third party to exploit and oppress the people in different ways, all in the name of “liberation.” Finally, insurrections have a paltry 26% success rate over the last 100 years and cause devastation and bloodshed whether they’re successful or not.

Nonviolent action is an alternative to these traditional methods. It is a means for ordinary people to fight for rights, justice, and freedom. Many movements in a variety of contexts have employed nonviolence, from labor disputes, to the struggle for gender equality, to the fight for freedom from a colonial power. In the last 100 years, it has been successful in 53% of cases. This rate is only growing. Nonviolent action is not institutional; it is meant to reduce reliance on mainstream establishments. Merriman also made the point that nonviolent action is not conflict resolution, which inherently requires some cooperation with the oppressor in order to reach a mutually beneficial resolution.

Gene Sharp, author of Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20^th Century Practice and 21^st Century Potential, originated some of Merriman’s main points. Sharp categorizes nonviolent action in three ways: acts of commission, acts of omission, or a combination of the two. An act of commission is the act of doing something one is not supposed to do, such as the occupation of Zuccotti Park in New York by protestors. An act of omission is the opposite – not doing something one is supposed to do. Refusing to pay taxes that support the military is an act of omission.

All of this adds up to a power shift. When power is viewed as a quality that is inherent in a ruler, it is very difficult for a people who are oppressed to imagine a way out of that oppression. Sharp calls this model of power monolithic. In reality, political power derives from the subjects of a state. The power of the elite therefore depends on the consent of the subjects and because of this, is fragile and changeable. As Kenneth Boulding writes in his essay, National Images and International Systems, “…the tacit support of the mass…is of vital importance to the powerful…the image of the powerful cannot diverge too greatly from the image of the mass without the powerful losing power.” When people recognize that they are the source of that power, they can choose to withhold it. For example, when the British imposed the salt tax on India, Gandhi led a march to the Arabian Sea and took a handful of salt from the water, declaring as he did, “With this, I am shaking the foundations of the British Empire.” Gandhi’s civil disobedience showed that the salt tax had no power over the people if they did not give their consent.

Merriman went on to outline the “Three Principles of Successful Nonviolent Movements.” The first component that is essential to a movement’s success is unity. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of people are behind an action, without solidarity they have nothing. Gathering support means finding ways for people to get involved on many different levels. Not every person can leave families or jobs to go get arrested for civil disobedience.

The movement must be united around common values. “Values-based propositions” are very effective because they speak to people on an emotional level. People get invested when they feel that a wrong is being done against them.

This leads to the second branch of an effective nonviolent movement – strategic planning. In Merriman’s words, a strategy for civil resistance must include “analysis of self, opponent, environment, and third parties.” There must be organizational structures in place, development of campaigns, and choices must be made and executed from a tactical standpoint. Iranian opponents of the ban on women attending men’s soccer games chose to organize at the 2006 World Cup – a match attended by many international media – so as to garner the most attention possible.

At the campaign level, successful movements find those overreaches of power that impact everyone and use them to bring people together. Movements have the potential to unify a great number of people if those people can focus their collective anger on something tangible. This is where the Occupy Wall Street movement has received criticism. It has been called vague and lacking in specific goals. The success of the Occupy movement may depend largely on its ability to articulate demands and execute careful strategy.

Finally, a nonviolent movement cannot be considered a success if it does not remain nonviolent. This requires immense discipline on the part of the demonstrators. People cannot retaliate, even in the face of police brutality or government-sanctioned suppression. A small group acting out in violence can delegitimize a peaceful protest, not to mention give the authorities an excuse to use greater force against everyone involved in the action. This sort of discipline requires advance training and assessment of risk. Again, organization is pivotal.

Nonviolent action has not been widely recognized as a viable option for effecting change. The elite have a vested interest in relegating civil disobedience to the realm of dramatic extremists and loopy hippies. The media have also in large part ignored successful nonviolent movements.

In fact, as Merriman pointed out, nonviolence has had a great deal of success in recent years, from the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, to the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, to the ousting of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt just last year. Merriman’s list included almost 20 cases in the last decade alone.

It is inspiring to learn that nonviolent action does in fact have solid, documented success. It’s not just a vague dream we can only hope to one day achieve, it has been put into practice against oppression in many forms and come out victorious.

In the case of the United States, where we are fighting not to overthrow a dictator but to overhaul a corrupt political machine, is nonviolent action enough? In a democratic society like ours, isn’t it necessary to work within the system in order to bring about real change? Occupy Wall Street protestors declare, “End the war, tax the rich!” but to do those things, don’t our elected officials have to write and pass the legislation? Nonviolent action is the essential first step, but it’s not the be-all and end-all here. America first needs to experience a fundamental paradigm shift, the beginning of which I think we are seeing now, and then we need to vote into office some inspired individuals who actually represent the will of the people. Certainly, the root of the problem is social injustice. Without equality, there cannot be real peace. Merriman’s work in the study and promotion of nonviolent struggle directly contributes to a foundation of positive peace.

Human beings learn by a three-stage process; observe, infer, devise.  George Cayley observed the bird, inferred what caused flight, and others built the thing that conformed to the principles of flight. This is how all of us learned language. We observed others use it and we caught on. Language is a technological advance, continually evolving, a homeostatic system, and whether oral or written conforms to the three principles of social organization. Separation of powers exists within language.  All users self-select to use language to pursue our own ambitions; no one manages our communications for us so they are all coordinated and drive to specific end. The advancements of language abet our misperception we are more socially advanced than our ancestors. Developing tools to communicate did not change us internally or morally but it did facilitate our drives to cooperate and change the world around us. The principles can be studied in language as easily as they can at an intersection. Read the rest of this entry »

The Second Principle:  Opportunity is Afforded on the Basis of Self-selection.

Social advance is a mirage. There has been none. All advance in human experience is technological advance. It has come through the organization of physical matter. The social cooperation we see at the traffic light is not a consequence of being more enlightened, moral or compassionate than our ancestors because as soon as the light fails our sophisticated, cooperative behavior falls to the wayside.  Turn the light back on and ‘social advance’ returns. Read the rest of this entry »

The First Principle: Design Exists in Advance of Organization and Execution of Design

The need for separation of powers if one is to build a stable and strong nation or state is an ancient principle of social organization.  We would call this an intuitive principle because we studied no system existing beyond us to establish it as we established the principles of flight through study of birds. It seems so obvious. Separation of powers has never worked as we expect it should or might to build a just society. All homeostatic systems, as a peaceful society will be, conform to this physical principle that is nothing more than a description of the successful separation of powers. There are models galore to study how it works. Read the rest of this entry »

Establishing a Laboratory

The scientific method relative to discovery is rooted in observation.  Study of a system over a period of time generates awareness of behavioral patterns, leading us to make assumptions as to causality. We can devise experiments to prove our assumptions correct. If our experiments verify, we may deploy our newfound understanding of causality to address problems we confront in other similar arenas. We study the bird to build the plane. A scientist does not read another scientist’s work and then render a belief-based opinion but seeks to replicate the work to verify the claim or show evidence which does not support. This is the foundation of knowledge and ability. I encourage you to take up the challenge to prove or disprove claims made for yourself. Create a laboratory. Visit a busy intersection moderated by traffic lights and begin observing. You will be studying a monumentally successful social organization structure conforming to the three physical principles of social organization. A great deal of what is needed to be known to resolve the human social dilemma is on display. Read the rest of this entry »

I hope the invitation to submit to this blog results in a new category of conversation; the science or mechanics of peace. It is a root of peace. It’s been forty-three years since I first attended a war protest / peace demonstration. The pursuit of social change became my obsession, occupation and career. For thirty years I followed the recipes given me to cause change – and each one failed absolutely.  Today, I’m a self-trained physical scientist working the problem of peace and a strict allegiant to the scientific process.  More than a decade ago I learned through observation the process to peace may very well be the same as the process to human flight. Read the rest of this entry »

Roots of Peace Speaker Series: Why Peace is Possible and How We Can Achieve It

by Mary McCarthy

Paul K. Chappell delivered a strong, comprehensive and downright logical approach not only to why peace is possible, but also how we can achieve it.   Sorry you missed it!  But, hey, I get it.  After all, who is this guy who speaks of waging peace and what makes him so smart?  Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Paul graduated from West Point in 2002, was deployed to Baghdad, and left active duty in November 2009 as a Captain. In the army he served in numerous leadership positions such as platoon leader, battery commander, and deputy chief of doctrine, training, requirements, and lessons learned for the air defense branch. He is the author of Will War Ever End? A Soldier’s Vision of Peace for the 21st Century and The End of War – How Waging Peace Can Save Humanity, Our Planet And Our Future. And, he is currently the Director of the Peace Leadership Program for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF).  Indeed, the man has a certain level of credibility.

He covered a lot of ground during his talk.  However, the central theme was around why we need to end war and wage peace.  Simply put, our very survival depends on it.

First off,  let’s define peace. Peace is not simply the absence of war.  It has to do with economics, the environment, and social justice issues.  Basic needs must be met in a way that is sustainable no only to human life, but also for our planet.  Any way you cut it, war is NOT sustainable.  It’s draining our economy, degrading our environment, and abolishing our civil rights (bit by bit).

The argument can be made that war is profitable, but not in the way it used to be.  With the privatization of war, profits are made by a few off the backs of the many.  Paul quoted George Orwell as saying, “One of the most horrible features of war is that all the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”

This begs the question that if the powers that be are using these divisive tactics against us, why do we keep falling for it?  Do we really believe war makes us safe?  Well, let’s debunk that myth, shall we?

Politicians need to sell the idea of war to the people and they generally do so by trying to convince us war is for our “own protection”.  It’s simply not true.  As a matter of fact, we are creating more enemies now than ever before.  Paul made a really good point when he said, “The world isn’t angry at the U.S. for it’s ideals.  They are angry at the U.S. for not living up to them.” This speaks to the huge hypocrisy issues that many Americans have with our own government, let alone how the rest of the world sees us.

Another point to consider, we have high-ranking officials in our own military telling us we can’t win this war with bombs.  The only chance we have is if we can win the hearts and minds of local civilians.  The Taliban is embedded within the local communities.  Civilians know who is who, but we don’t!  But, that brings us back to the hypocrisy piece.  We can’t be winning hearts and minds by building schools and hospitals one day and blowing them up the next.

So, what now?  Where do we go from here?  The good news is we do not have to convince everybody that we need to stop war and wage peace.  Paul pointed out that for every 1,000 people that think something is a good idea, only one person will act upon it.  As an example, he spoke of the Women’s Suffrage Movement and how rights were won through the work of 1% of the population.  Think about that for a moment.  If 1% is all we need – then that 1% must be well-trained, organized, focused, and dedicated.  In other words, we can do this.  We can achieve peace.  But, we have to start now.  Time truly is of the essence.

I feel this article does not do Paul K. Chappell’s talk real justice.  I encourage you to read his books.  The information contained in those books arm you with certain undeniable truths that enable conversations to be had in a non-confrontational, non-blaming kind of way.  It’s about finding the common ground and building up from there.  You can find his books on his website:   http://paulkchappell.com/

Mary McCarthy
1/28/11
Journal Entry

Who am I to wage this PEACE you speak of?  I, who was born and bred in violence.  I, who in spite of my own efforts to change, am still violent.  Do I even deserve peace?  By accepting peace am I admitting to fault?  Will I be persecuted, shamed and blamed for all my wrong doings?  Does peace come with a price?  Is the price of peace more severe than the price of my ignorance?

What is PEACE anyways?  PEACE – a word with many meanings, interpretations, and intentions.  As many meanings as there are people.  On any given day my own meaning / interpretation of peace varies and changes.  It’s elusive….mythical…it lives with the unicorns in a land far, far away.  There is no peace here.  Not in me, not around me….I see no peace.

I’ll catch a glimpse of peace from time to time.  But, it never seems to stay very long.  Peace seems to scare away easily.  How can I put my faith in such a thing?  Show me where peace has sustained!  Where it has lasted for more than a moment…a day…a year…a lifetime.  Anybody?  Has anyone experienced lasting peace (besides the dead?)  And even then, we have no proof or guarantees of peace once we leave this world.  Who’s to say the after-life is any better than this one?  You reap what you sow, right?  Reap what you sow……reap what you sow….reap what you sow……

OK.  Perhaps PEACE could be considered a garden of sorts.  One can plant the seeds, but there’s no guarantee they will grow.  Many variables – some can be controlled, but not others.  Did you prep the soil right?  Were the seeds planted good and healthy?  Did you water the garden when nature couldn’t?  Did you weed the garden to help it breathe and grow?  Did you take measures to protect your garden from invasions?  If you’re garden was prosperous were you grateful?  Did you share your bounty with others?  Or, did you horde it for yourself?  And, if after all your hard work your garden produced nothing at all or very little, did you blame others or God for such injustice?

Yes.  Perhaps Peace, indeed, is like a garden. Anyone can learn to farm, but they have to want to learn.  One must be willing to work hard, be consistent, disciplined and focused.  One must be willing to accepts and learn from failure without anger or blame.  And, one must be willing to share their bounty with others.  After all, too much of anything spoils in time if measures are not taken to preserve it.  Most things are best shared when fresh and new.  But, preservation of the overflow ensures nothing goes to waste.  Seems as though Peace, like a garden’s bounty, has a shelf life.  Use it or lose it.

But, not everyone can be or wants to be a farmer.  So now what?  What’s the plan for that scenario?  Thinking through….thinking through….thinking through……OK

• The farmer plants the seeds and grows the bounty
• Others help harvest and distribute the bounty
• Some will share with friends and family
• Some will do nothing and their share will rot
• Some will create new, more sustaining food that will feed even more people and have a longer shelf life to be used for later when the fresh bounty is no more
• Some will seek to control or destroy the farmer’s garden (out of fear and ego)

So then, anyone can play a part.  All parts are equal.  No part too small.  All must be honored.  No one part is more important than the others.  Because the moment that happens a culture of Ego (not Peace) is created.  Ego fights to be more important, more powerful, more deserving because it’s “better” than the “others”.  At that point, all good gets destroyed.  Worse yet, the soil, water, and seeds of all future gardens becomes tainted / poisoned.

Back to my original question:  Who am I to wage Peace?

Answer: Who am I not to?  How dare I not try?  What good comes from anger and apathy?  A cultivation of hate……nothing grows in a field of hate but more of the same.  Who can live off that long term?  One may survive in spite of one’s self, but it is no way to live.

New Question(s):  What quality of life do I want for myself and my fellow animal and human friends?  How hard am I willing to work to achieve that?…….thinking….thinking….thinking…..

Answer:  Find meaning outside of myself.  Foster compassion and forgiveness for myself and others.  Resist the temptation to shame or blame myself and others.  Have an open heart and an open mind.  And when I falter (as I surely will), forgive all, make amends and move on. Remembering “Courage doesn’t always roar.  Sometimes courage is the little voice at the end of the day that says, ‘I will try again tomorrow’” (Mary Anne Radmacher)

Other random thoughts……………………….

Dalai Lama…… Learning > Conviction > Determination > Action

Reminder to myself:  Be careful not to let my intellect (mind) override my heart (spirit)

What once was dark is light

I no longer need to fight

False illusions cast aside

demons & ghosts, I no longer abide

The dawn of a New, limitations removed

tear down the walls keeping me scared and subdued

I built these walls brick by brick

around my heart, ten feet thick

Heavily guarded by demons of past

overcoming my fears, I’m free at last!            (written by me, to me)

My granddaughter Cheylah turned 2 in August, so celebrating this past holiday season with her gave us the opportunity to create the beginning of a new and meaningful holiday tradition. We chose to celebrate both Chanukah and Christmas and this is why and how we did it.  I believe that celebrating both holidays with Jewish children is a way to play a part in narrowing the great historical divide between Christians and Jews and to create a holiday season where there is no need for my Jewish grandchild or any Jewish child to feel alienated at Christmas time.

The inspiration for creating this new tradition was my own painful experience growing up in an anti-Semitic Catholic town in New Jersey where as a Jewish child, I was accused of terrible things and the boy next door was not allowed to talk to me.  Sadly, no one had bothered to tell me that Jesus was Jewish!  I have long wondered what kind of difference knowing that might have made for me and the uninformed children around me.

Coming from a secular, politically radical Jewish family, I was not taught that Jews were different from anyone else – rather that “All people are brothers” and “We are all created equal”.   We lit candles for Chanukah and received a few presents at Christmas time, but there was no significant meaning ascribed to either holiday. The anti -Semitism around me was a great and unexplained puzzle.

As an adult, Jewish holidays became more significant and symbolic – especially Passover and Chanukah. However, when my own daughter was little, regretfully, I was too caught up in the drama of my life and the challenge of parenthood to give tradition for her the attention it should have received. “Tanks be to God” as my grandmother would say, I’ve gotten another chance, the blessing of a granddaughter, a miracle!

This year for Chanukah, we lit candles, said prayers and made wishes on each candle for eight nights. We talked about the miracle of light and how in the face of great challenge, miracles are always, always possible. We gave presents to Cheylah, ate latkes and were happy to be a part of this celebration of our Jewish heritage.

Soon after, we also celebrated Christmas.  We explained that Christmas is a “birth” day party for baby Jesus who was Jewish.  We talked about what a good man Jesus was – a man who wanted peace for all the world, who cared about people who are poor, who was a leader to make a better world.  We helped Cheylah pick out Christmas presents for all the people she loves, Jewish and not Jewish, and explained that we give presents to each other because Jesus was generous and wants us to be generous too.  We took a small branch from a nearby tree and put bright colored balls and tinsel on it.   It still has its place in the living room next to the menorah.

As Cheylah gets older, both stories will get deeper and more complex.  I do believe they are good stories that can help her and all our children grow in their tolerance and understanding and acceptance of each other. I am hoping that other Jewish families will create holiday traditions with their children that include the Jewish Jesus.  Miracles can happen!  “Tanks be to God”.

Liz Kelner