Earlier this week I went looking for confirmation of how to spell Chrissie Hynde and stumbled upon this site.
http://www.john-lennon.com/index_john_lennon.html
And there I saw a video of a person make the most disappointing comment I have heard in some time. "Peace is as easy as imagining it."
Really?
[rant]
The history of nonviolence: ask the Huron Indians how non-violence worked out for them. Oh, that's right, you can't--they converted to Christianity, laid down their arms, and promptly got wiped out by the Iroquois.
Meanwhile, except for ending slavery, Fascism, Nazism, and Communism, war has never solved anything. To this list we may one day add Islamo-fascism, or radical Islamic terrorism, but for now I would say, that's a work in progress.
There is evil in the world, and the answer to evil is most emphatically not non-violence. Tolerance and cooperation must be backed up by strength.
I doubt even John Lennon himself, were he alive today, would agree with the person in the quote above. Peace is imaginable, and possible, but surely it takes work and cooperation. Peace does not happen just because enough people like the same song. Peace is the goal, but there are some important intermediate objectives. Such as stopping deranged assassins.
I admire the Beatles as a band and John Lennon as a writer, philosopher, musician, artist, and activist. I have a hard time with some of Lennon's comments, such as the Beatles were more famous than Jesus. But mostly I feel deeply disturbed by comments from ignorant idealists who really believe that peace is as easy as imagining it, and who believe, by extension that:
(a) war is always wrong, never justified; and
(b) warriors are either just social misfits, willing tools of greedy capitalists, or mercenaries looking for a fight.
In this country, the widening gap between Armed Forces and Society is quite disturbing to me. Isn't it ironic? The more freedom people have, the less they appreciate it, and what it takes to make and preserve it, and what cost others have borne on their behalf for it.
When I came back from Baghdad and rejoined polite society, I was appalled at the insignificance of what passed for real problems among my fellow citizens. Cold French fries sent a fellow diner into a tizzy. Too few choices on the shelf caused a fellow customer to lose composure. Somebody drops a ball. In a game. Oh, the drama! You'd think we were dodging mortars again.
The irony of the Law of Supply and Demand is that in the abundance of freedom, freedom is devalued. At some point, truly clueless people who have no appreciation for the cost of the freedom they take for granted are perfectly willing to go on camera and proclaim their ignorance, saying, "Peace is as easy as imagining it."
[/rant]
Tomorrow is Veteran's Day, the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. Don't wait till the last minute to think about what it takes to live in peace. It takes more than imagination.
26 years in Army green,
... and still serving!
Builder, mapper, bridger, sapper!
Turkey, Korea x 2, Germany x 2
NATO mission in Kosovo (’99)
9/11 survivor (Pentagon)
Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran ('07-'08)
9/11 survivor (Pentagon)
Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran ('07-'08)
The whole song is a crock. Nice tune, though! "Imagine no possessions" sung by someone who is filthy rich. Give me a break. No one was stopping him from giving away his possessions. That would be a good start for those who enjoy telling the rest of us how to live.
ReplyDeleteAnd Happy Veteran's Day to you. Thank you for your service. There are more of us than you can possibly realize who support you not just today, but every day.
ReplyDeleteMany are serving our country as best they can in non-military ways - by being spouses and families of the military, by working with military charities, as civilian employees of DoD, working in defense industries to equip and protect our troops, and lots of just plain folks who are the backbone of this country and make it worth defending.
As the other posters have said, Lennon was not exactly a "working class" hero...
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, just because the oppressors do not imagine peace, does not refute the point that peace is as easy as imagining it. The problem is that both parties have to have the same imaginative power. Stalin could have imagined peace, Custer could have imagined peace...etc...they just didn't.
Jayson, welcome and thanks for your comment.
ReplyDeleteThe lack of imaginative power is a factor but not the most important one, in my opinion. The parties must also have the same objectives. Peace on whose terms? Peace as defined by whom?
Stalin could have imagined peace, but didn't. Really? Or maybe his idea of peace was soul-crushing totalitarianism. Osama bin Ladin still could imagine peace, but probably won't. Or maybe he already has! I do not consider his vision of Sharia Law for all as an acceptable answer to the question.
People forget that they can afford to imagine peace only so long as someone keeps the Stalins and the Osama bin Ladins out of their living room.
Cheers!
If Stalin and bin Laden can honestly (that is, without being knowingly deceitful) call the slaughter of thousands of "friends" and "enemies" an act of peace, then there is some serious Orwellian doublethink at work. Even the notion that peace requires "terms" reveals just how entangled the notions of war and peace really are for many of us.
ReplyDeleteMy difference of opinion/perspective seems to stem from the lack of militarization in my thinking and lifestyle. Perhaps a better word to work with would be "non-violence." It suits my intentions much better, but I can not say the same for Lennon. "Violence" is a little clearer than "war;" "peace" could very easy be left at stability, and yes, in that respect, Stalin was rather peaceful (see doublethink comment above). Violence is, sometimes necessarily, met with violence. In oreder for non-violence to work on a global scale, it requires every person to be open-minded enough that they do not take themselves so seriously that they are willing to initiate harm/injury/death on an opponant. Even I do not believe this is feasible or possible. So for now, I must endure the reality of violence in the world around; all I can really do is not contribute to it at every available opportunity.
Tibetan monks imagine non-violence and compassion...the violence of China is in their living rooms....the two are not necessarily correlated.
Jayson, you raise an interesting point about militarization. I wish I could compare my answers before and after 26 years of service to see whether and to what extent my attitudes have changed. In terms of education and experience, over that period of time I have progressed from architect to civil engineer to systems manager to operations research analyst. The common threads are process vs. results orientation, cause-and-effect analysis, purpose-driven design, data-driven decisions, and pragmatic optimism: working hard to make things better. Do I try to fix things because I am in the Army, or am I in the Army because I try to fix things?
ReplyDeleteYou describe the antithesis of a military mindset as one achieving peace by avoiding violence. Avoiding may be the opposite of a military mindset, but it may also be the opposite of a broader activist mindset. The idea of simply not contributing to violence strikes me as ineffective. Have you ever been in a fist fight that you did not start? Have you ever been shot at? A person or group hell-bent on violence will not stop just because they meet no resistance. Granted, resistance usually brings escalation, so if you just want to survive, then the best strategy is to cower. However, the passive people who survive are enslaved by the conquerors. Peace is not merely the lack of violence. Peace is not achieved by doing nothing. The peace we have has been paid for by men and women willing to do violence on our behalf.
Can’t we all just get along? I wish people could simply get along. The history of humanity does not give me hope that we will see the end of war in our lifetime. Peace exists only in the shade of swords.
Dave, avoiding violence is indeed in direct opposition to the military mindset. This opposition is why I never enlisted, and why I was struggling with my conscience when I had to apply for student loans (it would automatically register me with the Selective Service).
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question of day-to-day violent interactions, let me say this. I have thankfully been able to diffuse any situation that could have led to fisticuffs before the first punch was thrown. I have avoided (and not by running away, I might add) escalation of any potentially violent altercation, whether it be with a student (meth is a hell of a drug) or with a drunk in a bar (alcohol is a hell of a drug). I've never been shot, or held at gunpoint, despite working in some of the worst neighborhoods in Philiadelphia and hanging out in some lousy areas of New York City. Admittedly, I have lived a charmed life. I was bullied in school, and used violence to solve that problem; I paid for it dearly. That was a lesson learned about the ineffectivity of solving problems with violence...it just steps up the intensity.
The saddest thing that crosses my mind is the men and women who have chosen to commit atrocities in order to keep me safe. I don't have feelings of hatred, animosity, or pity towards them; I'll leave that for the imbeciles and hippies who possessed the inhumanity to spit and jeer at returning soldiers. It just saddens me to think that my safety depends on the voluntary service of people who are willing (I will not use the words "brave enough") to engage in an increasingly violent "conversation". I don't want that to be the case. It is a circumstance of my existence that I do not know how, or if it is even possible, to change. I don't want peace only to flourish in the shade of swords. I don't want to see people merely getting along; I want them to understand each other.
Is all the violence a result of merely not communicating effectively? or perhaps refusing to communicate?
Jayson, your words are convincing and most welcome, especially to the extent that they challenge my own worldview.
ReplyDeleteI share your interest in seeing people understand each other. Will this kind of tolerance and appreciation happen on its own? Will we be able to watch the awakening as it occurs before our eyes? I think not. I think such thoughts turn a worthy goal into a mere pipe dream. The goal can only be achieved through effort sufficient to overcome human nature and our tendency to over-react to fear.
I agree with Helen Keller who said the aim of education is tolerance. People need education about different cultures and points of view before they can turn distrust into tolerance. Fear comes from what we do not understand, and understanding reduces fear. I cite the fascinating work of Esposito and Mogahed, who polled a random sample of Muslims and wrote a book about what a billion Muslims really think. The book is called Who Speaks for Islam? The takeaway is that most American have no idea what most Muslims really think about us, or 9/11, or bin Laden. Most people, not just Americans but all people, have beliefs that are based on fears, not facts.
Education is the answer, or at least part of the answer. Facts, not fears.
Violence may result from an unwillingness to appreciate the other point of view, or by a refusal to communicate, or even by a failure to communicate effectively. As I indicated, education can help with these issues. However, there is another issue. Evil exists in the world. Sometimes violence is killing the snake instead of watching it bite your daughter.
Would you really want to live in a world where nothing was worth fighting for? Snakes are fine. They have their place. However, should a snake venture too close to one of my children, be aware that I have a hoe, I know how to use it, and I will not hesitate to protect what is dear to me.
I do not want to believe that understanding is just a pipe dream. If it is, then I have absolutely no reason to continue living. I have to believe that it is possible, even if it does not occur in my lifetime. This is the thing in life that I fight for. It is the backbone of my pedagogy. Education is a big enough part of the answer (my answer?) that I chose it as a profession.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say that I fight for understanding, I do not mean that I am a "PC-Nazi" (I tried to choose a term as un-politically correct as possible!). Political correctness is another facade, a veil, a obfuscating layer that separates us from reality. If I can point out the logical fallacies or the holes in a student's argument, then I have made them a better thinker and a more effective appraiser of their environment.
Ignorance is more like a leech or a tick...it drains the life of its host, and the host often doesn't even know it is there. Sometimes I find bloated ticks the size of a quarter on my students; I pluck them off when I can.