"The General"

Upon going about any daily routine, I very often have music playing. I recently stumbled upon an older song that I really like called The General, by Dispatch. It's a catchy, upbeat song that always seems to put me in a better mood, but for the first time I thoroughly looked into the lyrics of the song and it immediately reminded me of a Nonviolence discussion. The song is about a military general who had a dream and suddenly a realization, about people and life itself. He immediately tells his troops that, in a dream, he "has seen the others", and goes on to say that "this fight is not worth fighting". The general then tells his troops that they have no time to lose, and that they "are young and must be living". The lyrics of this song truly got me thinking about the military system in today's world, and whether or not there are any military leaders that truly feel that no war or violence is worth the lives of the people willing to lay them down. This song also put me in mind of William James and his strive for "masculinity" and thoughts of war. This figure that James portrays seems to provide a type of role model or hero. I wonder if "the general" in this song is more or what James had in mind. It is a disciplined, trained human being, that is standing up for a nonviolent way of life, as well as instructing others to do the same.

Self-sustainability vs. Humanity

When looking further into the topic of Gandhi, it is somewhat difficult to not get overwhelmed with his many ideas, movements, and beliefs. The passion and discipline that he had was something that very few people would ever consider pursuing. Two of his ideas that fall under satyagraha stood out to me. Firstly, Gandhi stood for self-sustainability. He believed that all people should not have to rely on others, even when it came to making his own clothing. I wonder, however, if this has any impact on his belief in humanity. He believed that you should recognize the humanity in all people, including their beliefs, in their actions, and possibly their particular skills. If people began to be entirely self-sustainable in today's society, there would be a major decline in the need for farmers and their goods, for example, causing a drastic change in other people's lives. I feel that if these two beliefs ever did cross in this way, it would require every person's conformity to truly not be harmful.

Pacifisn

Most recently, the topic that I seem to find interesting deals with pacifism. More specifically, I wonder what the actions and obligations of a true pacifist would be. It is somewhat of a given that a pacifist would opt to the nonviolent way of handling a situation, especially when only looking out for themselves. But how would, or should, a pacifist handle a situation that doesn't effect them, but others. Does a pacifist have the right to refuse to defend the innocent, and still claim to be a pacifist? It seems that there is no easy solution to this predicament. While attempting to preserve the overall well-being of innocent people, you would have to harm or endanger another. Another issue, then, if you choose "complete pacifism" and never react to that kind of situation, would be whether or not it is expected that others collectively do the same. I feel that this would be close to impossible without a sort or chaos. For example, law enforcement would not be nearly as effective if they were to act as pacifists in all situations. Pacifism seems to be very debatable, both collectively and individually.

"Conscientious.."

My latest thought in Nonviolence is about the people that called themselves conscientious objectors. After recently viewing the film, The Good War and Those Who Refused to Fight It, I am very intrigued by the conscientious objectors and their ways of life. In a time of war and draft, these people had enough passion and will power to not only refuse to join the military, but to also face the consequence of jail-time. After past discussions attempting to define "nonviolence", however, I have to wonder if these conscientious objectors viewed themselves as entirely nonviolent. There is no question that their refusal to fight or kill avoids a violent way of life, but in avoiding the war, they put themselves in situations such as medical experimentation and working in mental hospitals, both of which are quite harmful to their own well-being. Gultung claimed that something is violent if it is an avoidable insult to basic human needs, or something that gets in the way of reaching a full potential, but does this apply if you bring it upon yourself? By no means do I disagree with the way these conscientious objectors acted. They were proving that it was not pain or fear that was keeping them from the war, and all the while helping others, but it is hard to not wonder if they had a "completely nonviolent" state of mind.