Tuesday, 07 June 2005
Back in the day — the overly examined yet poorly understood ‘60s — we engaged in a mighty struggle to end an illegal, immoral, and ill-advised invasion. Inadvertently, we may well have helped to make that mistake last longer. There is no way to prove any of this, but I assert that the line crossed from peace to antiwar strengthened the grip of the war makers on policy and made the protracted conflict even more interminable.
Cycle of Violence
Those who were alive and active, try to remember. Didn’t it seem as though it would last forever? I turned 17 just before the Tet Offensive and the war was already long and dragged out. I turned 25 when that damnable war finally ended. I was part of the antiwar movement one week and the peace movement the next. I was young. I was impressionable. One day came flamboyant rhetoric from the antiwar leadership — the exciting SDS Weathermen. The next day I was attracted to the love and flowers talk of the peace movement. None of the peace people seemed to criticize the antiwar people, so, in my youthful analysis, there was nothing to critique. Both were scorned by the warmongers, but the antiwar people were hated more, so, hey, they must be the more radical and more to my liking.
Every time the Weatherpeople blew up another bomb, more people left the peace and antiwar movements. Every time the government did something egregious — and it was the Nixon government, so that was routine behavior — the Weatherfolk would plant another explosive. The cycle had a predictable outcome. By the time the war drizzled to a halt the peace movement was tiny and Nixon had “egreged” himself out of office.
What If the Peace Movement Had Condemned All Violence?
What if the peace movement had robustly condemned all violence on all sides? What if they had taken some leadership instead of shrinking from engagement with those who promoted and practiced violence?
First, the peace movement would have been attacked by the hot young radicals.
Second, the peace movement would have been attacked by the communists who loved the Cuban revolution and took the side of the Vietcong.
Third, the peace movement would have grown rapidly and been unstoppable.
Fourth, the war would have ended much sooner.
Yes, this is speculation. Yes, this cannot be tested. Yes, this is provocative. But I believe it to be true.
And here we are again: a peace movement and an antiwar movement, an ongoing war and diminishing international involvement. Antiwar hotshots who proclaim that bin Laden is justified: that people in the streets should defend themselves with violence: and that the Iraqi insurgents are, like any good revolutionaries, just doing what they have a perfect right to do. We hear it from our own antiwar ranks constantly; “free Mumia,” “no prisoners,” “go Fidel go,” “armed self-defense” and so forth. So-called radical journalists like John Pilger call the Iraqi insurgents the last best hope against the American Empire. We hear cries of free the Portland Seven, or Six, or Five or even just One — warriors who have vowed to kill Americans.
Thus we diminish, shrivel and wonder why. I mean, bin Laden did issue a death fatwa on all Americans, including civilians, so let’s not be too confused about wishing success to al-Qa’ida. Ward Churchill is loved by the antiwar movement, but we haven’t heard much from the peace movement about this. That failure makes average Americans wonder and fear that the worst will come.
So the peace movement gets discouraged, thinking, well, we had better band with all our allies, since we are getting smaller, and turns to those who are doing the damage, those who are in sympathy with violence against the middle of this land. Suddenly, the links are not just probable; they are demonstrable, and documented.
How We Fall Down; How We Can Rise
This is how the peace movement loses, again and again.
First, it doesn’t condemn all violence.
Second, it doesn’t ratchet up its own radicalism beyond mere marching.
At this point, before we have the blood of Iranians on our hands again, it is my belief that those who claim to be in the peace movement ought to move beyond mere words. Words are crucial, but they are not enough to end war.
It is time for engaged conscience.
For some, this may mean not paying taxes and sending their money to life-affirming causes instead. For others, this may mean putting their bodies across the doorways of the military recruiters or in the offices and hallways of federal politicians who make life-and-death policy decisions. For some it will mean actual, physical dismantlement of the instruments of war. For some it will mean creating new acts of nonviolent resistance that recruit mass support instead of mass alienation. If nonviolence is not about creativity and innovation, it is a dead letter, young ones! Show us something new, boldly nonviolent, and with some analysis. Teach us and learn from us.
There is a reason that many make fun of holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” And there is a reason that no one makes fun of the image of Phil Berrigan sealing off an area and smashing a weapon with his bare hands and a few hand tools. Phil, Elmer, Ann, Dan, John, Dean, Molly and Carl created a movement with that first Plowshares action, just as Rosa Parks created a movement with her nonviolent defiance of segregation laws. Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta created a movement, as did the Ogitchida Warriors when they battled peaceably for treaty rights. The time of the nonviolent warrior is at hand again.
For many others, engaging the conscience requires consistent support of the tactics of nonviolence. The masses who speak in support or engage in low-risk actions are force multipliers. For every Cesar Chavez or Dolores Huerta speaking charismatically and risking arrest there must be an anti-army of volunteers in the field doing the work that builds a movement. Every time Huerta gave a great speech, interest grew because the workers in the movement would spread the word and challenge Americans to listen. Every time the workers performed another act of on-the-ground nonviolence, it made the next speech of Chavez or Huerta better received. This dynamic continued.
And so, we ask ourselves, can we have both a peace movement and an antiwar movement? Can one build on the other, or are they mutually exclusive? What may we do to empower the masses needed to shut down the war machine? Read our peace and antiwar collection and think on it. It is time to intervene as hundreds more die each month in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranians wonder if they are next. We, the American people, are obligated to ponder this and produce a response.
What do you say? Send your thoughts by the 14th of the month to: hastings@oregonpeaceworks.org. Commentary ought to be 400-600 words. |
