[Pacifism]

HamHamJ

So recent events have raised certain issues which I think it is important to examine in a broader context.

States most generally, it is a question of when use of force is justified, and what kind of force, etc. With a specific focus on civil activism, though I think the question goes beyond even that.

So I'm just going to come out an say. I think people who tout non-violent protest as the be-all-end-all of activism are dillusionally naive. What is always brought up are MLK and Ghandi and all that jazz. However, even if we credit the idea that pure non-violent protest was the deciding factor in those cases, that is at most a testament to modern liberal democracy, and not a statement about the effectiveness of such protest in general. That we have institutions were changing the mind of the public allows for non-violent means of conflict resolution in spite of all of the other faults in our government simply proves that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

But most of the time, ideals and convictions mean absolutely nothing if you don't have the force, and will to use it, to back them up. And I think that human dignity demands that things which are wrong be resisted. And resistance requires the use of force. Not using force just means they get what they want.

But enough about theory, lets say something about what type of force is used:

I think the distinction between "lethal" and "non-lethal" force is a red herring. Just because a rubber bullet is statistically less likely to kill you than a real bullet, does not mean it is impossible. So even using that is already a lethal threat, and using it indicates you are prepared to kill people. As such, there's really no "escalation" possible from there. One side has made it clear it is prepared to injure, maim, and kill people to get what it wants. Now the other side needs to decide if it is prepared to do the same to prevent that.

Protein Shakes

Pacifism is a logically fallacious ideology. In order to be effective, it requires all relevant actors to subscribe to it, which is never the case. As such, the only thing it accomplishes is allowing the aggressors to take advantage of the pacifists, who essentially bend over backwards for them.

Also, from wikipedia, about a book that I happen to have read:

In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris argues that pacifism is a fallacy, combining hesitance with cowardice, in that the social context in which a pacifist can protest was created by the actions of direct activists. In the same philosophical chapter, he goes on to compare the collateral damage that could result from practicing torture with that resulting from errant bombing. He posits that if one is willing to accept the collateral damage that results from the incidental bombing of civilians on the one hand, one cannot denounce the collateral damage resulting from the accidental torture of the innocent on the other. He notes that the only difference between the two is that the revulsion one experiences when directly causing the suffering of another human being is more potent when done in person than when done from the safety of an aircraft or a command center. He brings to light these similarities not to so much to argue for the potential use of torture in combat but to demonstrate the hideousness of both. Ultimately his book suggests just and humane action must be taken in order to reduce the total suffering of sentient beings.

Tofystedeth

From this blog post at the Seton Hill University site.
edit again: Adding some context for those who don't wanna read a big ol thing without knowing what it is. It's an excerpt from an essay about pacifist resistance in the Holocaust, focusing largely on the resistance in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a French village which saved around 5000 Jews, peacefully. There's a book, that I can't remember the title of, about that town which is quite fascinating.

...

Spoiler:

Another important example of this combination of principled and pragmatic pacifism during the Holocaust occurred in the French village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon. In this mostly Huguenot town, an absolute-pacifist pastor influenced his congregation, normally just-war Calvinists, to mount one of the most dramatic and effective resistance and rescue operations during World War II. How did this town of five thousand Christians manage to rescue five thousand Jews? The response included a spectrum of characteristics, in addition to the pacifist pastor. There was the tough daily pragmatism and long-term organizational skill of the pastor's wife, Magda. There endured in Le Chambon the memory of a history of persecution of Huguenot ancestors at the hands of the 17th century French church and state. The department of Haute Loire also had a large infrastructure of resistance, with both violent and nonviolent groups operating in the region.

Additionally, a "good German," the sympathetic Nazi Colonel Julius Schmalling, may have contributed to the Chambonais? rescue efforts. A veteran of World War I and gymnasium teacher of history and literature between the wars, Schmalling commanded the German troops occupying the Haute-Loire region. Schmalling was credited by citizens of several villages with effectively mitigating Gestapo atrocities in the area under his influence, including protecting the Jews of Le Chambon and nearby Le Puy (Hallie 60-83).

Le Chambon became a hospital town for recovering soldiers who may have been relieved to be at least temporarily out of the fray. As they convalesced, they intentionally or unintentionally became less vigilant about Jewish refugees in and around town. A similar pattern emerged in Assisi, Italy, where Rev. Ruffino Nicacci coordinated rescue and "underground railroad? activities on behalf of Jews while wounded German servicemen recovered there during the German occupation (Silver 94-99). At least one pacifist group has an impressive record in resistance work during the Holocaust. The American Friends Service Committee, the activist arm of the Quakers, worked in the United States and in Europe to rescue Jews, especially children. They worked on legislation at home and in camps in Europe, collaborating with Jewish groups on both fronts. Their record is impressive, even if, to use the title of David Wyman's book on the refugee crisis from 1938 to 1941, they ran up against "paper walls? restricting their opportunities for movement (164-5). Yet they persisted and mined their diplomatic contacts to create networks that provided the "paper weapons??identity and transit documents?that could mean the difference between life and death for Jews in occupied Europe during World War II.

These Quakers acted as a group, as pacifists and as Christians, while networking with anyone who could help them save lives?even Nazis. Quakers had worked in defeated Germany after the end of the First World War, assisting refugees, the displaced, and the poor. They also served in refugee and prison camp during the Second World War. These missions won them the loyalty and respect of the German people, and even Hitler was forced to tolerate their presence in areas under control of the Reich. Their involvement with the defeated enemy after World War I incarnates the poorly understood and controversial notion of forgiveness. Pacifist activism fulfills the commandment to love one's enemies, and, as this example suggests, it is a virtue not without strategic benefits.

We must place the pacifism of Le Chambon, Assisi, and the Quakers in the context of Christian response to the Holocaust overall: less than one percent of the Christians in Nazi-occupied Europe were involved in resistance and rescue. We also must assert that the pacifist resources they drew on should have been much more a part of the stock-in-trade of all Christians throughout Europe. It has been well documented that Christians were conditioned by centuries of anti-Judaism to accept Nazi antisemitism. It must also be stated that Christians had been conditioned by centuries of acceptance of war to ignore the pacifism on which their faith was founded. By not asking the systematic questions raised by pacifism, we allow rescue and resistance stories to be seen as anomalous events based on the charism of individuals. This inaccuracy marginalizes the radical nature of a community's achievement, obscuring the conceptual and organizational bases of their heroism.

Critics of pacifism have made much of the difference between the brutality of the Nazis and the irregularly lethal force of opponents such as those Gandhi faced in Imperial Britain or Martin Luther King, Jr., was up against with Jim Crow sheriffs. While the Third Reich was systematic in their reprisals for violent resistance, their record of response to nonviolent resistance is less consistent. Organized resistance and rescue may have disabled or mitigated the brutality of occupying troops. In the "Nordic? countries, assumptions about racial common ground may have tempered the response of occupying German troops. The Danes were able to rescue almost their entire Jewish population in 1943. The Norwegians, from 1940 to 1943, were led by their schoolteachers in a mass movement of non-cooperation that disabled the puppet Quisling government (Jameson and Sharp). Even beyond Scandinavia, there are examples: Italian Axis troops stationed in southern France found ways to fully or partially disobey deportation and arrest orders against Jews. There are even a few stories of "good Germans" like Julius Schmalling in the Le Chambon saga.

...

edit: spoilered for bigness.
Sorry if there's extraneous '?' throughout. The website seems to have an encoding issue. I've bolded for emphasis some things.

Pacifistic resistance has a surprisingly good success rate, both in individual conflicts and large scale problems.
The key part is the word resistance. Just because you don't use violence doesn't mean you roll over.

DisruptorX2

Non-violence is a tactic. When you will lose, as in American blacks, you do not employ violence, as that would play directly into your enemy's propaganda and would ultimately fail.

Pacifism as an actual ideology, though, is sickening.

Sheep

We had this thread within the past month or so.

It didn't end well. Largely because some people place the value of an aggressor's life higher than their own or that of their family.

saggio

Spoiler:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Tolstoi1st.jpg

Evander

DisruptorX2 wrote: »

Non-violence is a tactic. When you will lose, as in American blacks, you do not employ violence, as that would play directly into your enemy's propaganda and would ultimately fail.

Pacifism as an actual ideology, though, is sickening.

This about sums it up.

Pacifism can be the answer in a particular conflict (short or long term) but attempting to apply it universally fails.

Evil Multifarious

Pacifism is one of those isms that's great in theory.

In an ideal world, pacifism would be the only philosophy.

However, this is not an ideal world, and in order to avoid it becoming even less ideal at any scale, we must sometimes commit the lesser evil.

Violence is always a bad thing, but sometimes the alternative is worse.

HamHamJ

Tofystedeth wrote: »

From this blog post at the Seton Hill University site.
edit again: Adding some context for those who don't wanna read a big ol thing without knowing what it is. It's an excerpt from an essay about pacifist resistance in the Holocaust, focusing largely on the resistance in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a French village which saved around 5000 Jews, peacefully. There's a book, that I can't remember the title of, about that town which is quite fascinating.

...

Spoiler:

Another important example of this combination of principled and pragmatic pacifism during the Holocaust occurred in the French village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon. In this mostly Huguenot town, an absolute-pacifist pastor influenced his congregation, normally just-war Calvinists, to mount one of the most dramatic and effective resistance and rescue operations during World War II. How did this town of five thousand Christians manage to rescue five thousand Jews? The response included a spectrum of characteristics, in addition to the pacifist pastor. There was the tough daily pragmatism and long-term organizational skill of the pastor's wife, Magda. There endured in Le Chambon the memory of a history of persecution of Huguenot ancestors at the hands of the 17th century French church and state. The department of Haute Loire also had a large infrastructure of resistance, with both violent and nonviolent groups operating in the region.

Additionally, a "good German," the sympathetic Nazi Colonel Julius Schmalling, may have contributed to the Chambonais? rescue efforts. A veteran of World War I and gymnasium teacher of history and literature between the wars, Schmalling commanded the German troops occupying the Haute-Loire region. Schmalling was credited by citizens of several villages with effectively mitigating Gestapo atrocities in the area under his influence, including protecting the Jews of Le Chambon and nearby Le Puy (Hallie 60-83).

Le Chambon became a hospital town for recovering soldiers who may have been relieved to be at least temporarily out of the fray. As they convalesced, they intentionally or unintentionally became less vigilant about Jewish refugees in and around town. A similar pattern emerged in Assisi, Italy, where Rev. Ruffino Nicacci coordinated rescue and "underground railroad? activities on behalf of Jews while wounded German servicemen recovered there during the German occupation (Silver 94-99). At least one pacifist group has an impressive record in resistance work during the Holocaust. The American Friends Service Committee, the activist arm of the Quakers, worked in the United States and in Europe to rescue Jews, especially children. They worked on legislation at home and in camps in Europe, collaborating with Jewish groups on both fronts. Their record is impressive, even if, to use the title of David Wyman's book on the refugee crisis from 1938 to 1941, they ran up against "paper walls? restricting their opportunities for movement (164-5). Yet they persisted and mined their diplomatic contacts to create networks that provided the "paper weapons??identity and transit documents?that could mean the difference between life and death for Jews in occupied Europe during World War II.

These Quakers acted as a group, as pacifists and as Christians, while networking with anyone who could help them save lives?even Nazis. Quakers had worked in defeated Germany after the end of the First World War, assisting refugees, the displaced, and the poor. They also served in refugee and prison camp during the Second World War. These missions won them the loyalty and respect of the German people, and even Hitler was forced to tolerate their presence in areas under control of the Reich. Their involvement with the defeated enemy after World War I incarnates the poorly understood and controversial notion of forgiveness. Pacifist activism fulfills the commandment to love one's enemies, and, as this example suggests, it is a virtue not without strategic benefits.

We must place the pacifism of Le Chambon, Assisi, and the Quakers in the context of Christian response to the Holocaust overall: less than one percent of the Christians in Nazi-occupied Europe were involved in resistance and rescue. We also must assert that the pacifist resources they drew on should have been much more a part of the stock-in-trade of all Christians throughout Europe. It has been well documented that Christians were conditioned by centuries of anti-Judaism to accept Nazi antisemitism. It must also be stated that Christians had been conditioned by centuries of acceptance of war to ignore the pacifism on which their faith was founded. By not asking the systematic questions raised by pacifism, we allow rescue and resistance stories to be seen as anomalous events based on the charism of individuals. This inaccuracy marginalizes the radical nature of a community's achievement, obscuring the conceptual and organizational bases of their heroism.

Critics of pacifism have made much of the difference between the brutality of the Nazis and the irregularly lethal force of opponents such as those Gandhi faced in Imperial Britain or Martin Luther King, Jr., was up against with Jim Crow sheriffs. While the Third Reich was systematic in their reprisals for violent resistance, their record of response to nonviolent resistance is less consistent. Organized resistance and rescue may have disabled or mitigated the brutality of occupying troops. In the "Nordic? countries, assumptions about racial common ground may have tempered the response of occupying German troops. The Danes were able to rescue almost their entire Jewish population in 1943. The Norwegians, from 1940 to 1943, were led by their schoolteachers in a mass movement of non-cooperation that disabled the puppet Quisling government (Jameson and Sharp). Even beyond Scandinavia, there are examples: Italian Axis troops stationed in southern France found ways to fully or partially disobey deportation and arrest orders against Jews. There are even a few stories of "good Germans" like Julius Schmalling in the Le Chambon saga.

...

edit: spoilered for bigness.
Sorry if there's extraneous '?' throughout. The website seems to have an encoding issue. I've bolded for emphasis some things.

Pacifistic resistance has a surprisingly good success rate, both in individual conflicts and large scale problems.
The key part is the word resistance. Just because you don't use violence doesn't mean you roll over.

What exactly did they do, and what exactly made their resistance "pacifist"?

I'm sure plenty of Allied spies never shot any Germans, but I would hardly consider what they did an example of "pacifism".

_J_

HamHamJ wrote: »

it is a question of when use of force is justified, and what kind of force, etc.

Unless you can define a universal, self-evident critieria by which "justification" can be assessed, the answer is going to end up being subjective, contextually defined to particular understandings of justification maintained by particular groups.

So, group A thinks that Y is justified in situation X. Group B thinks that Y is not justified in situation X.

How do we reconcile this if there is no universal criteria by which "justification" can be assessed, and how would we ever know that universal criteria?

Tofystedeth

HamHamJ wrote: »

Tofystedeth wrote: »

From this blog post at the Seton Hill University site.
edit again: Adding some context for those who don't wanna read a big ol thing without knowing what it is. It's an excerpt from an essay about pacifist resistance in the Holocaust, focusing largely on the resistance in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a French village which saved around 5000 Jews, peacefully. There's a book, that I can't remember the title of, about that town which is quite fascinating.

...

Spoiler:

Another important example of this combination of principled and pragmatic pacifism during the Holocaust occurred in the French village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon. In this mostly Huguenot town, an absolute-pacifist pastor influenced his congregation, normally just-war Calvinists, to mount one of the most dramatic and effective resistance and rescue operations during World War II. How did this town of five thousand Christians manage to rescue five thousand Jews? The response included a spectrum of characteristics, in addition to the pacifist pastor. There was the tough daily pragmatism and long-term organizational skill of the pastor's wife, Magda. There endured in Le Chambon the memory of a history of persecution of Huguenot ancestors at the hands of the 17th century French church and state. The department of Haute Loire also had a large infrastructure of resistance, with both violent and nonviolent groups operating in the region.

Additionally, a "good German," the sympathetic Nazi Colonel Julius Schmalling, may have contributed to the Chambonais? rescue efforts. A veteran of World War I and gymnasium teacher of history and literature between the wars, Schmalling commanded the German troops occupying the Haute-Loire region. Schmalling was credited by citizens of several villages with effectively mitigating Gestapo atrocities in the area under his influence, including protecting the Jews of Le Chambon and nearby Le Puy (Hallie 60-83).

Le Chambon became a hospital town for recovering soldiers who may have been relieved to be at least temporarily out of the fray. As they convalesced, they intentionally or unintentionally became less vigilant about Jewish refugees in and around town. A similar pattern emerged in Assisi, Italy, where Rev. Ruffino Nicacci coordinated rescue and "underground railroad? activities on behalf of Jews while wounded German servicemen recovered there during the German occupation (Silver 94-99). At least one pacifist group has an impressive record in resistance work during the Holocaust. The American Friends Service Committee, the activist arm of the Quakers, worked in the United States and in Europe to rescue Jews, especially children. They worked on legislation at home and in camps in Europe, collaborating with Jewish groups on both fronts. Their record is impressive, even if, to use the title of David Wyman's book on the refugee crisis from 1938 to 1941, they ran up against "paper walls? restricting their opportunities for movement (164-5). Yet they persisted and mined their diplomatic contacts to create networks that provided the "paper weapons??identity and transit documents?that could mean the difference between life and death for Jews in occupied Europe during World War II.

These Quakers acted as a group, as pacifists and as Christians, while networking with anyone who could help them save lives?even Nazis. Quakers had worked in defeated Germany after the end of the First World War, assisting refugees, the displaced, and the poor. They also served in refugee and prison camp during the Second World War. These missions won them the loyalty and respect of the German people, and even Hitler was forced to tolerate their presence in areas under control of the Reich. Their involvement with the defeated enemy after World War I incarnates the poorly understood and controversial notion of forgiveness. Pacifist activism fulfills the commandment to love one's enemies, and, as this example suggests, it is a virtue not without strategic benefits.

We must place the pacifism of Le Chambon, Assisi, and the Quakers in the context of Christian response to the Holocaust overall: less than one percent of the Christians in Nazi-occupied Europe were involved in resistance and rescue. We also must assert that the pacifist resources they drew on should have been much more a part of the stock-in-trade of all Christians throughout Europe. It has been well documented that Christians were conditioned by centuries of anti-Judaism to accept Nazi antisemitism. It must also be stated that Christians had been conditioned by centuries of acceptance of war to ignore the pacifism on which their faith was founded. By not asking the systematic questions raised by pacifism, we allow rescue and resistance stories to be seen as anomalous events based on the charism of individuals. This inaccuracy marginalizes the radical nature of a community's achievement, obscuring the conceptual and organizational bases of their heroism.

Critics of pacifism have made much of the difference between the brutality of the Nazis and the irregularly lethal force of opponents such as those Gandhi faced in Imperial Britain or Martin Luther King, Jr., was up against with Jim Crow sheriffs. While the Third Reich was systematic in their reprisals for violent resistance, their record of response to nonviolent resistance is less consistent. Organized resistance and rescue may have disabled or mitigated the brutality of occupying troops. In the "Nordic? countries, assumptions about racial common ground may have tempered the response of occupying German troops. The Danes were able to rescue almost their entire Jewish population in 1943. The Norwegians, from 1940 to 1943, were led by their schoolteachers in a mass movement of non-cooperation that disabled the puppet Quisling government (Jameson and Sharp). Even beyond Scandinavia, there are examples: Italian Axis troops stationed in southern France found ways to fully or partially disobey deportation and arrest orders against Jews. There are even a few stories of "good Germans" like Julius Schmalling in the Le Chambon saga.

...

edit: spoilered for bigness.
Sorry if there's extraneous '?' throughout. The website seems to have an encoding issue. I've bolded for emphasis some things.

Pacifistic resistance has a surprisingly good success rate, both in individual conflicts and large scale problems.
The key part is the word resistance. Just because you don't use violence doesn't mean you roll over.

What exactly did they do, and what exactly made their resistance "pacifist"?

I'm sure plenty of Allied spies never shot any Germans, but I would hardly consider what they did an example of "pacifism".

They hid Jews in their houses and barns, acquired fake papers for them, and got them out of the country to safety.

jothki

Pacifism is a good tactic if the people who you want to influence are different than the ones who are attacking you.

HamHamJ

Tofystedeth wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

Tofystedeth wrote: »

From this blog post at the Seton Hill University site.
edit again: Adding some context for those who don't wanna read a big ol thing without knowing what it is. It's an excerpt from an essay about pacifist resistance in the Holocaust, focusing largely on the resistance in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a French village which saved around 5000 Jews, peacefully. There's a book, that I can't remember the title of, about that town which is quite fascinating.

...

Spoiler:

Another important example of this combination of principled and pragmatic pacifism during the Holocaust occurred in the French village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon. In this mostly Huguenot town, an absolute-pacifist pastor influenced his congregation, normally just-war Calvinists, to mount one of the most dramatic and effective resistance and rescue operations during World War II. How did this town of five thousand Christians manage to rescue five thousand Jews? The response included a spectrum of characteristics, in addition to the pacifist pastor. There was the tough daily pragmatism and long-term organizational skill of the pastor's wife, Magda. There endured in Le Chambon the memory of a history of persecution of Huguenot ancestors at the hands of the 17th century French church and state. The department of Haute Loire also had a large infrastructure of resistance, with both violent and nonviolent groups operating in the region.

Additionally, a "good German," the sympathetic Nazi Colonel Julius Schmalling, may have contributed to the Chambonais? rescue efforts. A veteran of World War I and gymnasium teacher of history and literature between the wars, Schmalling commanded the German troops occupying the Haute-Loire region. Schmalling was credited by citizens of several villages with effectively mitigating Gestapo atrocities in the area under his influence, including protecting the Jews of Le Chambon and nearby Le Puy (Hallie 60-83).

Le Chambon became a hospital town for recovering soldiers who may have been relieved to be at least temporarily out of the fray. As they convalesced, they intentionally or unintentionally became less vigilant about Jewish refugees in and around town. A similar pattern emerged in Assisi, Italy, where Rev. Ruffino Nicacci coordinated rescue and "underground railroad? activities on behalf of Jews while wounded German servicemen recovered there during the German occupation (Silver 94-99). At least one pacifist group has an impressive record in resistance work during the Holocaust. The American Friends Service Committee, the activist arm of the Quakers, worked in the United States and in Europe to rescue Jews, especially children. They worked on legislation at home and in camps in Europe, collaborating with Jewish groups on both fronts. Their record is impressive, even if, to use the title of David Wyman's book on the refugee crisis from 1938 to 1941, they ran up against "paper walls? restricting their opportunities for movement (164-5). Yet they persisted and mined their diplomatic contacts to create networks that provided the "paper weapons??identity and transit documents?that could mean the difference between life and death for Jews in occupied Europe during World War II.

These Quakers acted as a group, as pacifists and as Christians, while networking with anyone who could help them save lives?even Nazis. Quakers had worked in defeated Germany after the end of the First World War, assisting refugees, the displaced, and the poor. They also served in refugee and prison camp during the Second World War. These missions won them the loyalty and respect of the German people, and even Hitler was forced to tolerate their presence in areas under control of the Reich. Their involvement with the defeated enemy after World War I incarnates the poorly understood and controversial notion of forgiveness. Pacifist activism fulfills the commandment to love one's enemies, and, as this example suggests, it is a virtue not without strategic benefits.

We must place the pacifism of Le Chambon, Assisi, and the Quakers in the context of Christian response to the Holocaust overall: less than one percent of the Christians in Nazi-occupied Europe were involved in resistance and rescue. We also must assert that the pacifist resources they drew on should have been much more a part of the stock-in-trade of all Christians throughout Europe. It has been well documented that Christians were conditioned by centuries of anti-Judaism to accept Nazi antisemitism. It must also be stated that Christians had been conditioned by centuries of acceptance of war to ignore the pacifism on which their faith was founded. By not asking the systematic questions raised by pacifism, we allow rescue and resistance stories to be seen as anomalous events based on the charism of individuals. This inaccuracy marginalizes the radical nature of a community's achievement, obscuring the conceptual and organizational bases of their heroism.

Critics of pacifism have made much of the difference between the brutality of the Nazis and the irregularly lethal force of opponents such as those Gandhi faced in Imperial Britain or Martin Luther King, Jr., was up against with Jim Crow sheriffs. While the Third Reich was systematic in their reprisals for violent resistance, their record of response to nonviolent resistance is less consistent. Organized resistance and rescue may have disabled or mitigated the brutality of occupying troops. In the "Nordic? countries, assumptions about racial common ground may have tempered the response of occupying German troops. The Danes were able to rescue almost their entire Jewish population in 1943. The Norwegians, from 1940 to 1943, were led by their schoolteachers in a mass movement of non-cooperation that disabled the puppet Quisling government (Jameson and Sharp). Even beyond Scandinavia, there are examples: Italian Axis troops stationed in southern France found ways to fully or partially disobey deportation and arrest orders against Jews. There are even a few stories of "good Germans" like Julius Schmalling in the Le Chambon saga.

...

edit: spoilered for bigness.
Sorry if there's extraneous '?' throughout. The website seems to have an encoding issue. I've bolded for emphasis some things.

Pacifistic resistance has a surprisingly good success rate, both in individual conflicts and large scale problems.
The key part is the word resistance. Just because you don't use violence doesn't mean you roll over.

What exactly did they do, and what exactly made their resistance "pacifist"?

I'm sure plenty of Allied spies never shot any Germans, but I would hardly consider what they did an example of "pacifism".

They hid Jews in their houses and barns, acquired fake papers for them, and got them out of the country to safety.

What about that is "pacifist"?

Qingu

HamHamJ wrote: »

So I'm just going to come out an say. I think people who tout non-violent protest as the be-all-end-all of activism are dillusionally naive. What is always brought up are MLK and Ghandi and all that jazz. However, even if we credit the idea that pure non-violent protest was the deciding factor in those cases, that is at most a testament to modern liberal democracy, and not a statement about the effectiveness of such protest in general. That we have institutions were changing the mind of the public allows for non-violent means of conflict resolution in spite of all of the other faults in our government simply proves that "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

But most of the time, ideals and convictions mean absolutely nothing if you don't have the force, and will to use it, to back them up. And I think that human dignity demands that things which are wrong be resisted. And resistance requires the use of force. Not using force just means they get what they want.

I agree with you. Nonviolent resistance only works in certain forms of societies. Pacifism, as an ideology, is therefore of limited utility.

However, I think nonviolent resistance has a richer history than you're giving credit. Christians used it to great effect in ancient Rome; medieval saints were eager to martyr themselves for the cause and were celebrated.

You are also ignoring the flipside: the lasting scars that using violence causes.

Also, violently resisting an overwhelming force, one you have no hope of victory against, instead of peacefully surrendering allows that force to portray you as violent enemies and justify further oppression. Case in point: Jewish resistance towards Romans. That did all of jack shit for the Jews, and their religion was basically destroyed as it then existed. Compare to Christian nonviolent resistance towards Romans.

So, I would say that nonviolent resistance has a much wider utility than you are giving credit, especially when confronted with overwhelming force (i.e. heavily armed empires).

I think the distinction between "lethal" and "non-lethal" force is a red herring. Just because a rubber bullet is statistically less likely to kill you than a real bullet, does not mean it is impossible. So even using that is already a lethal threat, and using it indicates you are prepared to kill people. As such, there's really no "escalation" possible from there. One side has made it clear it is prepared to injure, maim, and kill people to get what it wants. Now the other side needs to decide if it is prepared to do the same to prevent that.

I disagree. Clearly, there are different levels and valences of force. Nuclear weapons are not the same as even extremely powerful bombs.

On the other end of the scale, physically restraining someone is different than smashing them over the head to knock them unconscious.

I don't understand how the fact that all force can be lethal means that escalation of force doesn't exist.

At the risk of being too cheeky about a srsrs business topic, I think Pineapple Express shows this concept rather well. The entire movie is basically a slow escalation in the use of acceptable force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9be8hhMpWo

Tofystedeth

HamHamJ wrote: »

Tofystedeth wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

Tofystedeth wrote: »

From this blog post at the Seton Hill University site.
edit again: Adding some context for those who don't wanna read a big ol thing without knowing what it is. It's an excerpt from an essay about pacifist resistance in the Holocaust, focusing largely on the resistance in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, a French village which saved around 5000 Jews, peacefully. There's a book, that I can't remember the title of, about that town which is quite fascinating.

...

Spoiler:

Another important example of this combination of principled and pragmatic pacifism during the Holocaust occurred in the French village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon. In this mostly Huguenot town, an absolute-pacifist pastor influenced his congregation, normally just-war Calvinists, to mount one of the most dramatic and effective resistance and rescue operations during World War II. How did this town of five thousand Christians manage to rescue five thousand Jews? The response included a spectrum of characteristics, in addition to the pacifist pastor. There was the tough daily pragmatism and long-term organizational skill of the pastor's wife, Magda. There endured in Le Chambon the memory of a history of persecution of Huguenot ancestors at the hands of the 17th century French church and state. The department of Haute Loire also had a large infrastructure of resistance, with both violent and nonviolent groups operating in the region.

Additionally, a "good German," the sympathetic Nazi Colonel Julius Schmalling, may have contributed to the Chambonais? rescue efforts. A veteran of World War I and gymnasium teacher of history and literature between the wars, Schmalling commanded the German troops occupying the Haute-Loire region. Schmalling was credited by citizens of several villages with effectively mitigating Gestapo atrocities in the area under his influence, including protecting the Jews of Le Chambon and nearby Le Puy (Hallie 60-83).

Le Chambon became a hospital town for recovering soldiers who may have been relieved to be at least temporarily out of the fray. As they convalesced, they intentionally or unintentionally became less vigilant about Jewish refugees in and around town. A similar pattern emerged in Assisi, Italy, where Rev. Ruffino Nicacci coordinated rescue and "underground railroad? activities on behalf of Jews while wounded German servicemen recovered there during the German occupation (Silver 94-99). At least one pacifist group has an impressive record in resistance work during the Holocaust. The American Friends Service Committee, the activist arm of the Quakers, worked in the United States and in Europe to rescue Jews, especially children. They worked on legislation at home and in camps in Europe, collaborating with Jewish groups on both fronts. Their record is impressive, even if, to use the title of David Wyman's book on the refugee crisis from 1938 to 1941, they ran up against "paper walls? restricting their opportunities for movement (164-5). Yet they persisted and mined their diplomatic contacts to create networks that provided the "paper weapons??identity and transit documents?that could mean the difference between life and death for Jews in occupied Europe during World War II.

These Quakers acted as a group, as pacifists and as Christians, while networking with anyone who could help them save lives?even Nazis. Quakers had worked in defeated Germany after the end of the First World War, assisting refugees, the displaced, and the poor. They also served in refugee and prison camp during the Second World War. These missions won them the loyalty and respect of the German people, and even Hitler was forced to tolerate their presence in areas under control of the Reich. Their involvement with the defeated enemy after World War I incarnates the poorly understood and controversial notion of forgiveness. Pacifist activism fulfills the commandment to love one's enemies, and, as this example suggests, it is a virtue not without strategic benefits.

We must place the pacifism of Le Chambon, Assisi, and the Quakers in the context of Christian response to the Holocaust overall: less than one percent of the Christians in Nazi-occupied Europe were involved in resistance and rescue. We also must assert that the pacifist resources they drew on should have been much more a part of the stock-in-trade of all Christians throughout Europe. It has been well documented that Christians were conditioned by centuries of anti-Judaism to accept Nazi antisemitism. It must also be stated that Christians had been conditioned by centuries of acceptance of war to ignore the pacifism on which their faith was founded. By not asking the systematic questions raised by pacifism, we allow rescue and resistance stories to be seen as anomalous events based on the charism of individuals. This inaccuracy marginalizes the radical nature of a community's achievement, obscuring the conceptual and organizational bases of their heroism.

Critics of pacifism have made much of the difference between the brutality of the Nazis and the irregularly lethal force of opponents such as those Gandhi faced in Imperial Britain or Martin Luther King, Jr., was up against with Jim Crow sheriffs. While the Third Reich was systematic in their reprisals for violent resistance, their record of response to nonviolent resistance is less consistent. Organized resistance and rescue may have disabled or mitigated the brutality of occupying troops. In the "Nordic? countries, assumptions about racial common ground may have tempered the response of occupying German troops. The Danes were able to rescue almost their entire Jewish population in 1943. The Norwegians, from 1940 to 1943, were led by their schoolteachers in a mass movement of non-cooperation that disabled the puppet Quisling government (Jameson and Sharp). Even beyond Scandinavia, there are examples: Italian Axis troops stationed in southern France found ways to fully or partially disobey deportation and arrest orders against Jews. There are even a few stories of "good Germans" like Julius Schmalling in the Le Chambon saga.

...

edit: spoilered for bigness.
Sorry if there's extraneous '?' throughout. The website seems to have an encoding issue. I've bolded for emphasis some things.

Pacifistic resistance has a surprisingly good success rate, both in individual conflicts and large scale problems.
The key part is the word resistance. Just because you don't use violence doesn't mean you roll over.

What exactly did they do, and what exactly made their resistance "pacifist"?

I'm sure plenty of Allied spies never shot any Germans, but I would hardly consider what they did an example of "pacifism".

They hid Jews in their houses and barns, acquired fake papers for them, and got them out of the country to safety.

What about that is "pacifist"?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

They prevented the Nazis from killing many Jews. They did this not by joining up with the armed resistance group in the area, nor by killing the Germans while they were using the town as place to let wounded soldiers recuperate. They hid the Jews at great risk to themselves, while also taking care of the Germans. This won them the respect of least one German, the Julius Schmalling mentioned in the essay. When the leaders of the movement were taken for questioning, they didn't fight. They simply went. And were returned.

Feral

"Lethal" vs "nonlethal" isn't a clear binary distinction - it's really "lethal" vs. "less lethal" with an eye to a particular situation. On an older target, a taser is going to be more dangerous than trying to wrestle them to the ground. On a younger target, it's going to be less dangerous.

Anyway, pacificism is silly. It's morally acceptable to use violence when there is strong evidence that doing so would prevent worse violence. It's a very simple utilitarian calculus.

It's only complicated because there are a lot of situations in which the risk and benefits of using violence have to be assessed rapidly with very limited information. But that doesn't mean the basic moral principle is complicated - it only means that the risk is difficult to assess. With that in mind, it's typically better to err on the side of less violence, but that's not the same as a total adherence to pacifism.

Bethryn

Should you use violent protest to protest, say, draconian littering policies?

HamHamJ

Tofystedeth wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

They prevented the Nazis from killing many Jews. They did this not by joining up with the armed resistance group in the area, nor by killing the Germans while they were using the town as place to let wounded soldiers recuperate. They hid the Jews at great risk to themselves, while also taking care of the Germans. This won them the respect of least one German, the Julius Schmalling mentioned in the essay. When the leaders of the movement were taken for questioning, they didn't fight. They simply went. And were returned.

I don't see how keeping a low profile and presenting a facade of normalcy in order to retain access to necessary channels is any sort of principled stand.

Saying that deception can be a more useful tool (sometimes) than direct confrontation seems like an entirely different idea altogether from pacifism.

EDIT: Also, can you prove that their "pacifism" actually "won over" that officer instead of them simply being lucky in getting assigned an officer who didn't buy into Nazi propaganda and was willing to essentially ignore orders because of that?

Qingu

HamHamJ wrote: »

Saying that deception can be a more useful tool (sometimes) than direct confrontation seems like an entirely different idea altogether from pacifism.

My understanding of pacifism was always that it allowed for deception, sabotage, and basically anything that doesn't involve killing other human beings apart from self-defense. Perhaps I've been using the wrong word to describe myself.

Morninglord

HamHamJ wrote: »

Tofystedeth wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

They prevented the Nazis from killing many Jews. They did this not by joining up with the armed resistance group in the area, nor by killing the Germans while they were using the town as place to let wounded soldiers recuperate. They hid the Jews at great risk to themselves, while also taking care of the Germans. This won them the respect of least one German, the Julius Schmalling mentioned in the essay. When the leaders of the movement were taken for questioning, they didn't fight. They simply went. And were returned.

I don't see how keeping a low profile and presenting a facade of normalcy in order to retain access to necessary channels is any sort of principled stand.

Saying that deception can be a more useful tool (sometimes) than direct confrontation seems like an entirely different idea altogether from pacifism.

EDIT: Also, can you prove that their "pacifism" actually "won over" that officer instead of them simply being lucky in getting assigned an officer who didn't buy into Nazi propaganda and was willing to essentially ignore orders because of that?

Can you prove anything to someone willing to rewrite the scenario in a way that will appeal to their own view?

No.

You asking for proof is pretty ridiculous HamHamJ.

HamHamJ

Qingu wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

Saying that deception can be a more useful tool (sometimes) than direct confrontation seems like an entirely different idea altogether from pacifism.

My understanding of pacifism was always that it allowed for deception, sabotage, and basically anything that doesn't involve killing other human beings apart from self-defense. Perhaps I've been using the wrong word to describe myself.

If a non-pacifist would take the same actions as a pacifist because of pragmatic considerations, is it really useful to single out those actions as examples of pacifism?

The opposite of pacifism is not "kill everyone all the time!" it's "use force when appropriate".

Qingu

HamHamJ wrote: »

If a non-pacifist would take the same actions as a pacifist because of pragmatic considerations, is it really useful to single out those actions as examples of pacifism?

The opposite of pacifism is not "kill everyone all the time!" it's "use force when appropriate".

I guess I'm not a pacifist then!

My "pacifist" stance has always been a corollary of my utilitarianism.

HamHamJ

Qingu wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

If a non-pacifist would take the same actions as a pacifist because of pragmatic considerations, is it really useful to single out those actions as examples of pacifism?

The opposite of pacifism is not "kill everyone all the time!" it's "use force when appropriate".

I guess I'm not a pacifist then!

My "pacifist" stance has always been a corollary of my utilitarianism.

If you think pacifism is in principle more effective from a utilitarian stance, you would still support pacifist actions in situations were people who are not pacifists would consider a more violent response more effective.

Such as this whole Israel flotilla situation apparently.

Qingu

HamHamJ wrote: »

If you think pacifism is in principle more effective from a utilitarian stance, you would still support pacifist actions in situations were people who are not pacifists would consider a more violent response more effective.

Such as this whole Israel flotilla situation apparently.

My opposition to the activists' use of violence is utilitarian. I think non-violent resistance to Israeli aggression is more effective, certainly in the long run, and also would have had the immediate effect of not leading to the deaths of 9 people.

Unless the IDF actually shot and killed people first, then I don't really know what to think about the situation. Probably still be better to surrender but I'm not prepared to make a moral judgment and I certainly can't say I wouldn't use violence if my friend got shot in front of me.

RoyceSraphim

Hrmmm, the problem with this is that pacifism is two very different things when you look at it on the microscopic and the macroscopic level. An individual that lives as a pacifist would encounter different problems than a political group. The individual could move away or endure conflict and not engage the enemy while the political group (countries) could wear down their enemy and engender a "velvet revolution."

tl;dr
I practice pacifism, I don't fight

My political group practices pacifism, they win by not fighting.

Aroused Bull

Pacifism is an effective tactic under certain circumstances. If you were trying to prevent a greater evil, and violence would be an effective option where pacifism would not, then pacifism in that situation would be unethical. I doubt that's a very controversial opinion. So then it just comes down to a practical argument of when pacifism is effective and when violence is necessary.

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

I practice pacifism, I don't fight

My political group practices pacifism, they win by not fighting.

Yet I'm sure you'd agree that there are situations when violence is used against you that pacifism is unable to handle.

RoyceSraphim

Aroused Bull wrote: »

Pacifism is an effective tactic under certain circumstances. If you were trying to prevent a greater evil, and violence would be an effective option where pacifism would not, then pacifism in that situation would be unethical. I doubt that's a very controversial opinion. So then it just comes down to a practical argument of when pacifism is effective and when violence is necessary.

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

I practice pacifism, I don't fight

My political group practices pacifism, they win by not fighting.

Yet I'm sure you'd agree that there are situations when violence is used against you that pacifism is unable to handle.

Yeah, but without control or skill, I would be better off retreating than fighting; otherwise, I would wind up in jail for manslaughter.

Aroused Bull

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

Yeah, but without control or skill, I would be better off retreating than fighting; otherwise, I would wind up in jail for manslaughter.

I meant in a more general sense, but that's a decent enough example. If you weren't able to retreat from someone trying to kill you, violence would be the better option.

Qingu

Aroused Bull wrote: »

I meant in a more general sense, but that's a decent enough example. If you weren't able to retreat from someone trying to kill you, violence would be the better option.

What about violence against someone who can easily kill you (holding you at gunpoint), but just wants to rob you?

Is it better to almost certainly end up dead in order to go out fighting, or should you just give him what he wants and hope he won't kill you?

I would say the latter.

RoyceSraphim

Aroused Bull wrote: »

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

Yeah, but without control or skill, I would be better off retreating than fighting; otherwise, I would wind up in jail for manslaughter.

I meant in a more general sense, but that's a decent enough example. If you weren't able to retreat from someone trying to kill you, violence would be the better option.

Looking toward the goal of survival with me being as maimed or injured as little as possible,

I don't know how solid my opponent is, she could be pure muscle or have bear armor layers of fat as it was called in an Oblivion thread. I also don't know how tired she is, what other weapons or accomplices there are. In terms of a break in or mugging, I have to strike fast, trip the tiger chasing me, and get secure. Nothing else matters but me and the people close to me. Going for a killing shot takes time away from my survival.

Again, pragmatism.

After all is said and done, I might help the poor SOB or DOB out on their parole hearing and maybe help them find work, but in the heat of the moment, its get out and get secure.

HamHamJ

Qingu wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

If you think pacifism is in principle more effective from a utilitarian stance, you would still support pacifist actions in situations were people who are not pacifists would consider a more violent response more effective.

Such as this whole Israel flotilla situation apparently.

My opposition to the activists' use of violence is utilitarian. I think non-violent resistance to Israeli aggression is more effective, certainly in the long run, and also would have had the immediate effect of not leading to the deaths of 9 people.

Unless the IDF actually shot and killed people first, then I don't really know what to think about the situation. Probably still be better to surrender but I'm not prepared to make a moral judgment and I certainly can't say I wouldn't use violence if my friend got shot in front of me.

Well we disagree on that. I think those 9 deaths accomplished a lot more than none would have.

And I think this disagreement speaks to deeper values and premises.

Aroused Bull

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

Aroused Bull wrote: »

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

Yeah, but without control or skill, I would be better off retreating than fighting; otherwise, I would wind up in jail for manslaughter.

I meant in a more general sense, but that's a decent enough example. If you weren't able to retreat from someone trying to kill you, violence would be the better option.

Looking toward the goal of survival with me being as maimed or injured as little as possible,

I don't know how solid my opponent is, she could be pure muscle or have bear armor layers of fat as it was called in an Oblivion thread. I also don't know how tired she is, what other weapons or accomplices there are. In terms of a break in or mugging, I have to strike fast, trip the tiger chasing me, and get secure. Nothing else matters but me and the people close to me. Going for a killing shot takes time away from my survival.

Again, pragmatism.

After all is said and done, I might help the poor SOB or DOB out on their parole hearing and maybe help them find work, but in the heat of the moment, its get out and get secure.

Quite. So you're not actually a pacifist at all, at least, not in the sense that you're entirely opposed to violence. You just oppose its use when it's impractical.

RoyceSraphim

HamHamJ wrote: »

Qingu wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

If you think pacifism is in principle more effective from a utilitarian stance, you would still support pacifist actions in situations were people who are not pacifists would consider a more violent response more effective.

Such as this whole Israel flotilla situation apparently.

My opposition to the activists' use of violence is utilitarian. I think non-violent resistance to Israeli aggression is more effective, certainly in the long run, and also would have had the immediate effect of not leading to the deaths of 9 people.

Unless the IDF actually shot and killed people first, then I don't really know what to think about the situation. Probably still be better to surrender but I'm not prepared to make a moral judgment and I certainly can't say I wouldn't use violence if my friend got shot in front of me.

Well we disagree on that. I think those 9 deaths accomplished a lot more than none would have.

And I think this disagreement speaks to deeper values and premises.

I side with Qingu on this in that 9 living people can do a lot more than 9 dead men. They made a bad choice in tactics and while their actions may help now, it remains to be seen what will happen in the long run.

HamHamJ

RoyceSraphim wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

Qingu wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

If you think pacifism is in principle more effective from a utilitarian stance, you would still support pacifist actions in situations were people who are not pacifists would consider a more violent response more effective.

Such as this whole Israel flotilla situation apparently.

My opposition to the activists' use of violence is utilitarian. I think non-violent resistance to Israeli aggression is more effective, certainly in the long run, and also would have had the immediate effect of not leading to the deaths of 9 people.

Unless the IDF actually shot and killed people first, then I don't really know what to think about the situation. Probably still be better to surrender but I'm not prepared to make a moral judgment and I certainly can't say I wouldn't use violence if my friend got shot in front of me.

Well we disagree on that. I think those 9 deaths accomplished a lot more than none would have.

And I think this disagreement speaks to deeper values and premises.

I side with Qingu on this in that 9 living people can do a lot more than 9 dead men. They made a bad choice in tactics and while their actions may help now, it remains to be seen what will happen in the long run.

I think 9 martyrs can do a whole lot more than 9 random guys.

RoyceSraphim

@HamHamJ Martyrs are only as useful as the people who tell their story and the people who listen to it. Living people can act, learn, and grow to act in better ways. These deaths could be the turning point or the speech that one of these men would have made in a year could be the turning point, its all theory and I like my theories with less dead sons.

@Aroused Bull

It depends how you define pacifism. Doing nothing, not fighting, not killing. To take a quote from Ender's Game, "

Qingu

HamHamJ wrote: »

I think 9 martyrs can do a whole lot more than 9 random guys.

9 violent martyrs also do a shitload of harm. Causes which celebrate and encourage violent martyrs are destabilizing and entrench the enemy's position and support.

Edit: I'm not actually sure our disagreement here speaks to "deeper values and premises." I think we simply disagree on the moral utility of their actions in the long run, and neither of our positions in this matter are firmly supported by evidence. I suppose I prefer to err on the side of safety.

emnmnme

Tibet tried pacifism at the start and they got their asses beat. Switzerland tried ultra-neutrality but they were also rich and good bankers and their asses weren't beat. Financial leverage must be the key.

HamHamJ

Qingu wrote: »

HamHamJ wrote: »

I think 9 martyrs can do a whole lot more than 9 random guys.

9 violent martyrs also do a shitload of harm. Causes which celebrate and encourage violent martyrs are destabilizing and entrench the enemy's position and support.

Israel's support has not been entrenched. As to their position, they are apparently backing down on the blockade.

So the facts do no mesh with your claims.

Qingu

HamHamJ wrote: »

Israel's support has not been entrenched. As to their position, they are apparently backing down on the blockade.

So the facts do no mesh with your claims.

They haven't backed down on the blockade. I'll believe it when I see it.

The videos of the activists beating down the soldiers is circling among circles you are apparently not familiar with and is basically used as a rallying cry.

And long term, even if they do lift the blockade, Gaza is still going to be imprisoned, and now more Israelis (and possibly Americans) will feel besieged and portray any attempt to aid Gaza as terrorists.

poshniallo

Feral wrote: »

"Lethal" vs "nonlethal" isn't a clear binary distinction - it's really "lethal" vs. "less lethal" with an eye to a particular situation. On an older target, a taser is going to be more dangerous than trying to wrestle them to the ground. On a younger target, it's going to be less dangerous.

Anyway, pacificism is silly. It's morally acceptable to use violence when there is strong evidence that doing so would prevent worse violence. It's a very simple utilitarian calculus.

It's only complicated because there are a lot of situations in which the risk and benefits of using violence have to be assessed rapidly with very limited information. But that doesn't mean the basic moral principle is complicated - it only means that the risk is difficult to assess. With that in mind, it's typically better to err on the side of less violence, but that's not the same as a total adherence to pacifism.

There's more than one flavour of pacifism.

I've called myself a pacifist for a long time. I do accept that violence is sometimes necessary to survive. But I'm deeply skeptical of its effectiveness and utility, and think that short-term thinking, nationalism and ethnocentrism obscure many of the damaging effects of supposedly effective violence in history.

So, I'm performing the same 'utilitarian calculus' you are, but with different enough conclusions that I end up with 'There're really really hardly any situations where using violence is preferable to a non-violent solution.'

electricitylikesme

Pacifism to me has always seemed like a bankrupt ideology in every form that one would reasonably consider "pacifism".

When the right to self-determination is essentially enforced by a race to the bottom of arms, any position of absolute non-violence is close to worthless. There's a line of thinking these days that the modern protest has become largely ineffective because governments understand them now - if a demonstration is peaceful, then the people who show up to it are going to stand around and then go home and continue not threatening their position at the top in any serious manner.