Reflections on Peace Studies and War

Peace Studies Journal

January 28, 2003

I was thinking about the idea that as students we have been miseducated. I understand that traditional schooling lacks any peace studies education. But schools teach history that is based on war and violence because these have been the most prominent aspects of our history and accordingly they are given the most time. I don’t feel that the curriculum should be necessarily replaced (nor do I think that they should stop teaching algebra and geometry. While I was never a big fan of math I must say in its defense that I’ve found algebra and geometry and even higher level math to be useful in their own right, but more importantly they provide a different way of thinking and solving problems which is a tool that can be applied to all areas of life, but anyway…) instead, I think we have to change the way we teach history. I’m actually part of that strange anomaly who loved history. It was my favorite subject throughout high school, and was very nearly my major in college. I was forever defending the subject to my fellow classmates and I placed real importance on what I took away from my classes. Growing up I went to a slew of different schools growing up, but they were all what you could consider fairly liberal progressive institutions. My teachers never glossed over history giving us the sanitized patriotic version of events, they encouraged us to question history, to studying it from an analytical point of view, and to accept the faults of society, especially our own, in hopes that we could fix them. Then I read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States in tenth grade and I remember being shocked. I felt deceived by my entire education experience. I never was fully aware before of the full extent of the atrocities that the United States has committed against countless peoples. It’s overwhelming really, and made me question the entire idea of patriotism and also really think about education. I still find it appalling that Christopher Columbus has his own holiday. I think that schools really need to be more honest with our own history and our nation’s flaws. I’m a big believer in the necessity of learning from ones mistakes, but our country will never achieve that while students are being fed an edited and patriotized version of our history. It does a disservice to everyone to gloss over the flaws; instead our mistakes should be analyzed and discussed in the hopes that we will learn enough not to repeat them. I’m really embarrassed by people who have blind unquestioning patriotism for our country. I think the most patriotic thing you can do is to question your government and hold it accountable. How else can we truly consider it representative, or hold any respect for our nation. When people display pride for their country they should know why. And while I’m willing to accept my nation flaws and all, I’ll never give up on trying to correct those flaws that I see within it.

Another note on education, I was amazed by the ignorance that our class displayed on Tuesday. Admittedly I couldn’t have named all 9 members of the Supreme Court (Renquist, O’Connor, Scallia, Souter, and Ginsberg. Six out of nine), but the fact that three people didn’t know any, is really ridiculous. Not to mention that only a handful of students actually knew both of the Senators from their state. To make it worse this is more or less a government program. Most of the students are government majors and nearly all are interning with the government in some aspect. The fact that they could be unaware of their two senators is insane.

As far as Peace Studies is concerned, I must admit that I’m a little skeptical. I applaud people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who have successfully fought for justice through passive resistance and civil disobedience. But both of those men were working in very special circumstances. They had the fortune of living in a specific culture and society that, while unjust, had within it the ability to be responsive to what these two men were doing. The British system of rule in imperialist India, and the United States government were conducive to the method of peaceful protest. I’m not convinced however that these methods could be transferred to different governments, cultures, or societies. For example, many governments lack the political linkages that would allow protest or other peaceful methods to be effective. Some cultures are deeply rooted in ethnic conflict, or racial prejudice. Others consider violence, and even murder, as heroic feats, and are willing to take their own lives in order to end the lives of their enemies. How do you respond to such people? I honestly feel that there are some people that will just not allow themselves to be reasoned with. As cliché as this may sound, how do you deal with a Hitler, a Stalin, or a Pinoche? I cannot believe that any method of peaceful resistance would be successful in combating the destruction that they produced. I’m not in support of killing such people, or even using violence against them. I’m opposed to capitol punishment and in an ideal world it would be possible to detain them and prevent further violence. However, in this world there are circumstances where this isn’t possible. I’m not sure that I’d be willing to sacrifice great numbers of innocent lives in order to maintain consistency with the ideals of nonviolence. In the world in which we live one is sometimes faced with a situation where a path of violence seems to be the necessary course in order to safeguard the lives of many. I’m not envious of the people who make these decisions, and don’t always agree with where they draw there lines (in fact I’m often unsure where I feel the lines should be drawn) but at this point I do see it as a necessary evil in some situations. I would honestly be very grateful to be proven wrong about this. I understand that if we lived in a peaceful society these types of situations would be much less likely to occur, but how do we get there? I fear that it’s impossible to do so through entirely peaceful means, but hope that it is not impossible all together. My sincere hope is that this course will give me some sort of insight as to how we find and stay on that path to peace.

Monday, February 10

In class you’ve mentioned Nixon’s trip to China twice, citing it as a victory for nonviolent resolution. I’m really bothered by this and see it as only detrimental to your case. Nixon was not a pacifist, nor a believer in nonviolence. He was a politician motivated by greed and Wall Street’s push for globalization. Nixon’s trip to China did not lead to a friendly partnership between the US and the Chinese, all it did was allow US companies to expand their exploitation to one billion new consumers. The Chinese are still hated by our government and viewed as an “atheist, godless nation.” However, the government feigns good relations and put on a façade of diplomacy to appease the big business corporations that pay for their campaigns. These corporations are so mesmerized by the potential of one billion people thirsty for coca cola and pining for a new pair of Nikes that they turn a blind eye to the oppressive Chinese government in which they peddle their merchandise. With cheap labor, and the absence of environmental or labor regulations these companies seek out nations such as China so that they can more efficiently exploit human beings and the natural resources of our planet. As a result American business does what it can to avoid rocking the boat; the symbiotic relationship that has developed forces businesses to support the current government so that we can continue to dump our waste and work 8-year-old children for 12-hour shifts. If anything, the United States’ involvement has only served to obscure the violence and oppression that takes place in China on a regular basis and silence any American protest. The United States government, by acknowledging the Chinese government as a legitimate power, has only served to perpetuate violence with in the country by reinforcing the government that carries out these atrocities. If Nixon was truly a champion of nonviolence he would have used all the diplomatic and economic strength that our country possesses to end the violence that China carries out upon its own people as well as other autonomous countries (i.e. Tibet). And if the current president had any compassion he would do the same.

Tuesday, February 11

I was thinking about the essay that we read out loud today in class. The essay featured a “skeptic” challenging a pacifist with hypotheticals. Now, by nature I’m skeptical of most things; I naturally question everything. And I’m also hesitant to adopt a new philosophy, especially one that will significantly alter my life, unless I’m absolutely convinced that this is the best option. Nonviolence is an idea so radically different from everything I’ve ever been taught that it’s almost instinctive that I would be skeptical. Of course I want a peaceful society, of course I don’t approve of war. The thing is that I’m already a believer on a lot of the issues; it’s when we stretch the philosophy to all areas of life that I begin to waiver. I’m a vegetarian, though not vegan; I don’t purchase products tested on animals, but I have mixed feelings about medical research; I don’t believe in capitol punishment, but I do believe that a person should have the right to defend their own life in certain extreme situations, violently if that is their only option; I also believe in a women’s right to choose. I see a lot of gray areas and within them there are places where I draw the line. It’s hard for me to accept people who see it all in black and white. I think when I, and others, question you its because we need to know how you’d respond in those gray areas, and then ask our selves whether or not we could do the same.

And I really admire you for fielding our questions and responding to our challenges. Today someone in class said that you were being hypocritical for living in this country and paying taxes and they implied you should move somewhere else. I couldn’t disagree with him any more. I have complete admiration for what you do and I’m very grateful that I’m allowed to be a part of it. I wrote about this earlier, but I honestly feel that the most patriotic thing you can do is question your government when you don’t agree with what they’re doing. It’s our responsibility to hold our government up to a higher standard. I applaud you for staying here and trying to make a difference, for fighting for what you believe in, and for dedicating your life to helping others do the same. If everyone who has disagreed with our nation’s policies decided to leave the country, first of all, we’d have a very small and apathetic population remaining. But more importantly, we would have failed to make any social advancements at all; we would still practice slavery, women wouldn’t be allowed to vote, there’d be no civil rights, no environmental protection, no progressive ideas whatsoever, because all the people who would have fought for them have instead moved to Switzerland. The beauty of our government is that it’s set up in such a way to allow for social evolution. There are tools built in to the system - freedom of speech, representative democracy, regular elections – that allow people to the chance to fix what they see wrong with in the nation. Those who are brave, and truly patriotic take advantage of that.

We’ve been reading the “well, what about Hilter?” section of the book. I have to admit that probably the main reason I am so skeptical is that I just don’t have a lot of faith in people. There are many extraordinary people out there who have done wonderful things to improve the world, but there have been many more who have committed crimes against humanity, animals, and the planet to further their own selfish interest. Ignorance can only go so far to explain this people, I feel that in the end, there are a lot of people who just don’t care, and it’s difficult for me to feel anything for them. I acknowledge that with the right education or counseling or compassion that they could be turned around, but I can’t be optimistic enough to think that we will ever possess all the resources require to do this. On top of that I do feel that there are honestly some people who are beyond all hope. They have gone so far down the path that no amount of love or counseling or information or even medication will help them. I don’t believe we should kill these people, but what do you do when what they feel is spreading to others and damaging other people’s lives? I think Hitler, Stalin, and even Saddam Hussein fall into this category. No amount of reasoning, or even love, will ever be able to change them, not at this point. So how in this imperfect world do you prevent them for poisoning the mind of some and taking the lives of others? I certainly don’t think bombing innocent civilians is the answer, but writing articles and attending protests won’t be effective either.

Thursday, February 20th

Today on CNN I saw that a diner in a small town in North Carolina has decided to change the french fries on their menu to “freedom fries” as a protest to the French government. Also, people across the country have begun to boycott French wines and cheeses in retaliation against France for not supporting US military action in Iraq. First of all this is possibly one of the most ridiculous protests of which I’ve ever heard. France has serious concerns about the precedent that will be set by a preemptive strike against Iraq. Additionally, they are concerned for the innocent lives, Iraqi and American, that will be lost in this war. And, probably most importantly, they are taking a stand and refusing to let America, under President Bush, bully the world into acting in a rash and destructive manner as it has so many times before. France has taken a stand against the tyranny and hypocrisy of the United States military, and additionally is one of the few democratic nations concerned with and responsive to the views of their own citizens. For Americans to boycott cheese in response is ludicrous and only makes our entire nation look like a bunch or ignorant warmongers.

Once I calmed down about how absurd my fellow Americans are, I realized that this French and German resentment is actually a slightly frightening development. In WWII we changed the names of hamburgers and frankfurters to “liberty patties” (and something else I don’t remember at the moment), and this is a little too similar for me. We’re vilifying an entire country, and this time they aren’t even our enemy, they only refuse to support us. It seems to me that we’re alienating much of the international community and really jeopardizing the potential for international cooperation in the future. The United States is setting such a dangerous precedent by preemptively striking another nation, and doing it without the backing of the international community or even the UN and the Security Council. The United Nations was created, largely through the efforts of the United States, to maintain peace throughout the world. To defy the ruling of the Security Council would completely undermine the UN and everything they attempt to do in the future. There is already so much anti-American sentiment - and in my opinion much of it is well deserved. Taking action against Iraq no will only serve to intensify those feelings. Our actions are adding fuel to the fire and I honestly fear that they will severely increase the threat of terrorism in this country. I think it is irresponsible and unethical for President Bush to make this decision, which will, in my opinion, put at risk the lives of everyone in this country, when he does not have the support to do so.

Tuesday, February 25th

Today in class abortion came up in our conversation. There was a bit of heated discussion about “violence against a fetus” and a woman’s right to choose. I am pro-choice. I feel that a woman is not morally obligated to support a fetal life by sacrificing her own body, and therefore cannot be legally obligated to do so. The fetus is actually living off of a woman’s body at sometimes actually puts the woman’s life in danger. No woman should be forced to allow another being to live off of her, especially when that decision could end up taking her own life. Some may view it as a technicality, but I feel that expelling the fetus is not necessarily a violent act. A woman can refuse to provide for the fetus and remove the fetus from her body. If the fetus is then incapable of living outside her womb, that is not necessarily an act of violence on the part of the woman. Why does the fetus, which is incapable of surviving have a claim to life? I don’t agree that a non-viable fetus has the same right to life as a full-grown human being, or even a large mammal. There are some philosophers, including Peter Singer, a great advocate of non-violence who has crusaded for the rights of animals throughout his entire adult life, who feel that fetuses and even infants are not in possession of the qualities that make any being a moral agent and therefore entitled to rights. Singer, very much supports a woman’s right to choose as well as responsible population control to ease the poverty and natural resource depletion that occurs throughout the world. His support, however, is consistent with his ideas of nonviolence towards people and animals. I struggled with the issue for a while, feeling that one side was right, but hesitant because of its inconsistencies with my ideology, but I now feel that I can make this decision and stand by it unwavering with the same consistency.

Thursday, March 6th

I heard today that a man in a shopping mall in NY was arrested today because of his t-shirt. The man purchased a t-shirt in the mall that said: “Give peace a chance.” He wasn’t protesting, he wasn’t bothering customers, he wasn’t even speaking to anyone; he was simply shopping with the t-shirt on. Mall cops then asked him to remove the shirt, when he refused they arrested him. This is absolutely outrageous and the most blatant civil rights infringement I’ve heard of since 9-11. I’ve heard a lot about kids wearing “Bush is a terrorist” being forced to remove them in school, and a college girl who was punished for refusing to salute the flag at a basketball game, but this is absurd. The statement was in no way inflammatory or dangerous or really even confrontational. And yet this man was censored and actually taken to jail for doing something that was in no way illegal.

Since September 11th I’ve been very concerned for human rights in the United States. There have already been several incidents were Muslim citizens have been harassed by the public as well as the government. I really feel that this is a tragedy and the most disgraceful thing we can do to our own constitution. I hear so much anger and outrage from people with very little reflection or mercy. It scares me that people want Osama Bin Laden to suffer, to be tortured. That they feel he is worth sacrificing everything that this nation was built on, everything that we are suppose to stand for. I am totally aware that this country was not truly built on democracy, justice, and freedom, that there was a lot of injustice, corruption and exploitation used to construct the nation we have today. But I do believe in those principals, and although we have not followed through with them consistently in the past, I am not yet ready to give up on them, and I am certainly not prepared to further tarnish them for Osama Bin Laden.

It’s even more upsetting that innocent citizens, immigrants who likely have more pride in and appreciation for the United States than many naturally born citizens ever could, are being targeted for hate crimes based on their ethnicity and religion. I’m scared for these people and I’m scared of what our country is becoming.

I’m really saddened and frightened that I am now living through so many things that I have read about in our history books. The way we are vilifying France now is eerily similar to what we did to Germany during WWII, who was at least our enemy, not merely a dissenting ally. The persecution of Muslims citizens in this country after 9-11 is similar to the way we detained Japanese citizens after Pearl Harbor. And recently the assassination of a Serbian leader has been compared to that of Arch Duke Ferdinand whose own assassination sparked WWI; this to me is a very frightening omen. Isn’t the point of studying history to learn from your mistakes? So then why do we seem at the moment so doomed to repeat them.

Tuesday, March 11th

We have been talking about capital punishment the last few weeks of class. I am morally opposed to capital punishment and feel that it is never within the rights of the state to take the life of a human being. My stance is further reinforced by the imperfect nature of our legal system and the very obvious racial and socio-economic bias that exist within it. I could never accept a system that has the potential to ever execute an innocent person for a crime they did not commit, nor could I accept a system that gives out disproportionate punishment based on race and class. There is no evidence that can prove or even suggest that the punishment serves as any form of deterrent and in practice it is actually more expensive to execute a man on death row than it is to imprison him for the rest of his life. For all these reasons the death penalty is not only morally reprehensible, but also practically illogical and irresponsible.

Unfortunately this country seems to be one of the only nations that realizes this. By continuing to execute prisoners the United States puts itself in the company of China, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Iran. The practice is considered barbaric throughout the European Union where it has been outlawed and is considered a human rights violation by the United Nations. Because of this the United States, every year, is listed as one of the greatest violators of human rights law in the world. It amazes me that as largest and most powerful industrialized nation we can be so conflicted and backwards on an issue that is very decidedly straightforward for the rest of the world.

When you oppose capital punishment people often ask you to put your self in horrifying hypothetical situations where you’re loved ones are raped tortured and killed, assuming that it would change you mind. I am almost certain that if someone ever harmed someone I loved, for example, my little sister, I would be devastated. I don’t doubt that a shamefully large part of me would want the person dead, to suffer, and I’d even want to be the one to do it. But that isn’t justice, that’s rage and vengeance – two emotions that I’d be entitled to, that anyone in that situation is entitled to, but should never be acted upon. Our court system was not intended to ease the rage of victims by seeking vengeance on their behalf. It was intended to be fair, and impartial, and to seek justice in order to protect innocent people. Executing a prisoner does not better protect our society and therefore is in no way a necessary measure. It only serves to turn the state into a hypocrite sending mixed messages to society and reinforcing the anger felt within. The state would more effectively serve to facilitate rehabilitation and forgiveness through restorative justice. I feel that this is the most productive, efficient, and moral method available to our government and I hope that someday they can agree.

Wednesday, March 19th

We read a lot of literature about animal rights this week. When I was a freshman in college I took a class called Environmental Ethics, in the class we spent numerous weeks studying and discussing the meat industry and its consequences for the environment, humanity and the animals themselves. We read a lot of essays by Tom Regan and Peter Singer and other philosophers. The one essay that affected me most was about how meat production contributed to world hunger. On average it takes about eight pounds of human quality grain to produce one pound of meat (much more if your talking about cattle 20-something pounds I think, but it gets averaged in with poultry and other animals). That means that every time I eat one pound of meat I’m throwing away seven pounds of food that could nourish any of the millions that are starving to death every day. And that figure is just grain, it doesn’t account the fresh water, land or countless other resources invested into this extremely inefficient product. I understand that world hunger is a complicated issue that has far more to do with distribution that it does with production, but I decided then that it was clearly something that went against what I believed in. I actually love meat, and I was raised in a family where it is considered an essential staple of our diet. Giving up meat was actually an extremely difficult thing for me to do, and I wasn’t even sure I’d be able to follow through with it. That’s why I started it on a trial basis after Thanksgiving. The trial was broken a month later when I went home to my family for Christmas vacation. When I returned to school after break I started again and haven’t eaten meat since.

I still have a lot of issues that I’m dealing with regarding animal rights. For starters, I’m not vegan. I’m an “ovo-lacto vegetarian.” My friends and family often imply that I’m being hypocritical but not going all the way, and I concede that dairy cows aren’t treated much better that beef cattle, and hens are probably treated worse of all. I try to buy milk that’s produced locally by co-ops (who typically treat their animals much more humanely) and only free range eggs when I’m a home, but I’m not as consistent with it as I’d like to be, and I have even less control when I eat at someone else’s house or at a restaurant. I would like to go vegan but I don’t think I can at this point in my life, I suppose I’m just not willing to make the sacrifice right now. But the issue is definitely something I struggle with.

Another issue, actually one that prevents me from joining PETA, is that of animal testing. For a very long time I’ve been opposed to animal testing for beauty/hygiene products. I see that as an obvious wrong. Medical testing is a much more complicated issue. I’m not so willing to denounce the use of animals in producing treatment that could save countless lives. I don’t think animals should ever be tortured for those purposes, but I cannot say that I am unilaterally opposed to the use of animals in laboratory experiments. There is certainly a line that needs to be drawn somewhere, but I am not sure exactly where.

I get really frustrated talking about this issue with people. So many people insist that I’m being illogical, that none of my actions will have any effect, or ever save a single animal. That may be true but to me that’s not necessarily what is most important. Rather, it’s the fact that I’m standing up for what I believe in, and leading by example; I’m making sure that my actions (though perhaps not with complete consistency) reflect my convictions. So many people tell me that abolishing the meat industry is impractical and would never work. That it would cost too much, people would lose their jobs, our economy would collapse etc. etc. To me those are pathetic reasons for supporting an industry that is fundamentally immoral and irresponsible. I see slavery as a really fitting analogy. Many slave owners didn’t even recognize their slaves as human beings, it was incomprehensible to them that these possessions, that were so different from themselves, had any claim to the same rights they did, or even served any purpose beyond that which they provided their masters. Animals are viewed the very same way today. And slavery was defended as being a necessary evil; the abolition of slavery would cripple the southern economy and cause economic devastation to the entire United States. No one today is willing to accept that kind of economic tradeoff. It’s considered reprehensible. Someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, our society will progress to the point where they can recognize how reprehensible this is also.