This is a response to Michael Dranove's inane commentary on the uselessness of pacifism. As a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a graduate student in the USFP program at the School of International Service, I could not disagree with Mr. Dranove more.
Pacifism is not some archaic concept to be taken out with the trash. The implementation of pacifist ideology has brought governments to their knees. To stand in the face of physical aggression and turn the other cheek is to make a statement that regardless of the violence invoked by the opposition you reject the ideological foundations upon which violence are predicated. It exhibits a determination, and a willingness to suffer the wrath of those incapable of civilized engagement, and speaks volumes more than the barrel of a gun possibly could.
Colonial Pennsylvania existed free of war as trade with Native Americans flourished from 1681-1756. Colonial Pennsylvania, it should be noted, was governed by anti-militarists Quaker pacifism under William Penn, a great American.
Reaching back through history there is a clear pattern of success that accompanies pacifist movements. Mohandas K. Gandhi, the Mahatma, pioneered "satyagraha"--literally translated as "truth force" — a style of civil disobedience entirely non-violent and with the intent of "changing the heart" of the adversary. This movement brought independence to India and ended colonial rule. Trivial pacifism indeed.
Further examples exist in South Africa where Nelson Mandela languished in prison for 27 years under apartheid and the Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso in Tibet.
For certain, there are times when militarized violence is unavoidable. You can see proof of this in the first half of the 20th century. But make no mistake, the protester who resorts to the last resort before using the other tools at his disposal is simply perpetuating the cycle. He is not a protester, he is a willing participant in violence against his own countrymen. In so doing, he cheapens the value of his movement, degrades its credibility, and insults the memory of those who have died resisting peacefully to the very bloody end.
The soldier willingly picks up the rifle out of a sense of duty to his home. He understands that he is asked, no, ordered to do violence. It is his job, he is bound by his oath. The anti-war protester is bound by the most sacred of values: the sanctity of human life. To engage in violence as a form of protest is to dishonor that which the protester purports to hold above all else. Mr. Dranove is no protester. My cousin, Allison Krause was a protester. She was killed on May 4, 1970, at Kent State University. She was a pacifist, and a believer in the effectiveness of peaceful protest. She believed so strongly in it that she gave her life. To state so fatuously "pacifism is dumb" shows a distinct lack of awareness and disregard for those who came before him. There is a better way.
Show me a man who resorts to violence, and I will show you a man who has run out of ideas.
Michael Schwartz Graduate student, School of International Service
