This is a response to Michael Schwartz’s article entitled, “Pacifism: ‘not to be taken out with the trash.’”
Before I can say anything about why I do not subscribe to pacifist ideology, first, before anything else, I feel the need to clear up some glaring misconceptions you seem to have about the history of pacifism and its role in social movements.
The pacifist ideology espoused by Ghandi and his followers represented one tendency in a broad based social movement that included substantial numbers of people who subscribed to violent resistance against British rule as a viable tactic. The myth that Ghandi and his pacifist followers were the sole driving force behind India’s social movements is simply incorrect. It is quite disturbing that the Western version of India’s social movements white washes over so much of India’s history because it is not deemed palatable to the Eurocentric version of historical fact. One example of popular militant struggle against colonial rule is embodied by Indian freedom fighter Bhagat Singh. Singh became widely popular for carrying out a campaign of bombings and assassinations that ended in his death at the hands of the British military. Today his likeness is honored by a statue that stands outside of parliament in India. Another example lies with the militant Subhas Chandra Bose who was popular enough to be elected twice to the head of the Indian National Congress in 1938 and 1939.
This is only one example of how white and bourgeois versions of history white wash over diverse social movements that happen to subscribe to ideologies not convenient for the current mythmakers who define history.
In addition, the use of violence as a soldier in the military is not excused by the simple excuse that you have a “sense of duty” to your country as you say. You complain about a protestor’s miniscule use of violence, but what in this world is more violent than the awesome power of the state? I reject any justification given for the merciless slaughter of millions of Iraqis that has been undertaken by the U.S. since and before 1991. Discounting the bombings that took place inside of Iraq in the 90’s, UNICEF estimates that following the Gulf War U.S. sanctions alone were responsible for the death of 500,000 children. When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was questioned on the underlying logic used to justify such a brutal sanctions campaign, she responded by saying that she believed that the “price is worth it." Following this near genocidal sanctions campaign was the invasion of Iraq predicated on George Bush’s “single question." Will Saddam Hussein renounce weapons of mass destruction? Soon the question was answered, the wrong way, and George Bush proudly went on air and informed the U.S. public that the government had in fact invaded Iraq in order to bring peace and democracy to the troubled nation. An alien observer might elicit some level of surprise at the fact that not only did nobody laugh at this ludicrous turn of events, but in fact George Bush was touted by the “liberal” media for his saintly plan to save the world from evil.
In conclusion, I do not confront you and question the morality that you use to participate in the slaughter of millions of Iraqis, so please do not question the morality that I use when I undertake actions that are intended to try and stop this slaughter.
Michael Dranove Class of 2013, College of Arts and Sciences
