orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/05/85)
Is it true that I and other advocates of non-military solutions to social and international problems are simply "soft" as Scott Plunkett implies? Is it true that those who advocate violent and militaristic solutions are the ones concerned with human rights?: > > As to the subject line: It would appear from the above article, and > others--they know who they are--that there is a prevailing pacifism. > Which is part of a soft, affluent, easy-going life. Untroubled by > inconveniences now being suffered by all of the nations of the so- > called "Soviet Union", which inconveniences I won't bother enumerating > (a) because there are too many, and (b) most of the readership won't > accept them anyway. > > But it may well come down to a simple lack of imagination. Just as > the "pro-choicer" can be quite turned around at a viceral explanation-- > with pictures--of an abortion, so "soft, rich, pacifists" would be > transformed into so many Atilla's if the Red Army came storming over > the beach. Anything less (genocide in Afghanistan, Ethiopia, subversion > of democratic governments, suppression of religion, and on and on) > is merely of a theoretical, academic, interest. Things for which > postures may be struck on Usenet. > > ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett In the first place it is an insult for Mr. Plunkett to suggest that my opposition to violence will revert to the barbaric militarism of Attilla the Hun when confronted with an imagined Red army invasion. During the Vietnam War I filed as a conscientious objector and I was perfectly willing to go to jail if necessary to avoid being forced to kill others. That situation did not arise so I was spared that painful choice. A similar choice is currently facing those supporting the Sanctuary Movement- and some of those people are going to jail for their beliefs. During the Civil Rights Movement people risked their lives and some of them *lost* their lives to promote decent human rights for blacks in this country *nonviolently*. Ultimately they achieved many of their aims - basically without committing any violence against those who had abused their rights, despite having violence committed against them. You will find Mr. Plunkett, that the same people who made many sacrifices to advance the cause of basic human rights in this country are in the forefront of those who are opposed to the current international system of war and violence. I do not like the violations of basic human rights that occur in the Soviet Union every day. Nor do I cheer the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But I do not believe that committing genocide in return because others have done so is any solution to the problem. Our country has committed many acts of violence in its history. I am proud of many things about our democracy and our liberties but I cannot be proud of our legacy of violence. I am especially dismayed that we threaten the ultimate violence of the possible total annihilation of the human race and are moving full-scale to make such a result *more* rather than less likely. Unfortunately the possibility of nuclear war is not simply a figment of the imagination: it is a real possibility which seems an abstraction because it is so *difficult* to imagine. It takes far more courage to be willing to lose your life without taking others lives than it takes to simply respond in kind. tim sevener whuxl!orb