Nonviolence: methodology, or lifestyle?

[Alecto]

I guess I'm just kind of curious how individuals feel: I don't think it's necessary or productive to really "debate" this at all.
So, do you view nonviolence as a political method, or are you unwaveringly nonviolent in your whole life?
Or neither? Or somewhere in the middle?

I'm pretty sure that I don't fall into the "lifestyle" category, but sometimes I debate with myself about whether or not I "should".

[CaptainSnoopy]

For me, non violence is a lifestyle...for the most part. If physically confronted I will remove myself from danger if possible, but I will not harm another human. I had it tested once. A young lady I have known since she was knee high to a grasshopper was raped by a former friend of mine (who is my age) when she was 16. She may as well be my daughter. He smashed her head against the dashboard of his car and had his way with her. When he was done he gave her a sock to clean herself up with and left her in the night. She waited three days before he started calling her again and she came to me to tell me. She chose me to tell. The next day we reported the event. Wile they investigated it he was still running around. That evening I knew where he was going to be and I felt this rage and this violence inside me that scared me. If I were in the room with him it would not be pretty. (in my 20's I was a bouncer and did a little private security/bodyguard work). I stayed away.

Would I defend someone being physically harmed? Yes. But the key is removal from immediate danger. If in a protest with others...I would have to resist that urge and take lumps and watch others get hurt. You commit beyond what you think you are capable of.

My friend used violence to hurt her...I was not going to use his tools...I used love to heal her and protect her and help her.

**SIDE NOTE** The rapist got 18 months and that sock was the smoking gun that killed his defense.

[FoxInSox]

I have no idea where I stand. I'm just now realizing that NV isn't something from 50 years ago, that it matters now, that it's a key aspect of the people I deeply respect and "want to be like when I grow up."

I'd like for it become a lifestyle for me. But then...Gandhi's precepts are a tall order. And...I kinda like that if I were being assaulted, cops have weapons. I think I would probably defend myself if physically attacked. And, I've certainly used words and attitudes in ways that hurt or harmed others. So, I don't know if it's something I can live up to.

Still...I do think its the avenue for change.

[CaptainSnoopy]

It is foolish for any person to think a gun beats a gun or a fist beats a fist. We have used these tactics for years and we have not seem to have settles our conflicts as a species.

[Alecto]

lol. "foolish" was one of those things I was hoping to avoid here.
Because the other truth is: Gandhian nonviolence is based on the idea that everyone WANTS to understand the other side, that everyone wants a peaceful solution. And I simply don't believe that. Some people want to WIN, and if violence is what gets them there, they'll take it. What words are there that will save your life when you're getting bashed?

[CaptainSnoopy]

All I know is a short bald man with glasses beat an Empire without harsh words or violence. His oppressors wanted to win and did not want to listen to reason. What words will save you when your head is bashed in? None. The risk of non violence is that you may die for what you think is right and you will die for your principles. The risk of violence is that you will take another life and harm another person and become what you hate by using the tools of the oppressor.

[RedneckDyke]

One of the ways Gandhi won was that he showed the world that the British were attacking unarmed peaceful demontrators. Now, the British were supposed to be the "civilized" "christian" people who had colonized a bunch of "savage " " heathen" Indians. It was the whole Kipling "white man's burden" thing. By the Brits being the violent ones, they lost their standing as being on the moral high ground or being more "evolved".

I think today might be a different set of circumstances. We are not up against the colonial British this time. The government or the radical fundies do not care if they are seen as being brutal or savage.

As far as nonviolence being a political method or being a personal lifestyle.
I love the quote from the movie Freedom Song. A civil rights organizer says,
"I practice nonviolence as a political strategy because it works. But in my personal life, if you mess with me I'll beat you like a rented mule"

[CaptainSnoopy]

Originally Posted by RedneckDyke

"I practice nonviolence as a political strategy because it works. But in my personal life, if you mess with me I'll beat you like a rented mule"

I could not disagree more with that activist. I am to love my enemies. I am to be willing to break bread with taliban, al qaeda, republicans, and anyone who would try to restrict or harm me.

[Alecto]

Originally Posted by RedneckDyke

One of the ways Gandhi won was that he showed the world that the British were attacking unarmed peaceful demontrators. Now, the British were supposed to be the "civilized" "christian" people who had colonized a bunch of "savage " " heathen" Indians. It was the whole Kipling "white man's burden" thing. By the Brits being the violent ones, they lost their standing as being on the moral high ground or being more "evolved".

I think today might be a different set of circumstances. We are not up against the colonial British this time. The government or the radical fundies do not care if they are seen as being brutal or savage.

As far as nonviolence being a political method or being a personal lifestyle.
I love the quote from the movie Freedom Song. A civil rights organizer says,
"I practice nonviolence as a political strategy because it works. But in my personal life, if you mess with me I'll beat you like a rented mule"

I forgot to credit you: I think it was you that had that quote in another thread, and that's really what prompted me to have this here.
Like I said, I REALLY don't see value in debating any of these points: ultimately, we're taking it for granted that Nonviolence is effective methodology politically, but the question is really asking about personal lives and views. And what works for you might not work for me.
I don't have the same religious views as some, and I'm sure that colors my attitudes (or theirs, depending on your perspective). I refuse to accept that either view is "right" or "wrong".

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Alecto

lol. "foolish" was one of those things I was hoping to avoid here.
Because the other truth is: Gandhian nonviolence is based on the idea that everyone WANTS to understand the other side, that everyone wants a peaceful solution. And I simply don't believe that. Some people want to WIN, and if violence is what gets them there, they'll take it. What words are there that will save your life when you're getting bashed?

Good question!

Let's say you are in a position like Matthew Shepherd endured. Trapped by hate-filled violent criminals. You are clearly in over your head. It may be a matter of life or death to you and in defending yourself to prevent them from killing you you may injure or even kill one of them.

Imminent preservation of your survival calls for you to act physically. So you do and get away from the danger at the first opportunity. I would not consider this action a deviation from nonviolence any more than tackling a child in the street to save him from being hit by a car and accidentally beaking his arm in the process.

Now if you some how overpower your attacker and then deliberately continue to injure or kill him when it is not necessary for your survival, That is deviation from nonviolence.

My own experience from 5 years ago:

My Ex-boyfriend Nov 13 2003 had been living in his new apartment that I paid for 3 months rent in advance. At 3:00 am he broke into my house and attacked me in my bed. I managed to get an arm hold and strangled him unconscious. My thoughts were that I had to get control of the situation without anyone getting hurt. He regained consciousness ran to the kitchen grabbed a butcher knife and came at me. I managed to get the knife away and got the same arm hold again and threw him out of the house.

He drove off when I grabbed my pistol out of the piano, cocked it, and pointed at him. I can tell you there was no violence in my emotions. I was just like a robot. Only after he drove off and my neighbors came out did I realize that I was completely starkers butt-ass nekked !

Afterward, the violence of what happened hit me. I was in a state for months where the only way I could sleep was with my pistol in my hand, fully cocked with my finger on the trigger.

This clearly violent intent (I was prepared to shoot if he repeated) was spawned out of fear to a degree, but mostly it was acting out of anger toward him and to provoke compassion from others. This was the best I could do before I learned how to feel compassion for myself.

Now that I have begun to learn to feel compassion for myself through Vipassana Meditation, I can feel compassion for him. By growing compassion for myself I can reseist nonviolently more and more without endangering my safety or feel like I am betraying myself.

For me nonviolence comes after I develop a sanctuary within of love and compassion for myself.

[Jennifer5]

Originally Posted by Alecto

I guess I'm just kind of curious how individuals feel: I don't think it's necessary or productive to really "debate" this at all.
So, do you view nonviolence as a political method, or are you unwaveringly nonviolent in your whole life?
Or neither? Or somewhere in the middle?

I'm pretty sure that I don't fall into the "lifestyle" category, but sometimes I debate with myself about whether or not I "should".

For me, I think that nonviolence is a method. I don't have the stregth that it takes to make if a lifestyle, although I think that would be the ideal.

Originally Posted by CaptainSnoopy

For me, non violence is a lifestyle...for the most part. If physically confronted I will remove myself from danger if possible, but I will not harm another human. I had it tested once. A young lady I have known since she was knee high to a grasshopper was raped by a former friend of mine (who is my age) when she was 16. She may as well be my daughter. He smashed her head against the dashboard of his car and had his way with her. When he was done he gave her a sock to clean herself up with and left her in the night. She waited three days before he started calling her again and she came to me to tell me. She chose me to tell. The next day we reported the event. Wile they investigated it he was still running around. That evening I knew where he was going to be and I felt this rage and this violence inside me that scared me. If I were in the room with him it would not be pretty. (in my 20's I was a bouncer and did a little private security/bodyguard work). I stayed away. .........

I'm so sorry to hear that this happened to her.
I don't know how you had the strength to stay away from him. I wouldn't have trusted myself around that man if he did that to a person I loved. I think that you might have only stayed away in that situation, was because you knew your own strength and didn't want to actually kill him.

Originally Posted by Alecto

lol. "foolish" was one of those things I was hoping to avoid here.
Because the other truth is: Gandhian nonviolence is based on the idea that everyone WANTS to understand the other side, that everyone wants a peaceful solution. And I simply don't believe that. Some people want to WIN, and if violence is what gets them there, they'll take it. What words are there that will save your life when you're getting bashed?

I do agree with you on that, I know that some people just want to win. My father was one of those people and they not care about what you have to say, all that matters is that they be right in the end.

Originally Posted by CaptainSnoopy

All I know is a short bald man with glasses beat an Empire without harsh words or violence. His oppressors wanted to win and did not want to listen to reason. What words will save you when your head is bashed in? None. The risk of non violence is that you may die for what you think is right and you will die for your principles. The risk of violence is that you will take another life and harm another person and become what you hate by using the tools of the oppressor.

That’s just it, most of use are not will to die for the nonviolence as a lifestyle. You have to be willing to give it all up if you want to live that way. I think that you are a saint if you are honestly willing to die for what you believe in.

Originally Posted by CaptainSnoopy

I could not disagree more with that activist. I am to love my enemies. I am to be willing to break bread with taliban, al qaeda, republicans, and anyone who would try to restrict or harm me.

I 2nd that.
An eye for eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
Mohandas Gandhi

Originally Posted by Alecto

I forgot to credit you: I think it was you that had that quote in another thread, and that's really what prompted me to have this here.
Like I said, I REALLY don't see value in debating any of these points: ultimately, we're taking it for granted that Nonviolence is effective methodology politically, but the question is really asking about personal lives and views. And what works for you might not work for me.
I don't have the same religious views as some, and I'm sure that colors my attitudes (or theirs, depending on your perspective). I refuse to accept that either view is "right" or "wrong".

I agree that there may not be a right or wrong answer to that question, but I definitely believe that there is an ideal.