Context
I'm still working through John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. A passage I read today talked about the Akron Rubber Strike, and how part of the reason for its peaceful resolution was the fact that the striking workers made a show of being armed and organized.
Commentary
I used to plow through books, but that is no longer the case, possibly because of the number of things that divide my attention. And it's not only reading that suffers. During my attempt to write this entry I have removed a kitten from my sleeve seven times, overheard a conversation between my neighbor and her child (my windows are open) and played with the dog and let her out. And back in. My progress through the Grapes of Wrath is not helped in the slightest by the number of times I put the book down and go "huh!"
Steinbeck seems to be making a clear point in his discussion of the Akron incident: vigilantes in Akron were perfectly willing to violently put an end to the strike up until the time they realized the workers might fight back. Then they backed down.
I can see the reasonableness of this approach. No point in fighting if you can't guarantee yourself a victory, after all. In the U.S. we try to make sure we're never in this situation by "acting against emerging threats before they are fully formed," which is known as "preemptive self-defense." Even the Just War Doctrine (#2309 at this link), which is supposed to give a good ethical grounding to death and destruction, requires "serious prospects of success," a.k.a. "Don't be a David going up against a Goliath."
So there you have it. If you engage in violence, you run the risk of either getting hurt yourself or looking like the worst kind of coward by beating up on an obviously weaker opponent. Can you see why I'm a pacifist?
What did you see today?
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
10/16/2009
1/21/2007
I heard someone talk about competition
Context
I teach high school Sunday School at my husband's church. Frequently I'll have no students, so I'll spend the time talking with other members of the church. Today, as we were discussing the war in Iraq, one of them said something like this: "I don't really know the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites, but I know the main problem is they don't want to be equal. They each want us to take their side."
Commentary
As is true of most of the people at First Lutheran, the man I was talking to is both older and more conservative than me. However, in this particular case I agreed with him. I told him, "I think you're right, but that's true of everybody. Everybody wants to be ahead of everyone else."
I think that competitiveness is both normal and healthy. I think that makes me unusual among pacifists, because there's a tendency to think that competition leads to strife, and that's what we're trying to avoid. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I believe there are ways to be competitive without being violent toward your fellow human being. I'm going to use some examples from the National Football League to illustrate my point, because that's the competition I'm paying the most attention to as we head into the conference championships.
One problem with competitiveness that seems to prey especially on the minds of parents of small children is the possibility that being defeated in a contest will damage one's self-esteeem. I think this happens when we expand our analysis of a competition's outcome beyond reasonable limits.
For example, this is a true statement: "The New England Patriots defeated the San Diego Chargers in a divisional playoff game last week."
This one might be true as well: "Over a span of 60 minutes last week, the New England Patriots were a better football team than the San Diego Chargers."
However, none of these are true:
1) "The New England Patriots are morally superior to the San Diego Chargers."
2) "Each individual member of the New England Patriots is more manly than each individual member of the San Diego Chargers."
or even
3) "The New England Patriots will always beat the San Diego Chargers every time they play."
Each win or loss in a competitive event is related to that event only and should not be treated as giving insight into other aspect of life. No little girl should ever be led to think that if a ball gets past her into a soccer net that it means she'll never have any success at anything. For that matter no 26-year-old quarterback should feel that way either.
OK, that's how we keep competition from being negative, how do we make it positive? Well, the narrow focus can also be beneficial in our search for identity, something psychologists tell us starts in adolescence, but I think stays with us as long as we grow as people. In fact, this is a context where, although winning is great, losing may provide more valuable lessons.
For example, at Indiana University, Antwaan Randle El was a quarterback. However, in the NFL he lost that competition to guys who were, quite frankly, better quarterbacks. Now he's not only one of the best receivers in the NFL, but occasionally scares defenses to death with the prospect that he'll drop back and throw the ball instead of catching it. So let's review:
True statement: Antwaan Randle El is not as good at the quarterback positions as some other guys are.
False statements: "Antwaan Randle El can't play professional football." "Antwaan Randle El can't scare the defense." Or even, "Antwaan Randle El will never throw a pass in the NFL," because he's already thrown several.
Antwaan Randle El's identity, at least at his day job, is defined differently from what he might have expected. But it's still a great identity, and it's all his because very few people pose the same multiple threat he does. Competition can do that for you, whittle down the "what you're good at, what you're not good at, what you can learn more about, what you'd just as soon not bother with" stuff until you're the perfect little sculpture God meant you to be.
So go out there and compete! Celebrate your wins, learn from your losses, and remember that the bigger picture is both big and constantly changing.
What did you see today?
I teach high school Sunday School at my husband's church. Frequently I'll have no students, so I'll spend the time talking with other members of the church. Today, as we were discussing the war in Iraq, one of them said something like this: "I don't really know the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites, but I know the main problem is they don't want to be equal. They each want us to take their side."
Commentary
As is true of most of the people at First Lutheran, the man I was talking to is both older and more conservative than me. However, in this particular case I agreed with him. I told him, "I think you're right, but that's true of everybody. Everybody wants to be ahead of everyone else."
I think that competitiveness is both normal and healthy. I think that makes me unusual among pacifists, because there's a tendency to think that competition leads to strife, and that's what we're trying to avoid. Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I believe there are ways to be competitive without being violent toward your fellow human being. I'm going to use some examples from the National Football League to illustrate my point, because that's the competition I'm paying the most attention to as we head into the conference championships.
One problem with competitiveness that seems to prey especially on the minds of parents of small children is the possibility that being defeated in a contest will damage one's self-esteeem. I think this happens when we expand our analysis of a competition's outcome beyond reasonable limits.
For example, this is a true statement: "The New England Patriots defeated the San Diego Chargers in a divisional playoff game last week."
This one might be true as well: "Over a span of 60 minutes last week, the New England Patriots were a better football team than the San Diego Chargers."
However, none of these are true:
1) "The New England Patriots are morally superior to the San Diego Chargers."
2) "Each individual member of the New England Patriots is more manly than each individual member of the San Diego Chargers."
or even
3) "The New England Patriots will always beat the San Diego Chargers every time they play."
Each win or loss in a competitive event is related to that event only and should not be treated as giving insight into other aspect of life. No little girl should ever be led to think that if a ball gets past her into a soccer net that it means she'll never have any success at anything. For that matter no 26-year-old quarterback should feel that way either.
OK, that's how we keep competition from being negative, how do we make it positive? Well, the narrow focus can also be beneficial in our search for identity, something psychologists tell us starts in adolescence, but I think stays with us as long as we grow as people. In fact, this is a context where, although winning is great, losing may provide more valuable lessons.
For example, at Indiana University, Antwaan Randle El was a quarterback. However, in the NFL he lost that competition to guys who were, quite frankly, better quarterbacks. Now he's not only one of the best receivers in the NFL, but occasionally scares defenses to death with the prospect that he'll drop back and throw the ball instead of catching it. So let's review:
True statement: Antwaan Randle El is not as good at the quarterback positions as some other guys are.
False statements: "Antwaan Randle El can't play professional football." "Antwaan Randle El can't scare the defense." Or even, "Antwaan Randle El will never throw a pass in the NFL," because he's already thrown several.
Antwaan Randle El's identity, at least at his day job, is defined differently from what he might have expected. But it's still a great identity, and it's all his because very few people pose the same multiple threat he does. Competition can do that for you, whittle down the "what you're good at, what you're not good at, what you can learn more about, what you'd just as soon not bother with" stuff until you're the perfect little sculpture God meant you to be.
So go out there and compete! Celebrate your wins, learn from your losses, and remember that the bigger picture is both big and constantly changing.
What did you see today?
2/07/2006
I saw a fundraising letter from the AFSC
Context
The AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) is the social action arm of the Religious Society of Friends. I supported the AFSC before I became a Friend myself, but now I'm considerably more ardent about it. However, the latest fundraising letter I received disturbed me in some ways.
Commentary
This is easy; I'll just paste in the contents of the letter I'm sending to the General Secretary of the AFSC.
Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1403
Second Month 7, 2006
Dear Mary Ellen:
Your recent fundraising letter contained two passages that raised up concerns in me, one deep and one merely niggling.
The former concerns the passage about water purifiers sent to Iraq, in which you state, “As you consider your renewed support, please understand that for reasons of safety, I cannot always tell you about actions like this. But know, please, that your contribution will bolster our ability to do what is right . . .”
I cannot recall any examples from my Faith and Practice that prioritize “safety” over our testimonies regarding openness in our dealings with others. I believe that if the AFSC is considering an action that it is afraid to reveal to its membership, it should either not take the action or build up enough courage to talk about it and face the consequences. On a related note, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC while still reserving the right to secretly violate federal law.
You could not have known that one of the reasons I joined the Religious Society of Friends was because I find myself unable to place blind faith in other human beings when it comes to faith matters, including pastors or say, wider religious organizations. However, now that I have told you, perhaps you’ll understand that I can’t just “know” that you’ll be exercising proper stewardship over the resources God has given me. One of the great strengths of Friends is our use of everyone’s light for discernment, not just that of a select few.
My other concern is minor, and you wouldn’t even be hearing about it if we hadn’t discussed it in the program part of our meeting last week. I didn’t like your use of the phrase “like-minded people” toward the end of your letter. It implies that there’s a certain group of people, let’s call them “us,” who are trying to change the world for the better. This, in turn, implies that there’s a second group of people (“them”) who are not. I believe the cause of peace is ultimately better served if we use the language of building bridges, not circling the wagons.
Please understand that the only reason I’m writing today is because I am normally so proud of AFSC’s work and the way it represents Friends in the wider world. You spoke about “bedrock principles” in your letter, so I wanted to share some of mine.
Yours in Christ,
Lynn Schlatter
If you're not a Quaker, the language of this letter might sound kind of funny. In spite of, and sometimes because of, the fact that our denomination embraces plain speaking as a religious principle, "Quakerspeak" definitely has some strange elements.
"Second month" is the traditional Quaker way of referring to February. Our founder, George Fox, objected to the fact that days and months were named after figures of mythology. He thought we should call them what they are, the first, second, or whatever month or day. Quaker children tend to go to "First Day School," not "Sunday School."
The passage I quote in the second paragraph pertains to a program whereby the AFSC supplied water purifiers to Iraq in violation of the pre-war trade sanctions. The "cannot tell you about actions like this" was a puzzler to me. I knew they were doing it at the time, although I cannot recall how I knew
A "Faith and Practice" is a Quaker catechism, essentially. Except we don't believe in dogma, so it's more like a collection of things "weighty" Friends have thought might be useful for spiritual growth.
If you don't know what I mean about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC, here's their take on the issue. I use the term "you" purposefully in that paragraph, as Mary Ellen is one of the people who has gone on record decrying this action.
Actually, a great deal of this letter, which took up two sides of a legal sheet of paper, seemed to imply that the AFSC was going less in the direction of "building peace," and more in the direction of "bringing down the current administration." I don't know if that's the actual organizational culture or what they thought would play well in a fundraising letter. I actually hope it's the former. The latter would be a lot more Machiavellian than I'm comfortable with in my co-religionists.
What did you see today?
The AFSC (American Friends Service Committee) is the social action arm of the Religious Society of Friends. I supported the AFSC before I became a Friend myself, but now I'm considerably more ardent about it. However, the latest fundraising letter I received disturbed me in some ways.
Commentary
This is easy; I'll just paste in the contents of the letter I'm sending to the General Secretary of the AFSC.
Mary Ellen McNish
General Secretary
American Friends Service Committee
1501 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102-1403
Second Month 7, 2006
Dear Mary Ellen:
Your recent fundraising letter contained two passages that raised up concerns in me, one deep and one merely niggling.
The former concerns the passage about water purifiers sent to Iraq, in which you state, “As you consider your renewed support, please understand that for reasons of safety, I cannot always tell you about actions like this. But know, please, that your contribution will bolster our ability to do what is right . . .”
I cannot recall any examples from my Faith and Practice that prioritize “safety” over our testimonies regarding openness in our dealings with others. I believe that if the AFSC is considering an action that it is afraid to reveal to its membership, it should either not take the action or build up enough courage to talk about it and face the consequences. On a related note, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC while still reserving the right to secretly violate federal law.
You could not have known that one of the reasons I joined the Religious Society of Friends was because I find myself unable to place blind faith in other human beings when it comes to faith matters, including pastors or say, wider religious organizations. However, now that I have told you, perhaps you’ll understand that I can’t just “know” that you’ll be exercising proper stewardship over the resources God has given me. One of the great strengths of Friends is our use of everyone’s light for discernment, not just that of a select few.
My other concern is minor, and you wouldn’t even be hearing about it if we hadn’t discussed it in the program part of our meeting last week. I didn’t like your use of the phrase “like-minded people” toward the end of your letter. It implies that there’s a certain group of people, let’s call them “us,” who are trying to change the world for the better. This, in turn, implies that there’s a second group of people (“them”) who are not. I believe the cause of peace is ultimately better served if we use the language of building bridges, not circling the wagons.
Please understand that the only reason I’m writing today is because I am normally so proud of AFSC’s work and the way it represents Friends in the wider world. You spoke about “bedrock principles” in your letter, so I wanted to share some of mine.
Yours in Christ,
Lynn Schlatter
If you're not a Quaker, the language of this letter might sound kind of funny. In spite of, and sometimes because of, the fact that our denomination embraces plain speaking as a religious principle, "Quakerspeak" definitely has some strange elements.
"Second month" is the traditional Quaker way of referring to February. Our founder, George Fox, objected to the fact that days and months were named after figures of mythology. He thought we should call them what they are, the first, second, or whatever month or day. Quaker children tend to go to "First Day School," not "Sunday School."
The passage I quote in the second paragraph pertains to a program whereby the AFSC supplied water purifiers to Iraq in violation of the pre-war trade sanctions. The "cannot tell you about actions like this" was a puzzler to me. I knew they were doing it at the time, although I cannot recall how I knew
A "Faith and Practice" is a Quaker catechism, essentially. Except we don't believe in dogma, so it's more like a collection of things "weighty" Friends have thought might be useful for spiritual growth.
If you don't know what I mean about Pentagon surveillance of the AFSC, here's their take on the issue. I use the term "you" purposefully in that paragraph, as Mary Ellen is one of the people who has gone on record decrying this action.
Actually, a great deal of this letter, which took up two sides of a legal sheet of paper, seemed to imply that the AFSC was going less in the direction of "building peace," and more in the direction of "bringing down the current administration." I don't know if that's the actual organizational culture or what they thought would play well in a fundraising letter. I actually hope it's the former. The latter would be a lot more Machiavellian than I'm comfortable with in my co-religionists.
What did you see today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)