The Instructor in class made an interesting observation. He felt that a violent response to any type of repression is not necessary and unjustifiable. This took me aback because part of me finds a non-violent response to be cowardly. How can I stand aside and watch as loved ones are killed and tortured? I am ignorant about the history of non-violence. I know of Mr. Luther King Jr. and Ghandi and their involvement in movements that were non-violent but when thinking of acts oppression on my family and myself I’m not sure if I would not resort to violence.
I brought this topic up to my co-workers, supervisor, and friend. My friend Consuelo said that violent responses would only give authorities reason to detain you and that non-violent responses are better. She also felt that one must rise above those doing the oppressing. If you use their same means then you are at their level, you are no better.
My friend Laura said that it depends on the severity of the issue. Laura is from the Dominican Republic and she felt that if she were living in the days of Trujillo that she would take up arms against him if he attacked members of her family. She feels that although a non-violent response is better, she wonders if, when faced with a scenario like the one mentioned, she could step-out of herself and not resort to violent acts.
As much as I would like to say that violence is not the way to go and there are better ways, the truth is we are human. It is idealistic to say that we are better than that. But, when it is you life or the lives of those you love, I think it is justifiable to fight back to protect those you love. Just because two wrongs don't make a right, it doesn't mean that you have to turn the other cheek and let others be abusive
ReplyDeleteDo you think that Rufina Amaya, did wrong in not running to save her children? I'm not saying that she is an advocate for non-violent acts, she might be but what would she have gained if she had intervened?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, thank you for quoting me on this one. These ideas are definitely controversial. And I definitely agree with Clara as well. Even though we don't want to use violence, when faced with situations where people you love are being murdered or tortured, I don't think you can just sit there and turn your other cheek. Knowing you, Clara and myself, we are very passionate people and I believe it would be nearly impossible to just watch things like this happen and not do anything about it. Nevertheless, since we have not been through situations like these, and we have not been in Rufina Amaya's shoes, we do not know what our particular reactions would be like; so it is tough to say.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I am not sure what I would have done if I were Rufina Amaya. Chances are, she would have not made it alive if she would have tried to save her children. But with that she has proved she is very strong, and many of us are not. How would I react if I were to hear my children cry for me? I honestly don't know, but I think I would have tried saving them risking my own life for them.
Laura- I think that our instinctual reaction might be to attack. I also think that this may have to do with our perceptions of non-violent responses. I mentioned that I see them as being cowardly. I'm not sure if I have given non-violent responses when facing adversity much thought. I think that we owe it to ourselves to explore this possibility. In moving forward, I feel that unlearning violent responses.
ReplyDeleteTo respond to your question, no. I do not think she was wrong in not intervening. If she had attempted anything, they would have all died. What I meant was, I think mothers are instinctively protective of their children and I think trying to find a non-violent response to your children being tortured, goes against our nature. Is it wrong? no. But, I believe it is unnatural
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a very interesting issue. If I were to comment on your question/point about Rufina Amaya, I totally agree with what you guys are saying. I don't consider her any less of a mother or a person for not trying to "save" her children because the truth is that it would've been impossible. As much as we would try to put ourselves in her place and think about how we would react, I don't think anyone can give a valid "solid" answer on what they would do. That being said, I think that what she did do was undoubtedly the smartest thing she could.
ReplyDeleteNow, as for violence vs. non-violence, it's a pretty tough call. You guys know that I'm as calm and passive as they get, yet I can't say that I would always resort to non-violence. Elaborating, and slightly disagreeing, with Clara's point, I think it goes beyond just trying to save yourself and those you love. While that's a very valid point there is also vengeful rage. Having someone you love taken from you and avenging that death knowing it won't bring anyone back, that too, I believe, is a powerful feeling that can be hard to control in the name of non-violence. However, I do think that on paper, non-violence is definitely the smartest way to go.