I thought that the readings for today culminated the class very well. Many of our readings and discussions throughout the semester have provided examples for small scale protests, or movements that dealt with a particular social issue, but I have been waiting for an example of nonviolence on a larger scale, that spans multiple nations and opposes larger institutions. In the Ackerman and Duvall reading, they described how the spread of nonviolent protests throughout Eastern Europe helped bring democracy to the region. What began as a small protest in one town lead to the democratization of a country, which encouraged neighboring countries to invoke the same nonviolent tactics and protests for their own democracy as well. Even when many of these marches were met with police force, they continued on, as the marches in Leipzig occurred every Monday and eventually grew to 300, 000 people. Just as violence and war can often go beyond our control and spread, so too can love and nonviolence. Once one protest had been successful in nonviolence, the rest followed suit.

In Hedges writings on “Staring Down the Gods of War”, I found a few things to be a bit conflicting or contradictory. He states that war is dangerously addicting and usually “self-annihilating”, yet also claims that it is “morally imperative for us to use violence” at certain times. I wonder how we can differentiate between conflict that requires a violent response and conflict that doesn’t, and even if we can differentiate it initially, once violence is used for “morally imperative” reasons, how are we supposed to overcome its addictiveness and not resort to using it in other circumstances as well? I think Hedges is correct in that there are situations when it is imperative for us to intervene, but he fails to use his creative and realize that we may be able to intervene in ways that are not violent but still take action. I did agree with the end of his article though, in which he states that love is the only antidote to all of the hate, war, and death in the world. Love offers reconciliation and hope in contrast to the destruction and death that accompanies war. Throughout this course, almost every nonviolent activist and nonviolent movement has been based on the premise of love, and this article helps to sum it all up. I have been reminded time and time again in our classes this past month of the verses in 1 Corinthians 13, which emphasize the virtues of love, and that love will never fail us.

The readings for today covered several nonviolent perspectives from a range of different religions and spiritualities. In both Living in Truth: a Jewish Perspective by Solomonow and Friedman’s “Hasidism and Love of Enemies”, the writers discussed peace and justice go hand in hand and must be applied to every situation. Many people are under the illusion that we must choose to pursue either peace or justice when dealing with oppressors, but the heart of nonviolent action involves viewing peace, justice, and truth as inseparable. Solomonow argues that if the truth people are seeking can be achieved through justice but not peace, or through peace but justice is not reached, then it is not the real truth. On a similar note, the Hasidisim perspective claims that humanity is full of mistakes and bouts of evil, but these flaws and conflicts must be faced head on and dealt with peace and justice each and every time. I really liked the idea that peace, justice, and truth were inseparable, as it supported how imperative commitment and creativity are in nonviolent movements. If a goal can be reached without fulfilling peace, justice and truth all at the same time, then that method should be reevaluated and new, more creative one must be thought up that can serve both peace, justice, and truth.

Though I found Thich Nhat Hanh’s writings about the “baby” inside all of us to be a bit strange, I did think what he had to say about human suffering and human relations was valuable. He suggested that human suffering is often the result from our inability to understand one another, and I think this is very true of many conflicts in our world today. Just as Hanh advises us to share our smile with the world to bring about even the tiniest bit of peace, he also advises us to “become one” and try to share the viewpoint of those we don’t understand. I think both of his articles articulate the common nonviolent goal to love our enemies, and to want humanity not just for the oppressed but for the oppressors as well.

The readings for today focused on Cesar Chavez, who lead a humble life dedicated to improving  conditions for farmers across the country. In one of the readings, Chavez’s views of nonviolence are challenged by those of Neumann and Zinn. Neumann and Zinn believe that nonviolence is not based out of morality but out of strategy, and that sometimes the best strategy involves the use of minor acts of violence, such as property damage. However, Chavez believes strongly that morals are at the heart of nonviolent movements, and no amount of violence, whether towards people or property, could lead to the most peaceful outcome. While Chavez recognizes that using violence can sometimes be an act of justice and may occasionally help to overcome the oppressors, it also validates the use of violence in the future and only changes things temporarily until the next wave of violence or retaliation occurs. In order to truly reach the change in society that we want to see, one must be committed to nonviolence.

I  also enjoyed reading about Cesar Chavez’s youth and his memories of his mother. She taught Cesar many proverbs and valuable lessons, that subconsciously founded his own beliefs in nonviolence later on. I thought his mother was a great example of how any person, not just pious heroes, can choose to lead a nonviolent life and encourage others to do so as well, as his mother was a humble, illiterate wife of a rancher.

I watched the documentary Sole Journey, which follows the Soulforce Movement who supported and stood for marriage equality and fair treatment towards the LGBTQ community. The documentary focused on the nonviolent efforts of Soulforce to try and stop the Focus on the Family campaign, which was against homosexual marriage and believed that homosexuals were destructive to society. The Soulforce group was named in honor of Ghandi and MLK, and the movement acted in honor of them as well be leading nonviolent, yet action-driven protests. Soul force members held “sit-ins” at the Focus on the Family headquarters, prepared family photo albums and letters to be given to Rev. Dobson, and marched throughout Colorado. I think the persisting and peaceful protests were particularly effective and imperative in this situation, as Focus on the Family was a Christian based foundation. The Soulforce movement preached for love and equality for everyone, at the end of the day that was Jesus’s main message. Although churches remain reluctant to fully adopt that viewpoint in its entirety, it is difficult to reasonably argue that Jesus wanted anything differently, and with time and persistence the churches will begin to recognize this.

In the film, it caught my attention when many of the Soulforce members mentioned that they didn’t wish to reconcile with homophobes, but rather wanted them to see that their beliefs were incorrect and they were spewing hateful rhetoric throughout their communities. They did not want to compromise with the members of Focus on the Family or simply make peace, they wanted change. It was very similar to today’s readings from Gene Sharp and Fisher and Ury, which discussed principled negotiation. The Soulforce members did not view the Focus on the Family advocates as friends or foes, but as people who they wanted to speak with and solve a problem with.

The readings of today largely focused on the methods for nonviolence. Up to this point, most of our class readings have discussed how to define nonviolence and it’s characteristics as a whole, but we have hardly delved into specific nonviolent methods and strategies. In Gene Sharp’s writings, he stresses how important it is that we as nations begin to educate ourselves on nonviolence. We must train leaders and organizations to teach nonviolence to their groups, to develop creative nonviolent strategies, and to actually learn from past nonviolent movements and use them as examples. I liked what Sharp said in that if we put our resources into properly educating the public about the alternative of nonviolence, officials and leaders won’t have to try and convince them to use those strategies because people will openly accept them. The readings also made me consider how I had been introduced to the ideas of nonviolence prior to this course. None of my elementary, middle, or high school classes had ever mentioned the term “nonviolent movement”. I had heard of a select few examples, like Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr., but they were framed as rare and exceptional heroes, rather than leaders of a more massive and ongoing movement that we should continue to pursue. Yet we spent so many classes learning about the history of wars and which battle strategies worked and which sides won what, and so on. As Sharp lists in the Holmes and Gan reading, there are so many alternative nonviolent methods that we as both individuals and nations could pursue, but it’s just a matter of being dedicated to learning about and employing those methods.

I watched the documentary Brother Outsider, which told the story of Bayard Rustin, a prominent figure in the civil rights movement who was often excluded during his own time and in the history books because of his homosexuality. The documentary raises the issue of homophobia, and the common political issue of using one’s personal flaws to discredit their social and political motives. Before this film, I had never even heard of Bayard Rustin, yet he was a crucial part to the civil rights movement and many other campaigns. Bayard protested on the bus and refused to give up his seat before Rosa Parks did, and he was a close advisor to Martin Luther King Jr., and even called him out for preaching peace and nonviolence while having guards outside his home. Although it is unfortunate that Bayard did not get the credit he deserved, his behind the scenes work lead to many successful protests. He organized the March on Washington, and flew down to Memphis as soon as MLK was shot and pulled together a memorial march in his honor, which helped to finally get the city council approval for better wages and work benefits for the black sanitation workers there.

I was disturbed by how much Bayard’s homosexuality and past mistake overshadowed his intelligence and wisdom in the eyes of a large portion of the public. I would not say it was entirely surprising, since it was incredibly difficult to be outwardly gay during that time period, but it was still disappointing to see that all of Bayard’s hard work and bright ideas credited to others or ignored because people instead chose to focus on his label as a “sexual perverter”. I was saddened that even MLK himself neglected to stand up for him and thought it best that Bayard resign from some of his lead organization positions so as not to draw negative attention. However, I thought that Bayard kept a fairly level-headed, and sometimes humorous approach to the tough situations he was put in. He recognized that personal attacks on him were a weak tactic, and that whether he was a homosexual or a murderer did not detract from the morals behind the civil rights movement, and he would continue to push forwards. I thought this helped highlight something we’ve talked about in class often, that as an oppressed person it is important to see our enemies as human, and detach the oppressor from the oppressive system or actions. The people opposed to Bayard Rustin were doing the opposite of this, and were using his personal flaws and trying to project them onto the movement and discredit it. Bayard, on the other hand, continued to live by nonviolence and pursue his cause, welcoming his enemies to have conversations and negotiations with him, and supporting the civil rights movement in any way that he could even when he was forced to step on the backburner.

I watched the short documentary, At The River I Stand, which focused on the final protests leading up to the death of Martin Luther King Jr. The protests were initially successful in gaining the attention of the Mayor/Community but not as successful at creating change. However, with persistence they eventually helped to achieve the sanitation workers’ goal. The first large protest got a little out of hand when MLK could not be there right away and was exhausted when he was there. The crowd became rowdy and several windows were smashed, and I think this created some extra tension between the sanitation workers and the city officials. However, the workers’ regrouped and reorganized, and remained persistent in their nonviolent movement. They attempted to negotiate with the Mayor and city council, and even after they were set up and lied to, they remained nonviolent and continued to press on for their cause. It was only after MLK’s assassination, though, that their peaceful protest was truly recognized and appreciated. When MLK, a man who dedicated his life to nonviolence, was violently killed, it seemed to awaken the community. The unjust murder of MLK forced them to realize that their treatment of the sanitation workers and the black community was unjust as well. I was moved when the clergy of Memphis marched into the Mayor’s office and confessed to their wrongdoings and mistreatment of their fellow community members, and professed their solidarity with the black community.

The exhaustion of Martin Luther King Jr. really made an impression on me while I was watching the film. It showed that nonviolence certainly is not passive or a resistance to act. It took just as much strategy, planning, and energy to organize these nonviolent movements as would a war or other violent strategies. In fact, it likely took even more energy, as King and his supporters had to constantly think of creative alternatives to violence while still enduring obstacles and oppression. I think the documentary also highlighted the importance of a strong, charismatic leader in nonviolent movements. When MLK was late and exhausted, the protest went a little off track, but later he was able to reenergize and encourage the Memphis black community to continue on despite their setbacks. Even in the wake of his death, the community marched in his honor and remained nonviolent. If the leader of the movement had not been so dedicated to spreading peace or as involved with the community, I think that a shooting might have sparked a violent response amongst the oppressed. However, MLK had done such a wonderful job of preaching peace to the people, that they were able to carry on without him and were inspired to keep his dream alive.

Both of the readings for today were written by women and shared their own perspectives and personal experiences with nonviolence. In both readings, the women seemed to emphasize the importance and value of humanity. Though this idea has been common in the minds of many male supporters of nonviolence as well, the women’s perspective appears to emphasize it even more. In the Barbara Demming reading, she makes the claim that if the oppressed expect their oppressors to view them as human, this goal will be much more attainable if the oppressed treat their oppressors as human as well. If the oppressed overcome oppression through violence, the previous oppressors are likely to have lingering resentment or fear of punishment. However, when nonviolent tactics are used to overcome oppression, even if they fail at first, in the end the oppressors will realize that they were treated kindly and will be more likely to move forwards towards change and harmony. On a different note, the Liane Norman reading discusses the human side of punishment and temporary suffering that many nonviolentists have to endure. Norman tells the story of Molly Rush, who sabotaged the construction of nuclear missiles and was sent to prison. Rush recognized that some of her fellow employees seemed to be desensitized and oblivious to the dangerous weapon being made around them. This reminded me of an article I read during my International Politcis class last year, when a female writer sat in on an almost entirely male dominated conference over nuclear weapons. She noted that the males used different speech to refer to the missiles and the damage they caused, making them seem like everyday subjects and their aftermath a mere side effect of a “glorious” creation. These nuclear experts seemed to neglect the value of human lives and distance themselves from the reality of the destruction a nuclear weapon would cause. Rush noticed a similar thing happening around her, and so she risked her life as she knew it to ruin the missiles. She was sent to prison for almost 80 days, and continuously wrote about how difficult it was to leave her family hurting and without her. She was experiencing the human condition of suffering, but she was willing to endure it because she believed in her cause to try and prevent the violence that nuclear weapons would cause. This reiterates a point mentioned over and over again in our class — that nonviolentists must be willing to endure suffering but hold tight to their principles.

One thing that stuck out to me in particular across many of the readings was the discussion about prayer and action. While prayer plays a large role in the Christian religion, it seems as if it can also lead to passivity when not followed with actions. As Merton points out in “Blessed Are the Meek”, many of the wealthiest nations are predominantly Christian. They share such a large portion of the worlds power and privilege, while other nations are suffering. Though I don’t believe Christians consciously ignore these nations or wish for them to remain in poverty and suffering, I feel that they (and many non-Christians as well) have become too comfortable with the status quo and are not “maladjusting” to change, as was mentioned in yesterday’s reading. Many churches send “thoughts and prayers” to hurting communities, or maybe even donations, but they do not actively reach out to create change in corrupt or unjust systems. Many people were upset after several Christian politicians publicly stated to “Pray for [affected community]” after a few of the many mass shootings in the last decade, yet these same politicians fail to support and address gun control reform. In both the Merton reading and the short history of the Pax Christi they mention the importance of the combination of prayer AND action. Prayer is a wonderful thing in the Christian community, but it must be accompanied by an active fight for humanity and transformation within and across all nations. Jesus did not sit around and only pray, he actively went out into the community and helped those in need.

Many of the readings for today discussed the build up to the civil rights movement. Though Martin Luther King Jr. and other leaders of the civil rights movement were inspired by the works of Gandhi and Thoreau, it was not feasible for them to immediately put their strategies to action. In “How Nonviolence Works”, it is mentioned that a nonviolent strategy that works in one setting may not work in another. As noted in the earlier weeks of our class, nonviolence requires an abundance of creativity and innovation. It is not a passive submission to violence, nor is it a singular, clear-cut strategy. The civil rights movement was possible because of gradual, deliberate, and persistent creativity. Leaders of the movement took classes and read material on nonviolence, and then these leaders held meetings to spread the word to others, and then these people continued to spread the ideas of nonviolence throughout their communities. The civil rights movement did not occur overnight, but took years of discussion, debate, and change. In the Rosa Parks reading, I liked how they brought attention to all of the work that lead up to her bus boycott. Just as the oppressed must love their enemies and remember to see them as people, we must remember that even the “glorious” nonviolent leaders of the past are just humble humans as well. Nonviolent movements are not spontaneous acts of heroism, but are the product of years of hard work and a commitment to the common cause of love and justice. Nonviolent leaders and movements as a whole have setbacks and moments of doubt, but they continue to adjust, seek change, and gradually move forward.