Strategic Nonviolent Defense

This article was particularly intriguing in the way it defined the “two major conceptions of ‘nonviolent defense.’” Civilian base nonviolent defense seems a bit dodgy. Firstly, it isn’t pure because the article explains that this type of defense is used because it can get results, not necessarily because the advocates are interested or buy into nonviolent action. For this reason it seems that it is much less effective than social nonviolence. Civilain based defense seems to be used more as a weapon that can be called upon to make change or wage war nonviolently. This I feel is not true though. It cannot be used to make any changes. To take something that isn’t deserved or rightfully yours cannot be taken nonviolently.

Social nonviolence however takes a much different view. The concern isn’t having an available weapon or for personal gain, but more so to make changes on a social level such as freedom and equality. It is more concerned about the livelihood of a group of individuals. It is much more community oriented and makes the connection that violence is not simply, “‘Overt physical damage, or the threat of such damage, to actually persons.’” This type of nonviolence embraces the enemy as an entity that isn’t against us or evil. It takes a stance much more toward loving your enemy so they see the mutuality between us and them, me and you, enemy and ally. Civilian based defense has a huge problem to overcome and this is that by isolating and hating the enemy, there can never be a mutual ground on which to agree and find peace.

Civil Rights

Non-violent action is actually a war. The civil rights movement was a 10 year battle against injustice. The only difference is that a war can be fought and be successful for land expansion, power, or money, where non-violent action cannot. It was interesting the way non-violence can only be used when the enemy is doing something unjust. It was interesting the way King made the US look upon itself and uphold the country’s own values to eradicate segregation. It seems often times injustice gets out of hand not because of where a belief started, but where it ended. King quoted the constitution and talked about how all men were created equal, but this phrase had been grossly spun about and now segregation started. The movement was very successful in pushing people to relearn and reevaluate their own beliefs on the subject by being forced to look at what they were doing to the black population. King’s concept of creating tension is also intriguing. He talks about the way to initiate change is through creating enough tension for the other person to change. He used the media to put tension and pressure on the government as well as the racist whites by showing the world what was happening through the media.