Rainbows, fairies, & glitter: talking to people at the B'ham Human Rights Film Fest

[skiingislife725]

Last night, I went conceal-carrying (would have been trespassed if I OCed...was OCing at heart) to a showing of "Enemies of the People", put on by the Bellingham Human Rights Film Festival, which is going on all week. The film is about the Cambodian genocides of the 1970's and it is the first time that a leader of the Khmer Rouge has spoken about the genocide that they perpetrated.

I went last night because the topic of genocide is a big interest of mine. A lot of that has to do with the fact that in nearly every major genocide that has gone on around the world, the citizens were disarmed first. That's not to say that it was even the killers that did the disarming, but like in Germany, it was a very liberal government before Hitler came to power, that did the disarming.

Anyhow, after the film, there was some discussion...mostly about wars, a little about genocides (I don't think people like to talk about it). I put out a question for the whole group.

I said, "I can't help but wonder how much of an effect the disarmament laws a decade or two prior had on the ease in which the genocide took place. Do you guys think that those laws made a difference in some way, or did the overwhelming Buddhist population make it so the idea of non-violence overrode the desire to defend themselves?"

One of the answers: "I think it would have been worse." Granted this is coming from a Veterans for Peace guy (bomber pilot in Vietnam, bombed Cambodia). He may have been thinking I was referring to whether that would have effected the relationship with the U.S. (that was bombing at the time). I clarified myself, saying that I think the idea of peaceful protest (i.e. Egypt...sorta) definitely had it's place, like he had stated, but when your family starts getting shot around you (there was a guest from Cambodia there who talked about it), you have to start using a different tool to get the job done. I was actually surprised that I got some head-knods/"lightbulbs going off" out of it, considering the group.

Most of the talk was the usual though. The Veterans for Peace guys said that their belief is that we should go to war under NO circumstances. Others talked about "there is no such thing as justice" (talking to the Cambodian lady about what she felt about justice). Basically, all of the talk is based on faulted logic. It's assuming that the other guy, the guy who wants to kill you, is logical and will be prone to non-violence too.

But like the saying goes, turning your cheek only gets you slapped twice.

And even Gandhi, MLK, and the Dalai Lama wouldn't agree with them.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -Gandhi

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." -The Dalai Lama

And of course, MLK was partnered with the Deacons for Defense.

[Freedom First]

Thanks for going! People's ideas can and sometimes do change when presented with rational thought. Or not, but it's worth the effort.

Also you made a great choice regarding CCing so we aren't reading about you blowing the opportunity to ask questions and speak by getting tossed out early. Good to be wise and armed. Gotta sometimes look around and ask, "What will they think..."

If they do.

[John Hardin]

Thanks for going! People's ideas can and sometimes do change when presented with rational thought. Or not, but it's worth the effort.

+1

If you made one person's lightbulb actually light up and your comments caused them to start evaluating the situation rationally, it was worth it.

[Vitaeus]

In regards to all the successful non-violent movements, they were usually also accompanied by a much more militant/violent faction or three. MLK had the benefit of Malcolm X and others. I am misquoting, but it was something like "They would much rather deal with him, than have to deal with me..."

[Deanimator]

When I was briefly in law school, there was a guy in my class like the above described characters. He had the charmingly naive belief that non-violence would ALWAYS prevail. I challenged him to a thought experiment to prove him wrong.

I told him that he could be him and I'd be Josef Stalin. I then said, "Go!"

Before he could say a word, I made a gun shape with my hand, pointed it at his head and said, "Bang!"

Puzzled, he tried to speak, only to be interrupted with another "Bang!"

Every time he tried to speak, another "Bang!"

I wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise, continuously shooting him before he could open his mouth.

Finally, he manged to blurt out, "You can't shoot all of us!", to which I replied, "Yes, I can. Bang!"

I then told him, "I've got more ammunition than you've got people willing to die pointlessly. Furthermore, I don't even have to have my close associates lift a finger. I'll just take the families of the police into 'protective custody', to 'protect' them from YOU. They in turn will collect up the families of your 'followers'. They'll offer any informants 'amnesty' to turn you in. When your FRIENDS give you up. I'll have you shot.... then I'll have THEM shot. I guarantee either I'll get you and the rest, or the smart ones will turn to violence."

He conceded the point.

[John Hardin]

Finally, he manged to blurt out, "You can't shoot all of us!", to which I replied, "Yes, I can. Bang!"

Was this gentleman unaware that Stalin murdered twenty million of his own countrymen? I'm pleased you were able to (at least seemingly) enlighten him. I wonder if the lesson stuck.

Non-violence will work against a basically decent foe (or a foe who has that self-image), like the British. Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance wouldn't have lasted five minutes against the Nazis or Imperial Japanese Army.

[Deanimator]

Non-violence will work against a basically decent foe (or a foe who has that self-image), like the British. Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance wouldn't have lasted five minutes against the Nazis or Imperial Japanese Army.

Hell, it didn't last five minutes against the FRENCH in Indo-China before WWII. They employed close air support as a "crowd control" method at Yen Bay.

[sudden valley gunner]

Was this gentleman unaware that Stalin murdered twenty million of his own countrymen? I'm pleased you were able to (at least seemingly) enlighten him. I wonder if the lesson stuck.

Non-violence will work against a basically decent foe (or a foe who has that self-image), like the British. Gandhi's strategy of non-violent resistance wouldn't have lasted five minutes against the Nazis or Imperial Japanese Army.

People need to study the situation in India better, Ghandi was not the great person western society holds him up to be. He was a political leader who maneuvered his family to be in charge of India. And much of his 'persona' was a farce, he was a racist a bigot and a power seeker, and not the pacifist we are taught here. (some evidence he was pretty perverted and twisted too)

If you ask folks from Punjab or of Sikh background how India got their independence they will tell you it is western propaganda that it was Ghandi, the Sikh population had many many uprisings against the British and they were not peaceful. Many men from that area lost their live's in the struggle to break free from Britain. Also the British had to let go they were simply broke and had no more resources after WWII.

[Metalhead47]

When I was briefly in law school, there was a guy in my class like the above described characters. He had the charmingly naive belief that non-violence would ALWAYS prevail. I challenged him to a thought experiment to prove him wrong.

I told him that he could be him and I'd be Josef Stalin. I then said, "Go!"

Before he could say a word, I made a gun shape with my hand, pointed it at his head and said, "Bang!"

Puzzled, he tried to speak, only to be interrupted with another "Bang!"

Every time he tried to speak, another "Bang!"

I wouldn't let him get a word in edgewise, continuously shooting him before he could open his mouth.

Finally, he manged to blurt out, "You can't shoot all of us!", to which I replied, "Yes, I can. Bang!"

I then told him, "I've got more ammunition than you've got people willing to die pointlessly. Furthermore, I don't even have to have my close associates lift a finger. I'll just take the families of the police into 'protective custody', to 'protect' them from YOU. They in turn will collect up the families of your 'followers'. They'll offer any informants 'amnesty' to turn you in. When your FRIENDS give you up. I'll have you shot.... then I'll have THEM shot. I guarantee either I'll get you and the rest, or the smart ones will turn to violence."

He conceded the point.

Nowadays a finger gun would probably get you expelled.

Interesting discussion. It's the "Veterans for Peace" types that just make me shake my head. One would think they, of all people, would be able to recognize the necessity of the armed citizen, and that no matter how "nice" and nonviolent that citizen is, there's always going to be someone who wants to kill them.

Their "peace" is a lie.