skiingislife725
Regular Member
Rainbows, fairies, & glitter: talking to people at the B'ham Human Rights Film Fest
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.
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.