02-27-2003, 08:21 AM
I know what a pacifist is. And it's different from "generally passive realist". Pacifism means that, unless you are absolutely certain (a rare condition) that what you are doing is saving more lives than it is taking, you will refuse recourse to violence. (Even then, that's mostly just a provision for "would you have shot Hitler" thought experiments.) Subversion, resistance and non-cooperation are all fair game (and often required). Serving as a medic is admirable.
Chickenhawks are people who send other people off to fight without risking their own lives, or worse, while deliberately spiriting them and theirs out of harm's way. (See: Vietnam war, Bush family) A pacifist abhors a chickenhawk more than nearly anyone else on the planet, someone who is both violent and hypocritical. Personally, they make my skin crawl.
Gandhi was beaten several times in his career, and was often at the head of VERY large mobs. His satyagraha philosophy was that, even when you could reasonably defend yourself, it is better to forgive, to appeal to the humanity of your opressor and to speak from your deepest convictions rather than fight. That's not "it's okay in self defense". That's "there is a higher path". Whether he was right or not is up for debate. Whether he advocated violence even in self defence really isn't.
Nationalism can be positive or negative, yes. There's nothing preventing a pacifist (or obligating a pacifist) from being a positive nationalist. Negative nationalism is contrary to the philosophy, since the very core of the idea is reaching out to the "other", no matter how different they are from you. Negative nationalism feeds on "otherness", where you learn to hate and fear people who are different.
But that's mostly another barrel of fish.
Jester
Chickenhawks are people who send other people off to fight without risking their own lives, or worse, while deliberately spiriting them and theirs out of harm's way. (See: Vietnam war, Bush family) A pacifist abhors a chickenhawk more than nearly anyone else on the planet, someone who is both violent and hypocritical. Personally, they make my skin crawl.
Gandhi was beaten several times in his career, and was often at the head of VERY large mobs. His satyagraha philosophy was that, even when you could reasonably defend yourself, it is better to forgive, to appeal to the humanity of your opressor and to speak from your deepest convictions rather than fight. That's not "it's okay in self defense". That's "there is a higher path". Whether he was right or not is up for debate. Whether he advocated violence even in self defence really isn't.
Nationalism can be positive or negative, yes. There's nothing preventing a pacifist (or obligating a pacifist) from being a positive nationalist. Negative nationalism is contrary to the philosophy, since the very core of the idea is reaching out to the "other", no matter how different they are from you. Negative nationalism feeds on "otherness", where you learn to hate and fear people who are different.
But that's mostly another barrel of fish.
Jester