Greetings Nick:
My apologies to others who read this message but are apathetic.
I'm the furthest from war-mongering; however I read your message with
rather mixed feelings, as I see several points skewed by interpretation
or omission.
> We see war as a policy failure, if one does rigorous
> accounting no one really wins a war.
"Rigorous accounting" is entirely subjective. Are you just talking a
body count? Or are you taking into account short- and long-term gains?
How about the uniting of Upper and Lower Egypt? Perhaps some
museological application -- for those museums of ancient history,
archaeology, civilization? The "warfare theory" proposed by
archaeologist/anthropologist Robert Carneiro is quite brilliant. He
theorized, by examining Peru before and during the Moche period, that
states formed and expanded by means of population growth (hence greater
need for resources) that lead to conquest (and subsequent population
displacement). There are others who have contributed to this body of
knowledge (Ferguson, Harner, Harris, Johnson & Earle, Larson, Sanders &
Price, Webster). So, when this expanding population finally secured
more land (for farming or coastal access) -- hence food and water -- I
think they thought they really won . . . no matter how many lives were
lost.
How about successful, though often bloody revolutions to overthrow
dictatorial individuals or oligarchies? Most "civilized" and "peaceful"
nations in the "West" experienced at least one civil war or revolution
even though there is the misperception that "Western" culture values
life above victory. Though civilization has "improved" in some ways
(subjective observation), there are countless ways in which civilization
has "declined" (again subjective observation).
> Peace is not passive. Ghandi took on the mighty British
> Empire to win India's freedom. Nelson Mandela fought for
> the dignity of prisoners while incarcerated on Robbin
> Island. Member's of Slolidarnosc actively and successfully
> opposed their Communist oppressors. American Civil Rights
> protesters peacefully overturned a century of legal
> discrimination and oppression of our African-American
> brothers and sisters.
There is a difference between the historic examples you give and the
goals of this peace museum. Gandhi and later American Civil Rights
leaders believed in passive resistance. It is a passive peace -- not
fighting back. However, even Gandhi did not rule out violence, saying:
"Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise
violence... I prefer to use arms in defense of honor rather than remain
the vile witness of dishonor ..."
Nelson (Rolihlahla Dalibhunga) Mandela is another matter entirely -- a
deluge of paradox. Mandela was *not* a pacifist. Initially, he opposed
violence; but after the Sharpeville Massacre of 1960 (during which
unarmed black South Africans were killed), he began to advocate acts of
sabotage against the government. As Mandela wrote: "I followed the
Gandhian strategy for as long as I could, but then there came a point in
our struggle when the brute force of the oppressor could no longer be
countered through passive resistance alone." (For complete essay, see:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/the_sacred_warrior13a.html
<http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/the_sacred_warrior13a.htm
l> .) He founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (The Spear of the Nation) -- called
"MK" -- with a policy to target only government offices and symbols of
apartheid, not people. Though he thought he was guiding violence
according to principles aimed at saving human lives; yet people died
because of decisions he made. He said, during a speech (entitled: "We
are at war!") on December 16, 1961:
"The truth is very different from what these newspapers have
reported. Our men are armed and trained freedom-fighters, not
'terrorists.' They are fighting with courage, discipline and skill.
The forces of the Rhodesian racialists suffered heavy losses. So also
did the white soldiers sent to Rhodesia by Vorster to save the Smith
regime from collapse. The freedom-fighters have inflicted heavy losses
on the enemy. Apart from those who have been ambushed and killed,
hospitals at Bulawayo and Wankie are crowded with wounded Smith and
Vorster forces. Several South African helicopters and military
transport planes have been brought down over the past three months. The
fighting will go on in Rhodesia and South Africa. We will fight until
we have one, however long it takes and however much it will cost."
And the speech ends with:
"WE ARE ANSWERING THE WHITE OPPRESSORS IN THE LANGUAGE THEY HAVE
CHOSEN! THIS IS A WAR TO DESTROY APARTHEID, TO WIN BACK OUR COUNTRY FOR
ALL OUR PEOPLE! WE SHALL WIN! FORWARD TO VICTORY OR DEATH! AFRIKA!
MAYIBUYE! AMANDLA NGAWETHU! MATLA KE ARONA! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!"
Does this sound peaceful to you? He spent time at Robben Island for a
reason. (For more about Robben Island, see the museum's web site:
www.robben-island.org.za/.)
Also, let us not forget that Mandela visited the Palestinian territories
in 1999 to "pledge his solidarity with my friend, Yassar Arafat."
Arafat, who really requires no introduction, was a notorious terrorist
responsible for thousands of deaths who had been "cleansed" enough of
past wrongs to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Talk about irony? (This is not
to say Arafat's enemy is pure and innocent . . . but, as the old saying
goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right.")
[As a small point of contention: Communism is an economic system, though
the lines get blurry when combined with certain political systems.
However, the oppression in Poland was not strictly economic. "Communist
oppressors," in this context, is a misnomer.]
A peace museum -- with artifacts and objects from a world history so
filled with war -- seems to me highly ironic. Rather than present
hypocritical half-truths from the past, this museum might aim to present
a proactive peace?
> . . . artifacts that represent peace religions such as
> Buddhism and denominations such as Quakers, Brethren, and
> Mennonites could be part of a peace museum.
Quakers, Brethren, Mennonites . . . peaceful, yes. However, there is a
common misconception about Buddhism.
With the deepest respect for the Buddha's philosophies, and without
intentional offense to contemporary Buddhists who follow the Buddha's
philosophies, Buddhism has been (mis)used as justification for war.
There are many examples including the:
* Shaolin monks (a breakaway sect from Ch'an Buddhism);
* fighting amongst the Buddhist kingdoms of Korea starting 660
C.E. (still not over, re: North vs. South)
* hostilities amongst the varied sects in Japan (Rinzai, Soto,
Tendai, Nichiren);
* Japanese Shogunate (based on the militaristic "bushido" of
Samurai); and,
* war between the Tibetans and the Gurkha people of Nepal
(1788).
(Anyone have more Buddhist battles, conflicts, hostilities, wars to
contribute?)
Is this considered "peace"?
Sincerely confused about this peace museum . . .
jay heuman
Education Curator
Nora Eccles Harrison Museum of Art
Utah State University
4020 Old Main Hill
Logan, UT 84322-4020
t 435.797.0165 | f 435.797.3423
Education costs money, but then so does ignorance.
Sir Charles Moser, b. 1922
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).