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.) 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