[permaculture] politics and permies - Ghandi quote
KNat
knat at sprintmail.com
Wed Dec 5 06:05:40 EST 2007
Toby Hemenway wrote:
> Few
> could be persuaded to come administer the colony when their predecessors
> and their families had been murdered. He makes a similar claim for M.L.
> King, that violent race riots in Selma and other cities opened the door
> for King. I don't know what to make of his claims (I have only read
> reviews of the book, not the book itself). But I am reminded of Derrick
> Jensen's statement that the reason we have used violence so consistently
> is because it is so effective. Non-violence can be effective, too--it's
> just a lot more difficult and we're no where near as good at it.
>
I often have this dialogue with kids now. It must be reaching qi.
As a child at knee in the early 60s formation of equal rights, I am well
aware there were many players and they often worked together. Side jokes
of, "Can't we sick [the militants] on this part first then talk to him?"
often popped up at strategy meetings (Chicago and NY.)
The question is, which is more powerful, Holding the food
supply/livelihood of a man's family or holding a man's family? While the
latter seems more direct, the world change is in the view of his child
and grandchild. Will they follow their captors or their rescuers? Which
can you with good conscience do, feed someone who's made some seriously
bad choices or deny another human life? Why? What was the impact to you
and your relationships and how is that relevant to the change?
Seems like all are means to the same end but the difference is the view
of how big a change do you want to make, A person or a cultural
attitude? If the violence is the effective part, why is there still need
for it? Changing leaders isn't changing systems. Is non-violence really
only growing because the population is growing?
Peace,
Kathyann
More information about the permaculture
mailing list