|
"Violence
is never justified!"
Say
it enough times and you start to believe it. The problem
is, as with most mantras, if you repeat anything often
enough you will believe it. Take "A land without
people for a people without land" as an example,
or "Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction".
So, let us examine this abhorrence of violence (and
rightly so) and why this statement is, when you get
right down to it, absolute nonsense.
France.
Well, its as good a place to start as any. Nazi Germany
and the Vichy government ran the show back in the
early 40's, brutally at times (read accounts of the
SS Das Reich or Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon,
as a good example) and displayed a blatant disregard
for the populace at large. As the war ran towards
the D-Day landings, masses of much needed German reinforcements
were called upon to advance from central & southern
France. Now, enter the wise mantra "Violence
is never justified" and WWII suddenly takes a
turn for the worse. Should those extra troops have
made it to the beaches in Normandy, the allied landings
may not have been so successful and in fact may have
failed altogether. So, why didn't the troops make
it? The French resistance, using guerrilla warfare
and sabotage, managed to hold back the German reinforcements
long enough for the allies to land. Assassinations,
ambushes, blowing up vital railways lines & bridges,
all in a days work for the Resistance. Was this violence
justified?
How
about the July bomb plotters back in Germany? Was
their attempted assassination of Hitler an unnecessary
act of mindless violence?
Let
us leave the continental hills and vineyards of France
for more tropical climes. One of the biggest ironies
of the mentally blind peace-nik is their never ending
worship of that poster-boy image which can be seen
on their t-shirts banners & badges. We've all
seen it and we all know him. Che Guevara. Imagine
if Che and Castro had been advocates of our mantra
in question.
What
would have become of Nelson Mandela should he have
been party to our mantra? The ANC was set up as what
the general populace would today deem as a terrorist
group. Wasn't their work justified?
Were
the various groups who made up the PLO simply acting
out a sadistic love of violence or were they indeed
the only route left open to the displaced Palestinians
after watching their new occupiers carry out such
massacres as Deir Yassin?
How
about the Basquelands ETA group. How else could they
have shown their resistance to the Franco dictatorship?
Franco wasn't known for his amicable audiences with
aggrieved parties, as was the esteemed Mrs. Thatcher
when pressed on the Irish question.
Was
Guy Fawkes simply a thug? Imagine if chief Sitting
Bull had advocated a non-violent resistance to the
invading Whiteman? One suspects the Indian would have
been completely extinct within the week.
The
Italians strung Mussolini from a lamppost. Terrible
really when they could have used non-violent means
to bring him to account and sentenced him to imprisonment
complete with hot meals and 2 hours recreational time
per day. Off course the Russians were too hasty on
their advance to the Bunker in Berlin. Robert the
Bruce needed to simply invite Edward out for a tankard
of ale and a mass of spilled blood could have been
avoided.
Are
we to confine the likes of Queen Boedica, Wolfe Tone,
or Joan of Arc to the lower ends of humanity who were
hell-bent on violence?
For
those of you who are more inclined towards a religious
persuasion, Jesus himself is quoted in the Gospels
as saying "I come not to bring peace, but a sword!"
(Mt. 10:34) and later on in Luke "He that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
(Lk. 22:36) Not exactly advocating a non-violent solution
to the Roman occupation was he?
"Violence
is never justified". Even after a brief examination
such as those listed above, any right thinking person
can see this statement for what it really is. Nonsense!
Utopia is unfortunately as much a part of the real
world as Martian invasions or an Ian Paisley who would
be willing to see another point of view.
The
peace-niks however did get it partly right. Politics,
protest and other non-violent means should be the
first port of call. But sometimes these methods don't
work. Palestine today being the classic example.
Should
you be an advocate of non-violent means, please do
so. But when these methods fail, take your banners
elsewhere and let the people decide what means they
will use to further their cause. Just because YOU
have failed, maybe others won't.
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
