a week or so ago, i was waiting for my pizza at il vicino, and i wrote this thing on the back of my atm receipt. see there seems to be some confusion over the peace center's mission. so the question came up, do we always advocate non-violence, and what exactly does that mean? so i wrote this little diddy while waiting. apparently, it's quite impressive that i did that. i didn't work on it. i just wrote it. and i didn't edit it. it just is. so, um, here it is :)

"We cannot advocate war as a viable option of solving problems between nations, even if we find the war just. We cannot advocate violence between individuals, even when necessary. We can acknowledge the right to self-defense while simultaneously advocating peaceful resolution of differences and issues. If we advocate one war, when does it stop? We must always mourn the use of violence and the subsequent harm or else we advocate the use of force. We must strive for the ideal even if it is prone to fail. Reality is somewhere in between."

i fully believe that the american war for independence was a just war. the british empire became an invading force once the colonists asked them to leave (this is entirely not addressing the issue of the american occupation of north america). but that doesn't mean i think the war should have been fought to its logical conclusion. what is the logical conclusion of war? until the day both sides agree to stop fighting and have non-violent resolution, the only thing that can happen is annilation. even if the war is just, we must always advocate its end and a peaceful resolution to the conflict, both the war and the conflict that compeled people to war. and assigning blame doesn't help. blame is always directed to individuals, and while individuals are responsible for their actions, the real blame lays in society and the way we handle our own beliefs. the annilation of native peoples of this land didn't come about because george washington hated sitting bull. it wasn't a personal grudge. we can say it was a fight for the land, but the real cause was white people's assumption that we are better and everyone must live like us or else. it was the idea (superiority, especially in the form of the manifest destiny) that caused the beliefs (we can have this land) that caused the issues (we're going to take this land) that caused the violence (we'll kill them to take the land). everywhere everyone marches, they have their own manifest destiny. while war might solve a quick problem, it is not a lasting solution because the ideas still exist. wwii didn't end racism. the civil rights movement of the 60s didn't end racism. only we can end racism when we take responsibility for our own beliefs and our own actions. and it isn't a quick solution. when i believe it's wrong, i can pass this on to people who will push it further.

which is why i rather like extremes. i know that my ideal isn't possible. yet. or if ever. and even if some day my ideal happens, i would hope for change. not because my ideal is bad but because by time that happens, it'll need to be pushed. change is good. but i digress. every time i call for non-violent resolution, a more pragmatic solution can be stated by someone who doesn't necessarily agree with me but can see how something i say might have a point. and when we take that step towards me, that means someone else learns it's a viable step. they'll take it first, see that it doesn't quite create what they want, feel that closer to my point will. and they'll take another step. there are extremes on my side of the scales that even i don't agree with. or cannot yet attain. i don't ride my bike everywhere (though i'd like to). so i still drive an environmentally-unfriendly car. i'd really like to go completely vegan, but i just can't yet. i don't feel that i should force that on others nor do i have the time to cook to do so. even acheiving our own ideals is difficult, if not impossible, but we should still strive. and we shouldn't feel guilty when we don't get there. doesn't mean we should feel good when we fail. but we must continue to move forward, even if we stumble.

war is stupid. violence is stupid. the idea that we should mourn the death of civilians above the death of military people is stupid. death of unnatural causes is death of unnatural causes, no matter who dies. we should always mourn our dead, and we should always mourn the violence that brings it about. not because we love our enemy but because the continued use of violence sets the precedent that we are not rational creatures that can resolve our differences without blowing each other up. the continued idea that 'they' cannot do it is a racist assumption because 'we' are just as prone to violence as 'they' are. since i was born in october of '79, has there been a day that my country has not been in conflict? 'we' are never better than anyone else, even if we are closer to our ideal than 'they' are. because we all have the same ability to succeed, the same ability to fail, and the same ability to stand still. for us as a people to move forward, we must begin to assume that everyone has the same ability and desire to move forward. we must accept that people's differences is what make us strong. defending the idea that one side or the other can't is only going to hurt us. we must listen very long and very hard before we ever speak. and we must do it together.