Methods of Resistance to Imperialism

[Jon Mayer]

Through his parable "The Gentlemen of the Jungle" Kenyetta proposes
and justifies a strategy for standing up to the oppression of
imperialistic countries. This is demonstrated through the man's final
actions to achieve peace, during which he burns all of the animals
alive within a hut. This is clearly a metaphor for violently
destroying the colonial governments that the animals represent.
Kenyetta then goes on to identify that "'Peace is costly, but it's
worth the expense'", as justification for this course of action.

Do you believe that violent resistance is ever justified by the
circumstances in which it is done? If so, is violent resistance really
the best method for achieving the end goals of peace and freedom?
Explain.

[Phil Lavely]

Jon-

I thoroughly enjoyed your description of the tale and I certainly
agree with it. To answer your question, yes, I do believe that
violence can be justified, but only by certain circumstances. Violence
itself is an atrocity that I think should be avoided at all costs,
unless it is the only, viable option left. In that case, the
circumstances must be pretty dire. In Kenyatta's fable, the man is
given no choice but to use violence to win an unfair and unjust
battle. In the fable, the man is forced into giving up his well-
deserved home to the corrupt "government" as the "fair" trials state
he is in the wrong doing, and misunderstood the circumstances. The
man, humble and peaceful, listens each time to the final decision,
even though he is not granted a fair trial or even a full hearing from
his account.

By the end, after being used by each and every commissioner, he knew
there was nothing he could do to change his situation. This is highly
unfortunate as he tried to peaceful talk about the issues to resolve
them. He did not want the situation to come to what it did. In the
end, the man realized he would never win, and he was not going to live
his life in oppression for the oppressors to reign free and at their
own will. What he did was the right thing to do. Eliminating
corruption brought him peace and freedom, allowing him to live a
peaceful life. Had he not acted out violently, outsmarting the
commissioners, he and probably many others would have had similar,
unjust fate.

Although it is almost ironic to use violence to create peace, it can
be the right thing to do in certain circumstances.

[Dixie Morrison]

I agree with Phil in that, in this day and age at least, violence is
still sometimes necessary to achieve "the greater good". Would that it
were not so. Of course, it is the winners who decide what "the greater
good" even is--no American would criticize the Minutemen for inciting
a war against the British because, well, look how it all turned out,
but there are those who call the Civil War "the Second American
Revolution". If the Confederacy had defeated the Union, I think our
history books would be filled with stories of States' Rights and
honorable rebellion. In the case of the Gentlemen of the Jungle, we
already know that Kenya succeeded in achieving its independence and
Kenyatta was one of the chief architects of his country's fate. If he
had been defeated, I think Gentlemen of the Jungle would receive a
much chillier reception. The same goes for if Kenya had degenerated
into another corrupt dictatorship (only this time with an African in
charge), as is the case in Zimbabwe. It's not a particularly useful
point to make, but the fact remains that violence is justified if it
achieves its ends. No one admires suicide bombers because their
actions are both violent and futile. Of course, it's a strange fact of
human psychology that almost everyone believes that they are doing the
Right Thing, but only some of them really are. We'll never know what's
truly justified until the history books are written.

[Phil Lavely]

Going on the idea of whether violence is justifiable or not, I still
think in very limited circumstances it is. In the past, violence has
solved many problems and wars; but only temporarily. Any solution
brought on by violence will be the final answer, for the evil it does
is permanent. Wars are costly on many levels, the lower levels being
expense, products, and resources, the the higher levels being human
morality, loss of life, and loss of innocence. I do not think that
there will ever be a world in which non-violent answers will end up
being the final answer. It seems that hate and war is inculcated into
us by generations of biased opinion or teachings. Maybe hate is
something that is natural to all humans, a characteristic of our
species, but Ghandi is an example to refute that.

If after generations and generations of non-violent "fighting," it may
seem like violence is the only option left. During the Jim Crow era,
many African Americans relied on the word of Martin Luther King and
the idea of non-violence. Everyday, violence was enacted upon them,
but rarely was it returned. For generations, this example of non-
violent resistance was pursued, and eventually was a "success; still
today there is racial discrimination, but no war would change people's
feelings, but only make them stronger. Another war going on today, the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a violent action that has resulted in
a gargantuous turmoil and troubles for millions of people is not going
to bring about peace, harmony, and love. Once we have "done our job"
there, there will be continued hate between social and ethnic groups.
A war that we have no moral or purposeful (besides oil of course)
stake in, will just continue, except without American troops. The U.S.
bringing more war to the Middle East will not nor ever would have
brought peace. Then again, I do not see a non-violent answer for the
Shiites and Sunnis as both strongly believe in their religion.
Religion itself is an amazing idea in this world. People devote their
lives to try to discover the 'truth' and what that entails. Religion
has caused wars but has brought peace and love as well. Religion leads
people to do insane things but provides a basic and simple principal:
live life in an honorable and good way, caring for others and
retaining high morals so that after death (and depending on the
religion), reach a higher status in the universe, whether is be heaven
or a new life form to continue searching for the truth and the
ultimate answer.

At the end of the day, I believe that if everyone followed in Ghandi's
footsteps, there would be no need for any sort of action to be taken,
whether it is violent or peaceful. The elements of Gandhi’s philosophy
were rooted in the Indian religions of Jainism and Buddhism. One does
not need to follow either religion, but to follow the principal would
be tremendously beneficial to the world. Both of these advocate ahimsa
(non-violence), which is “absence of the desire to kill or
harm” (Chapple 10). The Acaranga Sutra, a Jainist text, describes the
fundamental need for non-violence: “All beings are fond of life; they
like pleasure and hate pain, shun destruction and like to live, they
long to live. To all, life is dear” (Chapple 11). Ahimsa is a way of
living and thinking which respects this deeply. Life for humans would
become incredibly efficient and desirable. Instead of always trying to
be on top, and proving one is the best, the people of the world could
coexist side by side, religion by religion, culture by culture, and
country by country. If this were to happen, there would be no need for
violence and hate, the root of evil.

In conclusion, I think that some violence in only extreme situations
should be applied to severe circumstances to reach a better place, and
from there, non violence and peace would be the best and only course
of action. The people of the world should strive to at least tolerate
others. Ideally, people would celebrate diversity and speak out
against hate towards any person, religion, culture, ethnicity, or
country. Amen.

On Oct 3, 1:46 pm, Phil Lavely <flavaflav...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Jon Mayer]

I would have to strongly disagree with Dixie. While there are some
cases of violent insurgencies or revolutions being justified by the
end consequences (overthrowing a colonial government, uniting the
populace), usually it just leads to more problems and warfare. The
U.S. aiding militias, specifically the Taliban, to forcefully reject
the overbearing rule of the U.S.S.R solved some short term issues, but
has created lasting problems that even relate to the current situation
in the Middle East. Conflict breeds conflict, as there is always
someone who will end up defeated or vengeful in the aftermath of a
war. The few cases exempt from this are ones in which a colonial
government where maintaining control of the colony is not top priority
is overthrown by a united effort from the population of the country.
Even then stability is not guaranteed as even the most strongly united
movement can fall apart after achieving success and being presented
with the problem of what to do next. Revolutionaries rarely plan that
far ahead, and so differing opinions leads to an internal power
struggle soon after.

War is not inherent to human nature, as humans will naturally assume a
system of compromise in order to achieve long term mutual gain and war
is actually detrimental from the long term standpoint. Therefore, when
one party is pushed to the point where they take up arms it is not to
achieve "the greater good", but instead is either because of a
perceived immediate threat on survivability and welfare, or because of
an identifiable enemy that is not following the guidelines for most
international interactions as are laid out above. It is not the story
of the war but the story of continuation of life after the war. We can
see this in the heated debates over whether the United States was
going to be a more Federalistic of a more Democratic country by the
Continental Congress, the rise to power of the Tailban, or the Reign
of Terror following the French Revolution. War determines nothing, it
only eliminates one player from the political field of a nation.
However, in the seeds of a non-violent revolution is a doctrine
outlining the goals or wants of the people rebelling. Therefore, when
the revolution finally succeeds, then these issues will already have
been addressed or are in the process of being addressed, meaning a
much more expedient return to normalcy.

[Maya Allen]

I agree with many of Phil's comments. Non-violence should always be
used before violence in any circumstance if you want to create peace
and harmony. Violence should be the last resort when answering to
imperialism or any type of disagreement, although it may seem like the
"easier" answer to the problems at hand. Violence always leads to
more violence and even if on side "wins" the war, there is still bad
blood between all sides involved that may turn up at a different point
in time during a different war or fight, continuing the previous war.
Although violence is definitely not the best way to try to solve a
dispute, it is sometimes the only way. As we saw in the story, the
man had been patient and hopeful that justice would come, but instead,
all of the animals in the jungle were taking the huts he had made!
The Commission kept ruling his stories invalid and continued to give
his huts away. His only solution was to burn them all down. When
looking at this story, violence was necessary and it ended on a happy
note. But when looking at the real world, that would have obviously
caused more issues between both sides, leading to more disputes.
Violence is justified, but only under dire circumstances where non-
violence has been attempted again and again, leaving no other choice.

[oschultz]

Jon, your question brings up a very complicated and compelling idea of
trying to meet our intentions of peace with actions of aggression.
Clearly we cannot create a world of peace and freedom with actions of
aggression since these actions in turn create inequality for the
'loser' of the war and injustice and chaos for the inhabitants of the
battlefield. To put it simply, unless we are put into a situation
where the outcome of a war would be as black and white as saying that
it is either us or them; then there really isn't any reason for us to
not try to resolve our problems and achieve our aspirations through
diplomacy and through actions that would use our soft power. For the
most part, these actions of violence during the era of imperialism
were for the most part, created due to a lack of security and identity
as people from various places in Europe attempted to find answers to
their problems and/or compensate for that which they seemed to feel
that they lacked or disliked.

[Alex Steinroeder]

I think that peace is always the best solution, but now a peaceful
world is unrealistic after so many wars and violence have taken place.
Now for most countries it seems like a natural response if they are
upset by another country to lash out and threaten their opposition
with violence. Even though the man in the story was being treated
unfairly, I do not think he had the right to kill all of the animals
in the jungle. They never inflicted any physical harm on him, so why
should he inflict it upon them? He was being treated poorly and he had
the right to do something about it, but to me, killing people is never
justified unless they are going to kill you first. I do not think that
human nature makes people violent and evil because I am not a violent
person and many people are not, so why has there been so much violence
in the world? I think when people get greedy they start conflicts with
other countries just so that they have an excuse to attack that
country. In history, religious groups have often used religion as a
reason for invading another religious group. In my opinion, people
need to stop making excuses for attacking one another because
ultimately there is never a justified reason for violence, besides for
self defense. And self defense should never be necessary because the
person attacking you has no justified reason to be attacking you. It
is a vicious circle that the world has fallen into and it might be
very difficult to break out of this violent cycle. Honestly it is not
that hard to be nice to people so everyone should just try that out
for awhile and see what happens. Great idea.

[Kyle Calabria]

Alex, Your view of peace above all is a refreshing and optimistic
outlook on life. If everyone in the world thought like you the world
would be a much more peaceful and harmonious place to live in. Who
says it has to be unrealistic though? Yes through out the worlds
history there has been wars and blood shed, but sometimes it is better
to make new dreams for the future instead of always looking back to
the past. If everyone who said, "nice idea, but it is unrealistic"
instead thought "nice idea lets try it," Think of how many peoples
lives would be saved. As i read through the posts I was thinking of
writing a response along the lines of violence can be necessary if you
are being oppressed or treated unjustly, but after reading Alex's
response I changed my mind. What if everyone could convince just one
other person of non-violence?

Like the broken windows theory we discussed in class, that cleaned up
the streets of NY from crime. One small act of cleaning up a city can
inspire someone who might have robbed a bank to instead get a job.
Maybe the job creates a stable life for the person who then has a
family. Maybe his children

[Kyle Calabria]

That second paragraph was the start of another idea, but i thought I
deleted it sorry

[Mark Nimar]

Alex,

What is a "life" though if you do not have personal freedom? The man
had tried to peacefully follow the legal system, and due to
corruption, his fair efforts failed. I think it is safe to assume that
the animals would have never listened to the man if he had just stayed
within their legal codes. Honestly, I do believe in using non-violent
methods if it is a fair and just system with certain moral grounds,
but if it is corrupt and there is no way of winning ,you have to take
a stand for yourself and cause action to get people's attention. It is
like civil rights in this country. When Martin Luther King jr.
preached civil rights, it was wonderful and inspirng, but ultimately
what got people's attention was Malcom X's rebel rousing and physical
violence. Freedom and honor is more important than a constricted
life, and if the rules are preventing you from living a good and free
life, it is your job to redefine them.

On Oct 4, 12:05 pm, Alex Steinroeder <alsteinroed...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Mark Nimar]

Jon,

I understand that war festers war and conflict, but I would like to
bring up this thought: if America had not armed the Mujahideen, then
Afghanistan would have fallen under the oppressive rule of the
soviets. Should we not arm citizens and instead let them fall to an
oppressive regime? I'm not saying that the formation of the Taliban is
a good thing, but America's support of the Mujahideen contained
communism from spreading into the Middle East. Where do we draw the
line between defense and violence? If America's values were being
threatened directly and the Soviets invaded America, it would not be
my first choice to pick up weapons, but at the end of the day, if it
is the only choice then you need to defend yourself, because otherwise
you are just approving of the enemies' behavior.

[Peter Cohen]

Alex,

I think the conflict between Alex and Mark is an interesting one. How
far should one go to avenge a wrong? I agree with Alex in that
violence is never justified unless the other person is going to kill
you first. However, i think that violence is an inherent part of some
human nature. While power and violence isn't a trait/lure for most
people, i strongly believe that it is to some. Given the opportunity,
certain people will use violence to gain power. While this may not be
true for 90% of people, the last 10% can make all the difference. Some
people will use violence unprovoked, some won't, everyone reacts
differently. The danger, is in assuming that everybody is nice and
would act morally. If you assume that, then you leave yourself in
grave danger. The problem with kyle's idea is that you will never be
able to convince everybody of nonviolence. On the surface they may
agree with you, but deep down they would act differently given the
opportunity. There will always be some people who would take advantage
of others through violent.

[btay...@colonial.net]

In some situations, violence is necessary to achieve peace. It is true
that it always creates hatred and fear, but if oppression of a people,
like the colonized people of africa, becomes too great to bear, than
what other options did they have but to violently revolt? In most
situations, people primarily try to resolve issues nonviolently first,
which is valid and good. But there is a breaking point. When a people
are oppressed and treated so wrongly for years and years, like most
African ethnic groups, they feel that no one has listened to their
pleas for peace and equality and they feel they need to take it by
force if they cannot work out an agreement. And they are righteous in
doing it. We cannot forget that our nation, arguably one of the most
powerful in the world, was born from a bloody rebellion against the
english colonizers. Sometimes there is no other way... it is a sad
truth, but a historically factual one. Hopefully in the future we will
be able to resolve all issues nonviolently, but historically, most
free nations have been born from violence. When people lend a deaf ear
to the pleas of a nation, one can only expect violence so as to
achieve freedom.

[Lucy Fandel]

This is really good timing for this discussion because of Ghandi's
birthday anniversary. Ghandi showed the British colonial government
that nonviolence was effective and powerful and his example influenced
many future nonviolence leaders such as MLK. The situation in India
though was somewhat different in the end because much of the country
was left in religious conflict.
I agree with Phil that violence should definitely be a very last
resource when nonviolence would simply be impossible. Kenyatta would
have disagreed because of how colonial governments generally were, but
Zimbabwe is a good example of how a relatively smooth transition can
be made away from colonial control.

[Jake White]

I think that violence is the best method of resistance to imperialism.
I personally don't think it is realistic for a group of people who are
being ruled by an outside government to ask politely for them to leave
and grant them their freedom. I think that violently resisting
imperialism gains the most attention from the governing nation. I
don't find it practical for that governing nation to hand over their
freedom and if the people really want it then they might have to fight
for it.

[Alex Steinroeder]

Mark,

You say that freedom and honor is better than a constricted life, but
I would not take much pride and honor from killing a man even if it
meant that I could live a comfortable life. I would not be able to
live with myself. Bending the rules is a necessity, but to redefine
the rules by saying it is justified to kill people who mistreated you,
would just not slide. If everybody thought that way then the world
would be one giant conflict (even more than it already is). More
homicides would happen globally. It is a tough situation because
everyone needs to stand up for themselves and not be pushed around. I
always remember "the golden rule" from when a was a young kid, "treat
others as you would like to be treated"; although someone may not be
treating you right does not justify inflicting violence upon them.

On Oct 5, 7:31 pm, Lucy Fandel <lucy.fan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[janzer]

Let me put it this way; violence is never justified, in any
circumstance. To go with Lucy's theme, and quote Gandhi, "I object to
violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only
temporary; the evil it does is permanent." While the man seems to do
well for himself by violently disposing of the animals, this good is
completely temporary. Not to mention that his violent actions were for
personal gain. When one act of violence is committed, it inevitibly
causes retaliation. The natural reactions is to respond to violence
with violence, but even stronger. The story is left without telling of
retaliation, but we can safely assume what is in store.

[jmcke...@colonial.net]

In the circumstances set up by Kenyetta, the violent course of action
may have seemed to be the only option, but only if the situation is
looked at in a narrow sense. While it was certainly effective in
achieving the goals that the human set out to accomplish, he could
have looked for a peaceful option. Appealing to the establishment of
animals was obviously out of the question, but Kenyetta alluded to
other humans inhabiting the jungle as well. If this is the case, a
nonviolent solution of banding together with the other humans could
have been sought. This is not to say that violence is never
justifiable, but it should only be used as a last resort, which was
not done in this story.

To the second question: Violent methods do not seem to be the best
form of resistance to achieve peace and freedom. Violence just always
runs the risk of the armed rebels taking control of the country right
after that and grabbing power for themselves. This is seen in a number
of countries who rebelled violently to colonial rule. While nations
that had a peaceful revolution do not seem to have the same persistant
problem. Even so, judging either method is overall pointless, as both
have a number of victory and defeat stories, peace just seems
preferable if possible.

[Nick Jessee]

Depending on circumstance, violence is absolutely justified. If a
culture is being whipped off the map, violent means are essentially
the only options left. If they were to continue non-violent protest,
their morals may be sustained but their society and its customs are
not. I do not think one should provoke violence; however if it is a
last option to preserve your freedom, pride, and culture than it is
justified. There is only so much pushing one can take until they
react. Although non-violence is the noble, honorable thing, it is not
always the most effective. If a nation is able to defeat another by
violence, in the circumstances given, they must act to save their
society.