Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

Plus, Charles' arguements are nakedly coming off as victim-blaming in one of the most brazen examples that I've ever seen. He literally made the statement that the victims of Mongol and Viking invasions had their rapes and massacres coming to them because, oh, they should have known that willfully not resisting would be better off for them. I mean, the Mongols' demands for the taking of all skilled citizens and young women periodically as taxes are so generous. It's not as if there's a point to be made by the young men and women who wish to defend their dreams of ideal lives that are virtually guaranteed to be taken from them by a foreign power.

It's because of spirited violent resistance that the Mongol invasions of Croatia and Hungary failed miserably, shattering the Horde's aura of invincibility and preventing them from mounting any further incursions into Central Europe.

Charles is making the Why Did You Make Me Hit You? arguement that's a favorite among hardline conservatives across the globe. It's what Japanese apologists say when they argue that the US brought Pearl Harbor upon itself by sanctioning Japan for raping and stabbing its way through China. It's what the Nazis said to justify their massacres of whole towns and villages because the locals weren't Aryan enough and obviously should have gleefully lain face down in ditches because '''MUH Righteousnessb! And SELF-DEFENSE bad!

Edited by FluffyMcChicken on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:08:30 AM

What the fuck are you talking about?

No, seriously.

You just made all of that up. You also have to know that when talking about pacifism and its effectiveness (which isn't the point) that you generally are probably not going to be talking about how MURDER IS A GOOD THING.

Seriously x2, you know since the argument is ALL LIFE IS SACRED that the above is bullshit.

So why say it?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:12:59 AM

The Norse stopped large-scale raiding after their army under Harald Hardrada was destroyed by the Anglo-Saxons in 1066, btw.

You mean like Martin Luther King?

I deeply respect the alternative position promoted by Malcolm X and believe his actions contributed strongly to the acceptance and racial progress. It is also entirely reasonable to hold a position of self defense or defense of others. You know, what he did.

I believe, however, that all life is sacred and nonviolence should always be striven for to eventually end war as well as violence. That I do not believe in violence under any circumstances for myself and encourage others to view the same. It's the basis of my religion.

Why is that offensive to people?

Also, the importance of Black Lives Matter is that the use of violence by cops and their arguments they feel "threatened" is bullshit. It's a nonviolent way of raising awareness and hopefully reducing (and hopefully some eliminating) polic violence on black men as well as women. It is a heartbreaking expression, indeed, of how anger can be challenged to positive ends that will hopefully end police brutality.

I.e. murder disguised as justified violence.

What do you think the point of BLM *IS*?

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:22:37 AM

The Normans were also assimilated into the Frankish Kingdoms.

Well assimilated-ish.

Basically, I just have a kind of eye-roll at the kind of bad history that reduces everything to nothing but nonstop battles and murders. Peace-making is the most important part of war and the best way to win one is to never have it be "necessary" in the first place.

Its part of why I hate the treatment of the Norse as nothing but murder and forgetting their role as traders as well as building relationships across the continents.

I admit, my pacifism is also tied to my feminism and belief a lot of war motivations are the belief A Real Man Is a Killer. A lot of violence is completely unnecessary save for toxic masculinity ideals like glory in battle and a warrior's death.

We see stuff like it in the continued veneration of the Spartans despite their absolute insanity.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:23:17 AM

Because the Franks were sick of getting pillaged and wanted them to stop. The Norse applied violence in pursuit of wealth, put enough pressure on the Frankish Kingdom to offer them a wealth beyond what they'd originally expected, and got to retire with a nice fiefdom acquired at the Franks' expense.

The Mongols, the Norse and many others were rational actors. They knew what they wanted from their neighbours, and how to precisely apply violence to acquire it. If they could get it through coercion, they'd do it. If they could get it profitably through equal diplomacy and trade, they'd do it. Having organised violence in their toolbox boosted the number of options available to them and made them resistant to violent pressure from other state actors, though its misuse could (and did) bring their own downfall.

I'm fed up with that sort of badhistory too, but peacemaking and warfare aren't two discrete phenomenons. They're both different modes of engaging with people's economic and cultural rationales. And if you're already locked in conflict (no matter whose fault), then being better at leveraging violence (or the potential for it) tends to give you a better peace. There's a reason the terms for the peace you described was "the Norse got a large tract of land to settle on and lots of peasants to order around" and not "Rollo kicked out to the sea and told to never come back".

Glorification of conflict runs counter to this, naturally. You're not looking to show off or become the aggressor - you're looking to be adept enough with the tools and techniques of conflict to repel aggression, or ideally deter it from ever happening in the first place.

Tying this back to Civil Rights, Dr King and Malcolm X weren't two morally discrete actors. The movement's public activism was designed to appeal to a) members of society whose opinions held cultural currency with the aggressors, i.e. white folks, and b) its allies in the federal government, whose monopoly on state violence enabled desegregation to be instituted on a state level. Just look at the Little Rock Nine, who probably would've been lynched without armed federal troops guarding them. Not all of the forces being leveraged were violent, but the ones that were played a central role. The role of violence is always there - the privilege is in not having to see it.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:47:09 AM

I understand that.

I think I've mentioned repeatedly that I am aware the consequence of bad people being the only ones with violence is a bunch of dead innocent people. I've also mentioned it's something that I struggle with myself whether to use violence in a hypothetical situation where more than my life is at stake.

I only speak for myself and encourage others so the world can someday be free of violence.

But I do believe in it passionately for myself and hope I'd be willing to live to my principles unto the end.

Got it. This whole topic ties rather closely to the persecution of marginalised groups (or abuse survivors - for some of us the situation isn't hypothetical), so I appreciate your engagement and hope you understand why it got so personal.

The Somali-Australian folks on my Facebook feed have been pretty excited about Ilhan Omar, looks like.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:51:49 AM

I confess, I'm genuinely horrified about the idea there's pacifists out there who think that people deserve to die for fighting back. That seems to be as dramatic a misinterpretation of an idea's point as "Jesus will reward you with money if you're good."

Mind you, this does explain a weird moment in MAFIA 3 when the head of the KKK calls out Lincoln Clay on the radio for disavowing Martin Luther King's ideals by, well, murdering (racist) white people.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:56:06 AM

Do you not see how that could be interpreted as victim blaming the people whom the Mongols slaughtered?

Especially in the context of a discussion that started by pointing out that Gandhi once claimed Jewish people should have let themselves be butchered by Nazis?

Seriously, you've made contrary arguments. You've tried to argue that pacifism isn't supposed to stop atrocities but is about living your own values. Then you try to justify pacifism by pointing out times violent resistance failed.

Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 6:00:47 PM

Basically, I was trying to say violence doesn't necessarily make a situation better. It can and often does make situations which are already bad even worse. Violent resistance gets touted out as the moral right a lot but even in situations where there's a good reason to, it may not end well.

I was trying to dissuade the "Hard Man Making Hard Choices" logic by pointing out the dark way isn't necessarily any better than the light one.

Which isn't victim blaming but me trying to talk about how people say it's the best solution.

Sometimes its better to flee, sometimes appeal to authority, and sometimes you're fucked no matter what so you should act your conscience.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 9th 2018 at 2:05:24 AM

The problem is that you took things too far by trying to claim that people who tried to resist conquerors and were slaughtered is proof that violence is bad.

It's textbook victim blaming.

It's also not particularly compelling given I could turn that logic right back by pointing out the times pacifism resulted in nothing but people being slaughtered as proof that pacifism is bad.

So you believe a person who is willing to die to not kill someone believes other people deserve to die for fighting?

That's a hard sell to me, sorry,

I know some people have some weird logic but I can't imagine that's an actual thing.

It's the logic you used. You're the one trying to use bad outcomes that resulted in people dying as proof that violence is bad. I'm just saying you could do the same with pacifism, which is why it's a bad argument to try.

And again, you seem to be going back and forth between arguing that it's about principles (you made an earlier post saying pacifism not stopping atrocities doesn't matter because it's about principles) and arguing that it's about results (pointing to times violent resistance didn't work).

Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 6:27:33 PM

Because it's both.

Violence is stupid, self-defeating, self-justifying, and the product of people constantly trying to justify it. A society that's smart can and should do away with it. However, at the end of the day, the reason you should do it is because you believe in nonviolence.

If I had to choose, it's about principles first and last but I get really annoyed at the idea people keep pointing out effectiveness is an argument for violence. So, I picked an example from the link you provided (Suicidal Pacifism) and pointed out in the Real life section it pointed out the Mongols being resisted got them all killed.

It's not the example I would have chosen but you provided the reference.

Edited by CharlesPhipps on Nov 9th 2018 at 2:56:34 AM

Which was basically cherrypicking considering the rest of the examples on the page.

And you're going right back to victim blaming now by claiming violence is stupid all the time. While talking about people resisting being conquered.

Edited by M84 on Nov 9th 2018 at 7:05:27 PM

And sometimes violence is the only solution. Any society trying to do away with it will have to reckon with the fact that there’s no way to actually “do away with it”, period. If you think that’s possible you’re radically misunderstanding human nature. That’s why we have armed police officers and a standing military.

The issue with your argument is the part where you start saying that victims of genocides and slaughters should just let it happen out of a commitment to moral principles. That’s where the blatantly privileged nature of your position becomes obvious, because not everyone has the security in their lives to say that they’d feel happy dying for no reason. Members of groups who are having their very existence threatened might not feel so happy about a commitment to absolute morality.

Edited by archonspeaks on Nov 9th 2018 at 3:09:25 AM

This is way off-topic, but also very interesting, and I don't think we have another thread more suited to it aside from maybe a general philosophy thread.

I guess from where I'm sitting, it's honestly just coming off as though being morally in the right (I don't agree that pacifism is always morally correct, but that's how I'm reading your viewpoint and I apologize if that's wrong, Charles) is more important than any benefits that could be gained from using violence, even in the context of self-defense. Yes, there have been instances where violent resistance has brought down reprisals or worsened conditions for those being oppressed or threatened; but there are also instances where bloodying the aggressor's nose or otherwise making yourself a difficult or painful target to attack saves lives. If your aggressor is after your wallet, sure, you don't want to whip out a knife and scream that you'll make him bleed for it. But if the aggressor is after the destruction of your people, homeland or culture, then the argument is that resisting will make them destroy it... harder than they would have originally?

Violence is a tool in the toolbox. It's an assertion of power and a way to protect yourself. Of course it's not ideal as the first or only solution, but it's an important tool nonetheless.

Look at it this way. If you have a sword and the other guy has a sword, and you talk it out before coming to blows, great! No one had to fight or die, and presumably you reached a compromise - even if that compromise was 'you stay over there, I'll stay over here, and neither of us has to fight'. That's the ideal outcome. But if the other guy has a sword and you don't have a sword, you're wagering your personal safety, belongings, or family on his goodwill, and not everyone has that, especially if the other guy is a Nazi.

Argh, I hate having ended up saying things that sound like 'good guy with a gun' or sovereign citizen rhetoric, but I guess that's what it comes to if you boil it down to personal defense rather than sociopolitical ideologies or groups. Whoops.

Look, when the people trying to oppress you are beating you with bats, shooting up your schools and favorite hangout spots, I think the time for pacifism has ended. If a white person attempts to beat me up and I attempt to defend myself, it makes negative sense to claim that I should've never hit back, because he attacked first.

The Nazis and, from what I understand, the Mongols both attacked first. To say that the damage done unto them was because they tried to resist is complete nonsense, full stop.

Edited by PhysicalStamina on Nov 9th 2018 at 6:54:12 AM

There's a lot of merit in what Charles is saying about transforming societal values towards pacifism, though I think it still needs to be accompanied by judicious control over violence. I believe that BLM is one expression of this thought. The police's respect of the citizenry is predicated on both of them sharing the same values, despite one being far more capable of violence - so leveraging that cultural connection to improve on the police's value system is important to reduce net violence in the society. There's obviously still some violent instruments in play (such as invoking the state's legal power to sack or punish trigger-happy officers), but the core of the idea is cultural, and I do hope that societal norms will someday get to the point where everyone excludes violence from disputes entirely.

Charles the reason pacifism has been called privillage is because of how it works. Pacifism largly manifests in the face of individualist violence rather than systemic violence.

Let’s look at your example, someone breaking into your house, that’s a case of individualist violence, once the situation is escaped there is no longer a threat to your family and loved ones. So you being willing to die as a distraction is relatively noble, you are protection those you love.

But compare it with the kind of violence underprivileged people face, specifically systemic state sponsored violence, there’s no escaping the imidiate situation, the violence dosnt end once the encounter is over and things return to being peaceful, the violence is continuous.

The privillage is that it’s only your life you’re giving up, not also the lives of everyone you love.

Likewise I get your proposed solution to oppression, you’d rather a national general strike than a bloddy revolution, that makes sense, but that concept come from the privillage positon of being worth something to the oppressor, not just that but it comes from a positon of not being easily replaceable and it being viable to organise the oppressed as a group.

Miners could go on strike because they could organise semi-safely and could not be super easily replaced, slaves would just be slaughter and replaced with new slaves (oh and I know about examples of state violence against miners and the erosion of the ability of labour to organise in the US, it’s a sliding scale example).

That’s the privilege people are talking about, the privilege of not being the bottom rung of the food chain, not being the top, but not being the bottom. The privilege that educated and industrialised Indian colonies had over poor and impoverished Congalise colonies, the privillage that white factory workers had over black slaves, the privillage that a white person getting mugged randomly has over a Jewish person facing the extermination of their people.

Edited by Silasw on Nov 9th 2018 at 12:17:49 PM

Silas just addressed and recontextualized the point I was trying (and failed, mostly) to make, and made it actually make sense. Thanks, Silas!

I think something that people who point to Martin Luther King as some kind of paragon of nonviolence are missing is that he while important was not the entirety of the Civil Rights movement, and the movement itself was never a purely peaceful affair. For every Martin Luther King you had a Malcolm X who was much more radical and could tolerate violence, which is a major reason as to why Martin Luther King won. Because he could position himself as the reasonable Civil Rights leader who fearful White People would prefer to the more radical alternatives, though it still didn't stop white moderates from blaming him for the violence.

The most effective tool for pushing necessary social change is direct action, both the violent and non-violent varieties. Antifa isn't going to win on their own but if they can disperse fascists and make them afraid to organize then they're playing a vital role. Rejecting violence unilaterally as someone who wants to bring necessary change is merely preemptively disarming one's self, and is thus highly foolish because one's opponents won't be so kind and when we're talking about fascists or other authoritarians then they will not admire you for your moral high ground if they take power. They'll just purge you.

Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Nov 9th 2018 at 8:16:37 AM

Also even king wasn’t just passively resisting by sitting quietly and doing nothing. He lead massive boycotts, and even when they were sitting quietly, it was at diners where black people were not allowed. When white people say “like Martin Luther King,l what they really mean is “submissively.” He was accused of being too uppity even back then.

People have a child's understanding of the civil rights movement lol

The same people who think that mlk was some kind of Jesus figure whose death purged America of its sins and ended racism overnight, are the same people who would have despised him for being too uppity if they were alive during his time. And that's not even getting into what they would think of his other political opinions, such as his criticisms of capitalism.

Edited by Draghinazzo on Nov 9th 2018 at 1:48:44 PM