This is an email I received the other day from my alma mater requesting donations for a Veteran's Memorial. I am troubled very much by how the only way we understand peace is through force, and violent force at that. The preservation of peace, semantically, implies that peace is foreign, something that is strange and hard to hold on to. Preservation seems to be employed when something cannot exist on its own. In our current dominant ideology, this is the proper way to characterize peace: it is something that must be preserved (if wanted). The reason is cannot flourish naturally, much like our beautiful forests, wetlands, rivers, etc. is that there are structures in place to prevent it from growing, limiting the extent that it may prevail. This is because we cannot imagine a world otherwise. We cannot imagine or envision a world where peace is the standard, the status quo, the natural flourishing. Instead, our world is informed by an ideology that violence always has and always will be a part of human life and interaction. It is inescapable. Because it is inevitable, peace must be "fought for." Peace is not is what is preserved, but a way of life, a lifestyle, a certain ethic of an excluding group of people is what is really preserved. The logical inconsistency aside, the fighting for peace has so pervaded the souls of our world that to even dare to dream of this ideology not only being wrong, but there being a possible third way in the global drama of war or extinction is incredulous. But it is not. It is a necessity, a necessity kept alive by a few liberated, haunted, troubled, holy people: Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Dr. King, Rumi. Theirs is a dream that inspires and proclaims a vision, although yet to fully be realized, entirely possible. The preservation of peace falls on the shoulders of the war-makers and the politicians of nation-states. The building of peace falls on the shoulders of peace-makers and believers of a nonviolent Spirit of God. Of which is more worthy of the service and honor we should dedicate our lives to?
13 November 2007
Preserving What?
This is an email I received the other day from my alma mater requesting donations for a Veteran's Memorial. I am troubled very much by how the only way we understand peace is through force, and violent force at that. The preservation of peace, semantically, implies that peace is foreign, something that is strange and hard to hold on to. Preservation seems to be employed when something cannot exist on its own. In our current dominant ideology, this is the proper way to characterize peace: it is something that must be preserved (if wanted). The reason is cannot flourish naturally, much like our beautiful forests, wetlands, rivers, etc. is that there are structures in place to prevent it from growing, limiting the extent that it may prevail. This is because we cannot imagine a world otherwise. We cannot imagine or envision a world where peace is the standard, the status quo, the natural flourishing. Instead, our world is informed by an ideology that violence always has and always will be a part of human life and interaction. It is inescapable. Because it is inevitable, peace must be "fought for." Peace is not is what is preserved, but a way of life, a lifestyle, a certain ethic of an excluding group of people is what is really preserved. The logical inconsistency aside, the fighting for peace has so pervaded the souls of our world that to even dare to dream of this ideology not only being wrong, but there being a possible third way in the global drama of war or extinction is incredulous. But it is not. It is a necessity, a necessity kept alive by a few liberated, haunted, troubled, holy people: Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, Dr. King, Rumi. Theirs is a dream that inspires and proclaims a vision, although yet to fully be realized, entirely possible. The preservation of peace falls on the shoulders of the war-makers and the politicians of nation-states. The building of peace falls on the shoulders of peace-makers and believers of a nonviolent Spirit of God. Of which is more worthy of the service and honor we should dedicate our lives to?
Obscured Visions
The President's recent veto of health and education programs included in a recent budget proposed by Congress signifies two things to me, both of which are not entirely new but remain unceasingly frustrating:
1) Bush's veto of the budget coupled with remarks referring to "Democratic" fiscal irresponsibility and partisanship is bogus. The veto is a clear rejection of value in health or education. To paint this as a political issue is to not recognize the sacredness of all people, irregardless of financial cost to provide access to health and learning opportunities.
2) While simultaneously pushing forward with a defense budget that is monstrously larger than the congressional health and education proposal, the President has clearly chosen war-making over peace-building.
The rhetoric cannot redeem the clear motivations that drive this country's political economy and powerbrokers: violence. Unless we refuse to accept the blatant disregard for human life in spending $ 6.3 billion for advancing the technology to further obscure the violence and suffering committed by fighter jets and its patrons, words such as freedom, liberty, and justice remain empty and insulting.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16263477
1) Bush's veto of the budget coupled with remarks referring to "Democratic" fiscal irresponsibility and partisanship is bogus. The veto is a clear rejection of value in health or education. To paint this as a political issue is to not recognize the sacredness of all people, irregardless of financial cost to provide access to health and learning opportunities.
2) While simultaneously pushing forward with a defense budget that is monstrously larger than the congressional health and education proposal, the President has clearly chosen war-making over peace-building.
The rhetoric cannot redeem the clear motivations that drive this country's political economy and powerbrokers: violence. Unless we refuse to accept the blatant disregard for human life in spending $ 6.3 billion for advancing the technology to further obscure the violence and suffering committed by fighter jets and its patrons, words such as freedom, liberty, and justice remain empty and insulting.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16263477
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)