Martin, we seem to be talking past each other, for which I am sure I have as
much responsibility as you.  I suspect that if we had the opportunity to sit
down for a few hour chat we would clarify the ground between us and find that
we had an immense common ground, notwithstanding some honestly held
disagreements.  Dan

Martin William Smith wrote:

> Dan Koenig writes:
> > But I prefer pacifism and passive resistance as the means to bring
> > about such changes.  As the examples I cited indicate, these means
> > have worked many times.  I don't accept that they merely change the
> > battlelines, unless you mean by that that humankind has certain
> > propensities that impel it to create such systems and to recreate
> > alternative similar systems when existing systems of power and
> > privilege are overcome.
>
> My point is that pacifism and passive resistance do not change those
> systems. They win battles, and they might even win a "war", but they
> don't ensure that the same battles and the same "wars" do not start
> again.
>
> > But, this takes us back to your tides and waves and occasional
> > hurricane, doesn't it -- that is, an inherent imperative for
> > injustice and egoism that must constantly be resisted.
>
> Of course they must be resisted, but some people not only do not
> resist them, they use them.  It is not a dichotomy of resist or join.
> There is a third possibility.  Change the metamodel.  Changing the
> thing being resisted is changing the model.  I'm talking about
> changing the metamodel, which is a profoundly different kind of
> change.
>
> > In the meantime, how effective has armed force been in changing such
> > systems in the Balkans, in Southwest Asia, in Africa, and elsewhere?  Has
> > it been more effective than changes brought about by pacifism and
> > co-operation?
>
> We're not on the same page, Dan.  Armed force is clearly more
> effective at changing an enterprise than pacifism and passive
> resistance.  Armed force has already destroyed a lot of infrastructure
> in Yugoslavia.  That is a big change.
>
> > I refer you again to Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walensa,
> > the abolition of slavery,
>
> Hang on.  The US Civil War, "justified" as a humanitarian action to
> eliminate slavery but really about preventing the southern states from
> having self-determination, remains one of the bloodiest wars in all of
> history.  Shouldn't we be comparing Abraham Lincoln with Slobodan
> Milosevic instead of with Nelson Mandela?
>
> "A house divided against itself cannot stand." The US and NATO are
> saying Abraham Lincoln was wrong.  He should have said "A house
> divided against itself should be devolved."  But I can hear his speech
> writers now.  "Abe, it just doesn't sound right.  Someday we might
> need this right to self-determination thing, to justify, you
> know... to justify stuff, so let's not give it away now.  Let's go
> with the anti-slavery angle.  The people will buy it, and the niggers
> will vote for us."
>
> I don't take your point.  These great men did not change the
> fundamentals of the systems they were working with.  The governments
> of India, South Africa, and Poland are based on the same metamodel as
> the governments they replaced.
>
> > the struggle for equal rights for women, for people of alternative
> > sexual orientations, and so forth.  Have these victories come from
> > armed force and terrorism?  Or are armed force and terrorism more
> > likely to perpetuate the conflict than to neutralize it?  The
> > Balkans are Exhibit A; Southwest Asia (""Mid-east") is Exhibit B;
> > Latin America is Exhibit C; etc.  Enough of this, however.
>
> Yes, please, because I'm not defending armed conflict in any of the
> situations you cite.  I'm saying that the armed conflicts started
> despite "your" efforts, and I believe that "your" efforts do not
> ensure that the same armed conflicts won't start again.  I think
> Buddhism has a lot to answer for here, by teaching that life is about
> suffering.
>
> > The points have been made and people are free to consider them and
> > accept them or not.  There is other work that needs to be done, and
> > I will not be responding further.  If the points are accepted, fine;
> > if not, then a further post isn't likely to change anybody's mind.
>
> Regardless of which method you choose, changing minds is what it's all
> about.
>
> martin
>
> Martin Smith                    Email: [log in to unmask]
> P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 35700
> N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 35701