Peace Pledge for RNC Parades and Protests
I propose that everyone involved in the peace parades and peace protests at Republican National Convention (RNC) use the same pledge as the School of the Americas vigil in Georgia.
We will promote an alternative to domination systems by acting with love, respect, mutuality, compassion and acceptance for the interdependence of all life.
We will struggle for a world free from violence, and we will use
actions, words and symbols consistent with this struggle.
We will not use or instigate violence against any person.
We will act with respect for the people and property of the local community.
We will promote the safety of ourselves and others through our
actions and interactions.
We commit to recognize and to work to dismantle all forms of
oppression in our personal relationships, local neighborhoods, globally and with Earth itself.
We will return to our communities with renewed energy to create the peace.(Retyped from a physical copy)
One minor change is in pledge to ensure relevance , the phrase "to close the SOA/WHINSEC" is changed to the more generic "to create peace".
An alternative is the Pledge to Nonviolence. that all marchers in Birmingham had to sign, before participating in the marches:
Similar pledges were used by Gandhi and other possible pledges can be explored here.
* Remember that the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.
* Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
* Pray daily to be used by God in order that all men and women might be free.
* Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
* Observe with friend & foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
* Perform regular service for others and for the world.
* Refrain from violence of fist, tongue, and heart.
* Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
* Follow the directions of the Movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.
(Soulforce)
The reason that a pledge and training is so very important, is that statements of well meaning, well intentioned folks have alarmed both peacemakers and the local St Paul community, as in this quote:
The statement of a single member is not a fair test of the policy of an organization. So to be fair, I went to the website of the organization under discussion to try to find their statement on nonviolence. Here is what I found:
Destruction bad. Property bad. The concept of property is used to deprive people of the basic necessities of life. We live here, and want to live in beautiful, clean environments, just like you. We also believe we have a right to defend ourselves, and if the tools used to attack us include the tools of property, it’s not exempt.
(RNC Welcoming)
Actually, I assume that we are in the earlier stages of planning and that this is merely a badly worded statement, because "right to defend" sounds like a war and violence provoking statement not consistent with a statement like "We will struggle for a world free from violence, and we will use actions, words and symbols consistent with this struggle." Changing this statement is important because the organization is leading in the good work of organizing a peace message in response to the RNC. I did find any statement about nonviolence or peace pledge on other main organizing site, Protest RNC 2008. I hope that the both groups consider the pledge at the next planning meetings.
The peace pledge would ensure everyone is dedicated to peaceful ways to bring peace. Ideally, every march and organization commit to this pledge, with the pledge be a being part of the starting ceremony of the march. Peacemakers have been talking with local police, to ensure that St Paul stay committed to the concept of community policing. Ideally, all supporting organizations and neighborhood organizations would agree to provide housing, food, transportation and other support only to the marches and organizations that commit to the pledge.
Why is the peace pledge and the commitment to non-violence so important?
The first answer is the more answer of the whole belief system of non-violence summarized here:
Some proponents of nonviolence advocate respect or love for opponents. It is this principle which is most closely associated with spiritual or religious justifications of nonviolence, as may be seen in the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus urges his followers to "love thine enemy," in the Taoist concept of wu-wei, or effortless action, in the philosophy of the martial art Aikido, in the Buddhist principle of metta, or loving-kindness towards all beings, and in the principle of ahimsa, or nonviolence toward any being, shared by Buddhism, Jainism and some forms of Hinduism. Respect or love for opponents also has a pragmatic justification, in that the technique of separating the deeds from the doers allows for the possibility of the doers changing their behaviour, and perhaps their beliefs. Martin Luther King said, "Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him." The Christian focus on both nonviolence and forgiveness of sin may have found their way into the story of Abel in the Qur'an. Liberal movements within Islam have consequently used this story to promote Islamic ideals of nonviolence.(wiki nonviolence)
Basic sociology studies also confirm that peace has to be gained through peaceful means.
The second reason is that we win through popular opinion. Peace is popular. So to discredit the peace movement, the most effective media action is to paint the peace movement as violent, discourteous, mean, and threatening. In the 1960's, the media coverage of the peace movement was friendly. The current monopolistic corporate tightly controlled media will not be friendly and will slant the news negatively. One of the most recent articles on mnblue displays that. Yet as peacemakers, we can be proactive and we can be ready. The Peace Pledge is the most proactive defense and also a statement of the very essence of who were are.
(The Authoritarians)
In the progressive side of the universe, we prefer the big umbrella approach, the acceptance of diversity. We say things like let's accept all approaches and unite rather than divide. This time is different. This is the time to make a strong statement and to truly separate those who will not join the peace pledge. Every long time peace activist that I discussed this article with, had warnings, backed up with personal stories. All of them cited that the peace movement has a long history of people who join the peace movement to discredit it, like COINTELPRO and more recent equivalents.
So, when comes to the standard of peace, there should be no compromise. Support the Peace Pledge, to proactively advocate for peace in the best way possible.
My Personal Involvement
I have been an active full time peacemaker political advocate for years now. I do this because I believe it is so critically important. Beyond vigils and information events, I am actively involved in electing peacemaker progressive people and ensuring that peacemaker progressive policy is enacted and enforced. I am the most active blogger on the peace activities. I am progressive because I act on principles first, the foremost of those principles is peace. And so I made this declaration:
And this comment was left:
If you're seriously interested in changing this situation, you should check out groups like nornc.org, do some research and learn some history.
(mnblue comment)
And so this article is following that mandate of "do some research and learn some history".
Crossposted at mnblue,at the RNC Welcoming Committee and at Protest RNC 2008.
»
- Grace Kelly's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Stumble It!
Has you lost your mind,
Has you lost your mind, Madam?
This is a political war; the winner decides the fate of the country for the next four years. Playing nice will only get you second place. If you want to stop the neocon capitalists, you have to fight fire with fire.
The fate of the country, yes
Peace is at stake, and the fate of the country. Violence is NOT effective - see Iraq. Violence does not work. Do you want to use violence and fail like Bush?
A peace pledge has
A peace pledge has absolutely nothing to do with 'playing nice'. It has everything to do with playing smart and playing by the rules:
US Constitution, Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's "peaceably to assemble". I absolutely agree with and will sign a peace pledge. The very best thing the media could report for a march and vigil at RNC in September is that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of people gathered peacefully to protest our occupation of Iraq.
Not "Everyone"
Big problem with your post: the use of the word "everyone".
Where does self-defense begin? This is a problem every individual conscience has to wrestle with, and not just since Martin Luther King versus Malcolm X (see "Do The Right Thing", or the more recent play "The Meeting"). Gandhi's nonviolent tactics happened to be effective against the English in India; they had earlier failed against a more brutal South African regime. It is not outlandish to think that we may be undergoing a paradigm shift in this country.
You are absolutely out of line trying to tell "everyone" else what to do in the face of threats that only they are capable of evaluating. Their own consciences will decide their actions. I repeat: their consciences, not yours.
Please stick to deciding what YOU are going to do.
Difficult Respect
Perhaps I should clarify a bit. I think it's great that you will sign a personal peace pledge. I think it's great that you're writing a blog post urging others to do the same.
What I wish to point out is the disrespect shown to those who will not want to sign such a pledge. Examples would include the threat of becoming a police informer, and threats related to food and housing. It is a train of thought that leads to "obey me, or I will make you homeless and starving".
Of course I know you didn't say that. And you didn't mean that. But this kind of threat is anything but hypothetical. It is what our society really does to many people. It is the violence inherent in the system. This is the very real violence that some people feel they may need to defend themselves against. "By any means necessary," as Malcolm X would say.
The "by any means necessary" person might say that the peace pledger is actually furthering the violence inherent in the system by inhibiting effective resistence to that violence - that "peace" is a cover for capitulation.
As it happens, I would have to disagree with that view. I think the "by any means necessary" person would do well to respect the fundamental sincerity of the peace pledger. But this is a two-way street. Will you be able to agree that neither Martin Luther King nor Malcolm X is necessarily wrong?
Actions with Values
How would I feel knowing that I gave couch space to a person who put a brick through the window of the place where my daughter works and now she is out of a job? In a community, any major law breaking will hurt people I know.
I don't shop at Wal-mart because they don't give health care benefits to workers.
I buy beef directly from a farmer who I know cares for his animals and treats them well.
I buy as many vegetables as I can from the local farmers market because it is healthy and it is local.
I have planted and tended 4 trees on my lot, because of the environment and because I love trees.
I am putting my money where my values are. I am putting my actions where my values are. That is what a progressive does.
Like I said in my statement, I don't care about jay walking or walking without permits. Bricks through windows: I am filming, I am pointing and I am testifying. Iraq War: I am watching, I am writing, I am marching, I working on elections and I am voting. This my community and my police force. As one candidates says: talk the talk and walk the walk. I expect everyone to act with courtesy and respect, even those who disagree. I expect the police to be as courteous and respectful as they can be in fulfilling their jobs. Should I expect any less from the people with whom I walk with on the peace marches? Republicans are the ones who have different rules for themselves and other rules for the rest of us. Should progressives act like Republicans?
Further Reflection
In further reflection, it seems to me that the most foremost argument is that our courts and our law no longer protect us, which is expressed as the "right to defend". Even though the courts repeatedly rule in favor of innocent people treated badly by police, there is NO deterrent to that happening again and there are constant repeats of the same police action. Even though we are supposed to have the freedom to protest and the freedom of speech, we have constantly shut out from any effective access, so that the protests and parades, no matter how large are not seen, not heard and not covered in our corporate media. Certainly no one interviews a peace advocate and provides their side of the story.
I still stand on values. We are the good guys. We cannot become that which we are striving to stop.
There are no good guys!
I say this as charitably as I can:
No Values is abolute, Miss Kelly. Your religion perhaps is my magic. My Ethic probably is someone elses gobble-de-gook. Forget imposing your worldview on others. Just live it yourself and can the preaching.
Think about that when you are critical of others in this world.
Proud of everyone who goes
Thanks for engaging my questions, though evidently we remain apart on the issues. I won't be there, but I'm proud of everyone who goes out in the streets. Two last thoughts:
It seems you will be sharing the street with people who see things differently. Please keep in mind it is just as much their street as it is your street.
And please rethink this affair of collaborating with people who would throw their fellow human beings into our country's inhumane prisons over questions of minor property damage. From where I stand, that just seems furthering the violence.
Only Peace Pledge Committed
I plan to only be in the parades with peace pledge committed groups. I will not knowingly parade with someone who is planning to put a brick through a window.