Peace Team Training Part II
The centralized goal of the peace teams is using peaceful methods to protect people from physical harm, independent of a person's beliefs or roles. And if you are expecting to read a set of answers or specific statements, then you will be dis-satisfied for basically we discussed all possibilities and came away with more questions than answers. The peace team learned listening, communicating and interposing methods. Yet the big questions, of when and how to act were left unsettled. The many scenario role plays brought up even more questions.
Everyone comes with a baggage of beliefs and pre-conceptions.
The expectation of what police would do and how police would do it was clearly colored by whether or not one came from St Paul. St Paul residents had a higher expectation of being able to communicate with police and also had a higher expectation of smaller, calmer, more strategic police interventions.
People clearly had different expectations of what even non-violence is. People had different expectations of what peaceful protest looks like. If one lives in St Paul, hearing that someone breaking one's own front window is considered "nonviolent" is clearly a shock and clearly not my opinion. Violence is method independent of beliefs or roles.
So we could have a protester who becomes very violent and dangerous to everyone around that person. Now that person may say that it is OK because he or she was provoked or had good cause. Does that matter? A police officer could use peaceful methods with minimum force to execute an arrest or could use an excessive amount force causing grave injury to the person being arrested. Does the police officer get to say it is ok because he or she was provoked or had good cause?
Is it OK for a "RNC Welcoming Committee" to blockade St Paul causing many people to be late for work? What if each person delayed asked for an equal time delay back from the same blockade person, so that if the blockade person delayed a hundred people an hour from work, they each in return were allowed to delay the blockade person an hour each (totaling a 100 hours) from his or her job? If the "RNC Welcoming Committee" has a problem with people attending the RNC Convention, then why are they targeting random innocent people? So wouldn't it be just as legitimate for peace advocates who are always lawful to blame and randomly attack members of "RNC Welcoming Committee", when they have a problem with people attending the RNC Convention? What if a bunch of St Paul residents picked one member of "RNC Welcoming Committee" at random and blockaded their driveway just before an important trip, like the first day of a vacation, with the car fully loaded and the whole family waiting?
A Critical Mass ride clearly demonstrated that the police used very shallow excuses like swerving and disobeying minor traffic laws to violently attack and arrest without warning or even conversation. Clearly, a few profane words were used as an excuse by the police to physically abuse people. Could any non-police force have intervened in any successful way or would that have been used as excuse for even more violence? What if a totally innocent person was beaten or tazered to death by the police while people just watched? So what can people do? How do you call 911 to report police to other police?
If everyone clearly distrusts the Minneapolis police, then why isn't there massive action for police change by ordinary citizens? Why doesn't everyone ask for change? Do we believe that police are incapable of being restrained and considerate and fair? Why weren't the police put trial for their actions at the Critical Mass ride, especially since they lied to cover up?
So it was witnesses, cameras and video recording that brought justice on the Critical Mass ride, is that were our focus should be? Should we witness and report? Is there a way of isolating and protecting those watching from those participating while still allowing the witnessing? If we are to witness against those who violate norms, rules and expectations, then should we also not witness for those who do extraordinarily well in extreme adversity?
Should not the first rule, always be do no harm? So should every action be considered on whether it would help or hurt? And what team would have the time to do that kind of decision making in rush situation?
If one person attacks someone else, then clearly protecting the person who does not want to engage is important. What if both people clearly want to fight, is ethical to interfere with choice? Or are we to assume that it is posturing and people would want to be stopped? When is choice honored and when is choice interfered with?
See - way too many questions! No answers. I do believe that violence is method independent of beliefs. Therefore I see all sides of issue and all roles as capable of violence. How does one act for peace in face of violence?
»
- Grace Kelly's blog
- Login to post comments
Stumble It!
Violence isn't force Violence is...from another Peace Keeper
Kelly, are you sure you aren't talking about force where you are using the word "violence"? It is force to break one's window. Violence, is a word we often use to describe damage or harm done. Marshal Rosenberg uses the concept "power over" (vs. "power with", which is non violent) to define violence. It is violent to break a person's window to punish them for not doing as you want.
It seems to me people confuse force with violence, perhaps because we can easily see the method of raw force behind the violence we most notice. It is easy to see violence when a person hits another. It is harder to see violence where force is not present, but violence can certainly be there.
A person beats up another person and takes their life savings: Violence! (and force) A different person takes another's life savings through usurous loans: You didn't see force, so maybe you don't think it is violence. I see violence, backed by the threat of force of law, but no force is ever physically used. Power over was used. So it is violence to take a person's life savings through usurous loans.
On the other hand, my child is playing a computer game. He has not eaten, we (him and his brothers)are going to visit the Grandparents. He responds to every request to get off the computer and eat and be ready to visit the Grandparents with..."I just have to get this one more..." and on it goes. He isn't able to listen. He isn't able to be aware of others needs. He is stuck on his "one more" cycle on the computer game. So I use force (greater strength and social power) and turn the comuter off. He tried to stop me but I overwhelmed his strength and turned it off. Was that violence?
No. It was force, non-violent protective force. It was not violent. I was protecting others rights. I was doing no harm. I was not doing it to punish. I was doing it with the intent of consideration for Grandparents and those of us in the house waiting, and from a need to nurture and care for my son, who was in an addictive trance.