I'd say a combination of "having something to prove" and not personally knowing what it's like to kill someone who is trying to kill you -- the whole armchair warrior thing.
Over my life, I've tried different ways of "blending in." Fortunately, I've managed to cultivate both a friendly disposition and the type of friends who, although they may not always understand what I'm saying, shrug and smile and say, "Well, that's Rachel."
My hubby, unlike some of these affectionate but confused friends, participates with me in esoterica (much to our mutual delight.)
[South Africa]
One of the identifying characteristics of the Reconciliation Trials was that those guilty of crimes were not allowed to whitewash or deny their culpability.
In order to be pardoned, the perpetrator must, in full, explicit detail, confess exactly what he had done. This was done in a public forum, and the story was told to the surviving family members of the person he had tortured, mutilated and murdered.
This allowed the possibility of closure on the behalf of the family -- their loved one was no longer an anonymous disappeared, and all knew what had been done so that the family had less of a need to carry the cross of vengeance themselves.
And then -- and only then -- in a conscious effort to break the cycle of retribution, the guilty party was pardoned and allowed to attempt to rebuild his life.
Pretty powerful concept, IMHO.
PS Seth -- so far, new poster notwithstanding, you're doing just fine by me.
War is evil. Slavery is appalling and horrific. Our Civil War destroyed lives on a catastrophic level.
Having said that, there are always better or worse choices that can be made.
I saw a documentary on the History Channel a month or so ago about the week after Lincoln was assassinated, and one of things that struck me was how, when there was a choice between diving even deeper into retribution and bloodshed, or stepping back, surrendering on one side and allowing the loser to save face on the other, there were a few men (including RELee) who chose the side of healing, quite likely preserving the fragile US from years of further destruction.
In an anecdote which may or may not be apocryphal (I don't have enough info to say), RELee was said to have helped break the color barrier at a newly integrated church when an African-American man knelt for communion, and no one would kneel beside him until RELee came forward and joined him.
For what it's worth.
I'm not doing too badly. I stopped watching the news.
Back when we were dropping bombs on Kosovo, I had a letter printed in the LA Times which basically said that the real conflict wasn't between Serbs and Albanians any more than the earlier war was between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians. Rather, the real war was between extremists of any stripe and normal people who wanted to lived normal lives.
Sounds like it's a universal battle. Me, I'm on the side of Normal Lives.
Actually, there has been a thematic consistency to the Bush Administration's actions in regard to foreign policy, especially in terms of attempting to promote American hegemony on a global level.
It reminds me of people who are so insecure about their ability to deal with life that they feel they need to micro-manage every last detail of everything, and heaven forbid something happens that they didn't have absolute control over.
Mr. President, Life is not about control. It's about communication and cooperation. We are the most powerful nation on the planet -- it's not only tacky to rub others' noses in it, but it increases the desire of others to take us down.
Grow up.
Does anyone have a transcription of CJ's speech on "West Wing" when the school girls burned to death in Saudi Arabia because the firemen weren't allowed inside a girl's school?
The rant tightly but calmly listed a number of atrocities and ended with, "Am I outraged? But these are our Partners In Peace."
Wasn't it Benjamin Franklin who said that those who are willing to give up liberty (freedom) for security (safety) deserve neither -- ?
BTW, I just wanted to thank everyone who's been participating in these discussions. There have been some beautifully articulated arguments that have helped me understand my own sometimes amorphous feelings of dread, and I hope you don't mind that I've co-opted a few of them, as they inspired me to actually write my reps (real letters, not just email.)
Fingers crossed....
re: Timothy/David thread
A petition which states that the US hasn't made a good case for war would be strengthened by
(1) admitting that there is a problem (thus diffusing accusations of Ignoring/Denying The Danger or Being Fluffy Headed)
(2) providing alternatives to war as a means of solving the problem.
Okay, now THAT'S a group of suggestions that I can get behind 100%. Deal with the problems, not the symptoms. I think it has been shown pretty conclusively that people who are healthy and well-fed and feel some sense of security are far less likely to succumb to extremist rhetoric than their starving, hopeless, scared counterparts.
Of course, this would require time, financial commitment, and faith in humanity as a whole.... I'm choosing not to complete this with a cynical comment because, well, I happen to believe in a more hopeful human future.
Actually, it seems like what Graydon's saying sounds very similar to Emma's arguments that you previously linked to.
(Sorry about a quasi-double post, since I first read and responded to David Moles' link to this before heading over here>)
When I was first introduced to Meyers-Briggs typologies back in high school, I was able to identify the essence of the Introvert/Extrovert dichotomy (since so many people have periods of both): when under stress, Extroverts need to be around people to recharge, and Introverts need to be alone. It's the recharging of energy that seems to be the deciding factor.
So, for an introvert, when Life is going well, sometimes interacting with others is easy and sometimes it takes effort, but when there is a lot going on, it truly can be a strain.
Me, I am a flaming Extrovert, and that capital "E" really says it all. And "we" really do seem to take over social situations. Introverts prefer to think about what they want to say before they say it, so by the time they've figured out what they want to say, the Extroverts have been on a kind of verbal journey towards whatever they want to say, a journey that they're sharing out loud with the rest of the world. It's taken me a lot of practice to learn how to shut up and wait to see if anyone else is interested in saying anything, rather than assuming that just because they're not babbling at my speed that they have nothing they want to say. (Blanket apologies to all those I have inadvertantly run over in the process.)
I hate when people insist that something complex is a single issue, and that there are only two sides of it. Me, I personally believe that attacking Iraq is not necessarily our most effective choice in dealing with The Situation, however that situation is defined.
At the same time, even if I did believe that Saddam were a clear and present danger which could only be neutralized by overwhelming force, I sure as heck wouldn't try to rally support by insults and bullying! Gee, let's place the UN in a situation where, if they do decide that what "we" want to do is in the best interests of the international community, they will look like they're merely caving in to American interests, thus destroying any remaining credibility it might have as an independent body.
Um, I kind of hijacked the "Yes, anti-war activists DO have brains" subject with my own hobby horse. Sorry about that.
{: )
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2003 | 20 |
Total: 21 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Rachel Heslin:
Show all comments by Rachel Heslin.