When it comes to genocide, I think we have a responsibility to take a side against it.
I love this: "If we are confused, we must unravel the confusion. If numb, we must investigate our numbness. If we despair, we must sit with it. If we are angry, we must know why. Only then will we know what our role is. To speak or remain silent. To know what we will say and how to say it. Or if we are silent, to know why."
In terms of taking sides, we should ultimately be on the side of peace and justice. I feel this approach is the most objective and rational.
No doubt, in many conflicts/wars including the ones we have in the present, one side will definitely have more justification and be more in the right, compared to the other side. In such cases, there will also be one side that's committed far more atrocities and brutality, and thus deserves far more condemnation and lawful punishment, compared to the other side.
During those conflicts, it's definitely understandable to be on the side that's more justified and in the right. But at the same time, it's crucial for us to look at the broader picture and goal, that is to end all the death and destruction, and reform the system by putting solid safeguards in place to prevent such conflicts and wars from taking place again. For this to happen, we need to be on the side of peace and justice.
Don’t get me wrong, I support all that you say here. I have seen stuff from the old American black liberation movement that draws a line between peace and justice. You can’t have peace without justice, but justice isn’t necessarily peaceful. This was the conclusion Malcolm X came to. From a very zoomed out perspective, I wonder if the Matrix is revisiting this little chestnut...
When it comes to genocide, I think we have a responsibility to take a side against it.
I love this: "If we are confused, we must unravel the confusion. If numb, we must investigate our numbness. If we despair, we must sit with it. If we are angry, we must know why. Only then will we know what our role is. To speak or remain silent. To know what we will say and how to say it. Or if we are silent, to know why."
Thank you. I was just watching the long interview with Norm Finkelstein on Breaking Points Substack. The last question he deals with is about this.
https://open.substack.com/pub/normanfinkelstein/p/what-should-we-do-after-theres-a?r=2vuer&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
The background . . . The Political Economy of Genocide.
https://les7eb.substack.com/p/genocide-and-economics
In terms of taking sides, we should ultimately be on the side of peace and justice. I feel this approach is the most objective and rational.
No doubt, in many conflicts/wars including the ones we have in the present, one side will definitely have more justification and be more in the right, compared to the other side. In such cases, there will also be one side that's committed far more atrocities and brutality, and thus deserves far more condemnation and lawful punishment, compared to the other side.
During those conflicts, it's definitely understandable to be on the side that's more justified and in the right. But at the same time, it's crucial for us to look at the broader picture and goal, that is to end all the death and destruction, and reform the system by putting solid safeguards in place to prevent such conflicts and wars from taking place again. For this to happen, we need to be on the side of peace and justice.
Don’t get me wrong, I support all that you say here. I have seen stuff from the old American black liberation movement that draws a line between peace and justice. You can’t have peace without justice, but justice isn’t necessarily peaceful. This was the conclusion Malcolm X came to. From a very zoomed out perspective, I wonder if the Matrix is revisiting this little chestnut...
You make a good, relevant point on the connection between peace and justice.
Yes, I agree. BDS could and should be highly effective. that's why the establishment is hard at work criminalising it...