I consider myself to be a non-violent person. Though I am not a pacifist. I would like to be, but I there is a threshold to where I would personally use and condone violence. I am generally more certain, probably less-critically, unfortunately, about my threshold regarding condoning others to use violence. Yet on a personal level, I struggle with where exactly the line of violence lays- and wonder if many others struggle with it.
To clarify the matter, it seems probable that many people have come accross 'state violence' whether 'legitimized' or not. This includes state opression through law enforcement, or military/government agencies. Furthermore, those with violent or harmful intent of their own that are not legitimate (such as rapists/kidnappers) are another factor.
Also, I'd like to differentiate between 'force' and 'violence.' Being forceful, or using force, I would generally consider to be something that could not lead to permanent or extreme harm (in itself a poor definition). I will try an example. For instance, I intervened in a domestic dispute where a man was slapping a woman around. I grabbed the man and threw him off, using force, though he would have sustained no more than a bruise. Luckily I seemed intimidating enough that the coward chose not to pick a larger fight, and the police were on their way as I spoke. Were I to, have instead, pulled out my switchblade that I carry from time to time and slit his throat, that would have been 'violent.' Both, yes, do use force and violence, but no matter what lexical name you give, I am trying to differentiate between two intentional actions.
On a personal level, I have only used a form of violence on someone thrice(and I am ashamed of it). The first was more an accident/substance induced. The other two were fights in my past, where I was literally trying to harm the other person as much as I could (no weapons).
It is not a proud thing, but indeed, a fact any way.
I have attempted to define violence, so it is clear what I mean. However, that does not explain my existing quandary: namely, when is it ok to use violence on others?
I have thought about this quite a bit. Being that I am both a leftist and a dissident, and have been arrested/detained and have seen or been subject to police assault/brutality here in the U.S. Furthermore, I have full record of (under the patriot act) being under survelience. In a country that is as... restrained and 'free' as the US is, I can only imagine what many people go through in countries with a lot worse domestic human rights records. When is it ok to fight back, to commit violence instead of 'taking' it? Does resistence also include planned attacks in self defense?
Again, I seem to be more willing to say, 'yes, you have a right to fight back against violence being done to you.' On a personal level, I would indeed probably be very violent if a loved one was being threatened. The response to the 'legitimized' entity is what troubles me the most.
I firmly believe that most law enforcement officials are generally good people, who want to help others. I have police officials in my extended family, and myself was in Air Force reserves for alturistic motives - to help others (heh). I would like to believe that most law enforcement, at least that I have known, have the intent to keep order. However, they are on the 'side' of the government and have been used as a tool many times to be very violent for, what I feel, were acts of social injustice. For instance, repression of labor, and violence against civil rights workers was a mainstay tactic in years past. Immortal Techique, a progressive artist, has a stanza that reads:
"concrete jungle guierrla war in the streets" - which makes me think about open conflict with the police, with the guardians of power who will do whatever they can to hold onto that power.
When is it ok to fight back? At what point can one justify self defense against 'state legitimized' 'terrorism'? There are times where I feel I could pick up a gun and off a cop who just beat a 90-pound girl at a protest. Yet I know that, some how, that would not be a good thing - and certainly not something I want to do. I think violence is terrible. Yet I realize there is a difference between violence of the oppressed and of the oppressors. At some point, though, both of those often become muddled in conflicts. Concurrently, I refuse to just sit down and either get killed myself or watched loved ones get killed or seriously injured. Is that me being selfish in the greater cause of peace? Or is it a visceral reaction that is built into us for survival? Yet if it is... what is the difference between aggression in the name of self-defense that ends up in 'gain' of something, and self-defense that is only defends but does not increase in the 'gain' of any thing but... I do not know.
Knowing when to cross the line of bloodshed is not an random decision.. but it is also something that seems like it must be decided at that time period. My problem with this dilema, is that deciding at a time that may or may not require violence usually is irrational... and thus the probability of going throw with violence seems more apparant. Do others, around the world struggle with this quagmire... or is it a much simpler answer.
Peace is not just a word.. it is a guiding principle to me. Sadly, principles often get thrown out the window when you're just trying to survive.
