anti-war: December 2007 Archives

The preceding verse was read by Jon Krakauer as he introduced the man featured in the book, Three Cups of Tea, about the establishment of schools, primarily for girls, in northeastern Pakistan. I was moved, reading about the realization of such a monumental project, on the flight to Israel and during a rainy afternoon in the Old City, Jerusalem.

I am reminded, on the day after Benazir Bhutto's assassination, of the people who strive for good lives, who wish to co-exist without hostility.

"...who demonstrates patriotism today—the critics who stand fast by our foundational values? Or those who would ignore our traditions by reaching quickly for the base and the brutal? No real patriot today, no citizen who is concerned about the fate of our fellow citizens in uniform, can be silent on this issue."

This is the challenge.

Non-violent resistance, as a synonym for peace activism, still centers "violence" as the standard. The force of much anti-war talk revolves around violence as the anchor, providing energy that feeds momentum. I have been puzzling over this discursive looping for a long time: all talk is subject to perpetuating something. That "something" is wildly out of our control - because "it" is always mediated by interpretation.

I have been guilty, way too often, of getting caught up in layers of interpretation ("processing") instead of maintaining discursive intentionality. In a dialogue, both/all parties recognize the inevitable looping, making conscious choices about a) when to discard the historical baggage and b) how to create the present interaction on preferred terms. Shared recognition is, I think, key to successful shifting. Recognition is not the same as acknowledgment: acknowledgment (disclosure) will be important on some matters to establish trust but is not always necessary. If depended upon overmuch, distrust will grow in response to apparent evidence that recognition can never be assumed.