|
I spent the hour and a half drive home today thinking and reflecting on why I feel the way I do about violence.
My stance on violence has always been that I am, as a person, fundamentally against it. And more often than not, I find myself wondering how violence solves anything. Whenever I am asked about my stance on violence (which is often as I am quite vocal about my beliefs sometimes), I have always answered that I am against it. And so out of the blue, on the drive home, I found myself wondering why I felt this way-- as I am one of those people who feels that if I am to believe something, I should be able to explain that reasoning.
And in the end, I think, it came down to this: My thought process concluded that the real, actual problem with violence is that it is used in excess.
Violence is most frequently used by someone in a position of power.
An abusive male in a relationship beats his wife for power and control over her. (Why, because she spilled his drink?)
Osama Bin Laden is the head of a group that believes what he does, and he used his
power and influence to attack the US. (Why?)
Saddam Hussein used violence to get his followers and people in "line" so to speak, and obey him. (Why?)
Churchill, in WW whatever, used his influence and power along with the US to go all-out (so to speak) to help win the war. (Why add more violence to a war?)
Truman used his influence and power to drop two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WWII to end the war. (Why bomb two cities, affecting generations and generations of people both at that time and for years to come, simply to end the war?)
Bush invades Iraq and bombs cities full of civilians who are innocent. (Why not just go after ONLY the people involved with Saddam?)
Hate crimes. (Why? For privileges.)
And on and on it goes. It's a power trip. Most of the time, when violence is used, it is used in excess. Why bomb a nation to target its leaders? It's so excessive and disturbing to me. I can understand shooting down a dictator to ease the pain of a nation. I can't understand ruining the lives of thousands of others to do it though.
And it, to me, always appears to involve some sort of power. Sure, there are instances in which a homeless man will kill another solely for food-- but can you blame him for that? It's primal instinct to do what it takes to survive. Desperation drives one to do things, and though perhaps there are better ways of gaining food, it makes it a bit easier to comprehend and understand-- he did it to survive.
But that's not the case most of the time. And I think that is what I have an actual problem with-- unnecessary violence. Violence that affects innocent people. The only problem is, it's so difficult to differentiate between violence in general and unnecessary violence when violence in and of itself is so often used in excess.
|