The Humanity
of the Non-Pacifist:
Beyond September 11th
Jennifer
Kimble
"Love
is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal
to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of
its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat the evil system.
Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love,
but you seek to defeat the system."
Martin
Luther King
Loving Your Enemies
17 November 1959
The year Martin
Luther King spoke these words, he had been very active in the civil
rights movement for four long years, experiencing incarceration, threats
on his life, and even being targeted for investigation under the auspices
that he had committed a criminal act. Despite this treatment, King was
able to determine that his enemies were not the people who jailed, threatened
or targeted him, rather his enemy was a system of unjustness.
In the days following
the U.S. decision to bomb Afghanistan in response to the terrorist attack
on September 11th, many pacifists have taken up the role of advocates
for the innocent civilians in Afghanistan, believing military action
is unjust. In response to the pacifist movement there has been a reaction
that can only be described as a cultural prejudice against those who
object to military action. Doing a basic web-search post-September 11th
with the keyword of pacifism, I have found a number of sites that do
not put pacifists in the best light. Some of these websites could even
be considered hate-sites.
During times of
fear, it is unfortunately common that people will lash out against an
idea or other people they do not understand. This was evident days after
September 11th when the number of bias-motivated crimes directed against
Muslims elevated at an alarming rate. Hate is fear and fear is the disintegration
of humanity.
Unfortunately pacifists
are not immune to dehumanizing their adversary. When I first arrived
on the EMU campus four years ago, I was quite surprised at the negative
responses I received when I told people that my father had spent close
to 30 years in the Army. It seemed that many people believed that he
not only served an immoral institution, but he himself encompassed wickedness.
Post-September
11th has not changed these attitudes. In recent weeks I have heard comments
that EMU reservist students are war-mongers, churches which support
military response are Godless, and faculty who support the government
agencies that are attempting to relieve suffering to Afghan people are
"sickening." I am saddened by these sentiments, yet I do recognize
that behind the hurtful words are the visions of a people who want peace
and justice for the world and for this country. I too, as a non-pacifist,
have this wish, as do the majority of Americans, but I must ask those
pacifists who see the military or those who work for the government
as the enemy or even as evil, "at what price does peace come?"
In his quest forty
years ago to acquire fundamental rights for all, King committed himself
to the dignity of every human being. This commitment incorporated those
who considered themselves to be his enemies. Even his enemies, King
believed, had dignity as human beings worthy of his respect, despite
the error or their ways. Through this approach towards social change,
King and his many supporters were able to amend many laws and transform
many hearts towards the issue of treatment of Americans of African descent.
I wonder how King would respond to the division which exists between
American pacifist and non-pacifist? Could the pacifist see the dignity
of his advocacy and, rather than focusing upon the person, focus upon
the system?
"The ultimate
measure of a man," Martin Luther King once stated, "is not
where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he
stands at a time of challenge and controversy." We, as a nation,
no doubt are in a moment of challenge and controversy, but for all of
us the question is still "where do I stand?"
At the moment,
pacifist and non-pacifist are standing at opposite ends of the protest
arena, vocalizing their specific beliefs, yelling at one another and
potentially losing site of the humanity in the other. Civil rights leaders
of the 1960s recognized that by standing in opposition to another human
being there was a danger in dehumanizing the opponent. To combat that
possibility, each sit-in volunteer was required to sign a "commandment
card" before they participated in the Birmingham movement.
As we begin this
aspect of the social movement of non-violence, let us be reminded of
these basic principles, adapted from the Birmingham commandment card,
and perhaps make the decision to pledge ourselves to its standpoint.
I hereby pledge
myself - my person and body - to the nonviolent movement. Therefore,
I will keep the following commandments:
- Meditate daily
on the teachings and life of Jesus.
- Remember always
that the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not
victory.
- Walk and talk
in the manner of love, for God is love.
- Pray daily
to be used by God in order that all men and women might be free.
- Sacrifice personal
wishes in order that all men and women might be free.
- Observe with
both friend and foe the ordinary rules of courtesy.
- Seek to perform
regular service for others and for the world.
- Refrain from
the violence of fist, tongue, or heart.
- Strive to be
in good spiritual and bodily health.
Amen.
Jennifer
Kimble (CTP '01) is currently the director of EMU's Multicultural Services.
