who owns violence?
…. referring to what Chris said in the first comment of my post “animosity toward bikers,” he said, “I think history has shown that trying to bring about a desired effect through fear and the threat of violence generally doesn’t work in the end”
Actually, after thinking about it. I disagree. I think we have seen violence as being a very good tactic in achieving “desired affects.” This is a bit off topic, but, for example, when you think of our culture and it’s relationship indigenous groups, violence has been a very successful tactic in achieving a “desired effect” (which was access to more land with less indigenous). Further, deforestation is violence done to the forest, and dams similarly murder rivers. But the desired effect of this violence gives us more farmland and subdivisions as well as hydro power allowing us to smelt aluminum ..etc.
The threat of violence is also real. The threat of men’s violence has been successful in subjugating women, the threat of violence from cops keeps us all in line…even the threat of a bully on the playground keeps kids from being their true selves.
The point is, to bring it back to this topic on bikes (and Marcy, this is where Derrick Jensen is relevant again), those in power or those on the street who think they’re in power do not own violence. Just because I’m a peaceful person doesn’t mean that I’m never allowed to use violence, no matter how I might define it or when I think it is warranted.
Think about it: It would be pretty ideal for any power structure based on violence to rule over a population of pacifists. Nonviolent resistance has had its place in history and has helped to unite people and bring about positive and necessary change. Today, however, peaceful protesters are shot with rubber bullets and tear gas. Gandhi and MLK Jr. achieved a lot by promoting nonviolent resistance, but by instilling this tactic as the principle force against violence, I believe a disservice has been done in the wake of obviously crucial and positive necessities like civil rights and equality (or a move toward equality, anyway).
If I saw a woman being raped or a child being beaten, I’m not a big guy, but you better believe I’d step in. People often say, “if you use violence, you’ll be just as bad as them.” That’s crap. If I knockout a rapist, will I start raping women? If I knockout someone beating a child, will I start beating children? That logic just doesn’t make any sense. Now don’t be confused, I’ve never “knocked out” anyone, nor would I like to. But the point is, that doesn’t mean that option is closed to me. If I get hit on my bike by a beer bottle and don’t do anything, raise any hell, or do something to raise awareness, I remain a victim. And that is devastating to anyone’s self-esteem. Talk to any surviver of violence about that.
So, violence and the threat of violence has, indeed, been very successful in achieving “desired effects,” but, perhaps, nobody likes to admit that they’ve become, or become a part of, the “desired effect.”
Every biker who is on the road frequently has their own story of harassment on the road, whether it was intentional violence, unecessarily put in danger, or the threat of violence. Thumb through the bike blogs; we all talk about these things. Here is one of many examples.
Explore posts in the same categories: identity, rabblerousers
July 15th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Good post. You know, I’d like to point out to any “pacifists” that if someone does something wrong to you, and you call the cops, guess what? You’ve just used violence. You’re once removed from it, but you’re involved in it just the same. Do you think the cops are going to be pacifists if the guy tries to flee? If he resists arrest? Hell, no. So, in using the police to enforce the laws, we’re all saying that violence has a place in society.
I personally am not comfortable with this. I mean, I understand the limits of pacifism, but it bothers me to think of embracing violence. I don’t like violence, and I don’t like knowing that once an individual or a culture has chosen violence, it is forever on the table as an option. But, yet, I’m not going to stand idly by while someone tries to harm my cats (I don’t have kids) or one of my friends or family members.
If bikers started using violence against motorists, would the motorists escalate their violence against the cyclists? I don’t know. It’s possible that they would just go pick on someone else who won’t fight back.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
in most relationships characterized by hierarchy and violence (which I guess isn’t much of a relationship to begin with…) the violence flows in one direction and when the norm is broken, the retaliation is worse than the previous pattern. If anyone has been in a physically abusive relationship (and I have not), they would most likely tell you, if they tell you anything, if they ever fought back, the retaliation beating was far worse than anything.
But it’s not really like that with motorists and bicyclists because the relationship is different. It’s not an ‘us’ v. ‘them’ thing and I think it is harmful when people think in those terms. But at the same time, I do think there would be some serious retaliation by the individual motorists who already have a predisposition toward violence.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Hmm, I wonder though. I remember reading something about relationships. It had to do with changing the interaction. For example, someone who was constantly being treated like a doormat. The author said that when that person starts to stand up for herself, the other person will escalate in order to get that person to back down. The key is, the author said, to not back down. Understand that escalation will happen, but don’t back down. Because once you back down, it will be harder the next time. It’s going to take more and more escalation before they finally give up.
It’s like a kid having a temper tantrum in a store. If you try to just ignore it or wait it out, the tantrum will get worse. Maybe the kid would have stopped after 3 minutes. But if you can’t take anymore and give the kid what he wants after two minutes, then the next time you try to wait out the tantrum, he’s gonna go much longer before he gives up.
This all makes sense psychologically, but I still don’t know if I would want to risk it by retaliating with a motorist. The worst part of all this is that society-at-large doesn’t care. Motorists who actually run over and kill cyclists are NEVER arrested. It’s not considered important. Hell, if we retaliated, we’d probably get treated like those lesbians who were just defending themselves.
This culture sucks. I’m not even gonna try to survive the collapse. I’ll just die of starvation. It’s a pretty easy way to go. I’m just sick of everything.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
This culture sucks. I’m not even gonna try to survive the collapse. I’ll just die of starvation. It’s a pretty easy way to go. I’m just sick of everything.
That’s the spirit! Seriously though. I think it is pretty easy for anyone who has spent any considerable amount of time thinking about these things to get depressed. It’s hard to talk about change when you can only think of a handful of people who will stand by you (this is worse when those friends are online).
I think the best thing you or anyone can do is identify a gift that you have that is truly unique to you. Think about how you might be able to apply that gift to moving the culture in the right direction. We need everyone.
July 18th, 2007 at 6:26 am
yeah. i stopped believing in nonviolent resistance somewhere around the age of 21. it just doesn’t get anyone anywhere. sorry for not commenting more intelligently, except to say that i’m NOT a pacifist anymore.
July 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
You need to get a real job Jess and become a productive member of society.
July 18th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Ringo,
1. As the moderator of this blog, I will not tolerate any personal attacks. 2. At the very least, if you wish to comment, please make your comments relevant to the topic at hand. This is now the second time you’ve done this. If you’re not going to contribute meaningfully to the conversation, I’ll just delete your comments or block your IP address altogether. I’ve been nothing but courteous to you. The least you can do is be respectful.
What is it about this blog that elicits such a negative emotional response from you? Maybe a better question: if you hate the discourse in this blog, why do you keep coming back?
July 19th, 2007 at 3:00 am
well thanks kyle, but i don’t even think this person knows what s/he is talking about? unless they know me personally, which i doubt… at any rate, it’s kind of funny because how does not being a pacifist relate to my job …?
(sorry, i know you are moderating kyle, but i just had to point out the silliness of it.)