Pacifism has permeated American culture in many fairly bizarre ways. The most notable of which is among people who declare themselves outright pacifists. Most typically, these are women, which is a really faint delclaration seeing as how they are very rarely called upon to fight, militarily or otherise. By "otherwise" I mean fist-fight. If I'm physically attacked in public, The first question anyone will ask in response is "Did/Why didn't you hit them back". Whereas a female will only be told "I'm glad you weren't seriously hurt!".
When declared by a male, even in the theme of this post, I question whether he's just trying to be unusual in his opinions for whatever reason, or if he's only considered the issue of combat in it's simplest and most innofenstive of definitions(example: Does violence make you upset?). Males however are more likely to have amalgamated some "I'm a pacifist...unless..." position in the form of "I don't throw the first punch, but if someone else does, I'm going to fight and win!". This is the most ridiculous declaration I've heard, and the one I've heard most often. It's like elevating the "eye for an eye" ethos(already counter-indicative of pacifism) to "ideology for an ideology". All this form of non-violence, if it can be called so, indicates is that the proponent won't use violence on non-violent people. That's great and all, for women and me, but doesn't mean anything in an already violent world except you're willing to put yourself at a disadvantage by accepting the first blow/offensive(which can sometimes be the only one).
And finally, there's the confirmed pacifist. Someone who doesn't think violence works pragmatically, or ethically. This is still split in 3, with my position being "doesn't work pragmatically" exclusively. No one responds to violence against them or their culture by deciding "Damn, we really learned our lesson. Ever since those hateful men hurt me/destroyed everything I love, I've decided they're right". They get angry and exact revenge, become depressed, or fight against the agressors in non-violent ways. Fighting against the agressors in non-violent ways is the most respectable and sensible option. Because in the first step you agree that what they did is wrong, and you can't simply retaliate with violence which would be equally wrong. In the second step you decide what they did cannot go ignored, because it's wrong. And in the third step you are attempting to defeat them by methods they didn't think could work themselves. No opressor has ever staged a sit-in or bloc to get their way.
I don't think that those who use violence are evil or wrong. They're emotional and unreasonable, and I was the same way, when I was a child. Anyone who can hold onto those "ideals", if they can be called so, into adulthood can not be considered rationally or ethically(if you're into that sort of thing) sound. I'm a pacifist. Not because Violence makes me cry, not because violence is preached against by my religion, but because violence doesn't work, and never has.
What's in a name?
One of the more irritating and slightly sad things white people do it speculate about their heritage or ancestry. I say, speculate, because that's exactly what it is. Here's why:
My government last name is Volz. It's pronounced as "VolTz" and because of that, you may have guessed it's german because of pronounciation. Volz:Voltz::Nazi:Natzi. Roughly translated it means "Folk", meaning, ya know, "people". Even if translations were 100% accurate, that wouldn't imply much of anything about my ancestry, even if it could imply something about it, which it can't.
ONE- names in the united states, by tradition but not by law, are passed from the father. So my name has been passed, for whatever reason(no reason at all) because a bunch of dudes with the last name "volz" managed to breed. How "german" I am has nothing to do with my name except "someone was german, sometime.". Observe:
German dude breeds with sweedish chick- children 50% german
Male child(50% German) breeds with Irish chick- Children 25% German
Male Child(25% German) breeds with American chick(like, plymouth rock style)- children 12.5% German with 12.5% margin of error)
Male child breeds with "who cares?" chick(true in the first line)- children barely german, dispite namesake.
TWO- In addition to/despite namesake, some use family histories to make definite statements about ancestry. Family histories are just like real history, except worse. Unless you are from a very famous, literate, and proud family, The only account of your family history is written by the family itself. One, biased account. Would you agree with an account of history with only one author, who was involved in it? If so, You'd belive elvis never did drugs and Hitler was half jewish.
No one writes a family history with the intention of making the family sound bad, so any positive statements you could find in it are speculative.
THREE- Place of origin does not speak to character. If I was to use my own origins(speculative, as mentioned above), All I could tell was where my blood relatives were from and when they moved. Using that, you can't tell anything. German immigrants moving to america in the last 200 years? The reasons are as vast as: religious persecution, curiosity, thinking america was a great place, escaping justice in germany, avoiding serving in a war, boredom, Thinking germany is a little too cold for their liking, Hearing the roads were paved with gold in america, Being mentally ill, feeling like it, Seeking to profit from ignorant people, and seeking to liberate ignorant people. You really can't tell.
FOUR- Ethnicity denotes nothing. So even if you've calculated the fraction of your primary(usually plurality, not majority) Ethnic history, And you're 100% sure it was from the most noble/respectable parts of that forgotten and irrelevant society, That really doesn't effect how you act and who you are. Genetics has no memory, accept the memory encouraged by modern society.
If it did, it would mean because your ancestors were smart and courageous people, That you're smart and courageous by default. But on the other side of the coin, it would mean those whose ancestors were ignorant and cowardly, would be ignorant and cowardly be default. The idea is clearly racist and bigoted. A logical person can't see it one-sided; As in the case of "Those with good ancestry are good, and those with bad ancestry can rise above anyhow" If the positivity you feel with your ancestry or family history is legitamite, then racialism is true. If you don't think it's true(and you ought not), Then your family history doesn't mean jack shit.
I am an american.
My government last name is Volz. It's pronounced as "VolTz" and because of that, you may have guessed it's german because of pronounciation. Volz:Voltz::Nazi:Natzi. Roughly translated it means "Folk", meaning, ya know, "people". Even if translations were 100% accurate, that wouldn't imply much of anything about my ancestry, even if it could imply something about it, which it can't.
ONE- names in the united states, by tradition but not by law, are passed from the father. So my name has been passed, for whatever reason(no reason at all) because a bunch of dudes with the last name "volz" managed to breed. How "german" I am has nothing to do with my name except "someone was german, sometime.". Observe:
German dude breeds with sweedish chick- children 50% german
Male child(50% German) breeds with Irish chick- Children 25% German
Male Child(25% German) breeds with American chick(like, plymouth rock style)- children 12.5% German with 12.5% margin of error)
Male child breeds with "who cares?" chick(true in the first line)- children barely german, dispite namesake.
TWO- In addition to/despite namesake, some use family histories to make definite statements about ancestry. Family histories are just like real history, except worse. Unless you are from a very famous, literate, and proud family, The only account of your family history is written by the family itself. One, biased account. Would you agree with an account of history with only one author, who was involved in it? If so, You'd belive elvis never did drugs and Hitler was half jewish.
No one writes a family history with the intention of making the family sound bad, so any positive statements you could find in it are speculative.
THREE- Place of origin does not speak to character. If I was to use my own origins(speculative, as mentioned above), All I could tell was where my blood relatives were from and when they moved. Using that, you can't tell anything. German immigrants moving to america in the last 200 years? The reasons are as vast as: religious persecution, curiosity, thinking america was a great place, escaping justice in germany, avoiding serving in a war, boredom, Thinking germany is a little too cold for their liking, Hearing the roads were paved with gold in america, Being mentally ill, feeling like it, Seeking to profit from ignorant people, and seeking to liberate ignorant people. You really can't tell.
FOUR- Ethnicity denotes nothing. So even if you've calculated the fraction of your primary(usually plurality, not majority) Ethnic history, And you're 100% sure it was from the most noble/respectable parts of that forgotten and irrelevant society, That really doesn't effect how you act and who you are. Genetics has no memory, accept the memory encouraged by modern society.
If it did, it would mean because your ancestors were smart and courageous people, That you're smart and courageous by default. But on the other side of the coin, it would mean those whose ancestors were ignorant and cowardly, would be ignorant and cowardly be default. The idea is clearly racist and bigoted. A logical person can't see it one-sided; As in the case of "Those with good ancestry are good, and those with bad ancestry can rise above anyhow" If the positivity you feel with your ancestry or family history is legitamite, then racialism is true. If you don't think it's true(and you ought not), Then your family history doesn't mean jack shit.
I am an american.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)