Obstructionist and Non-Obstructionist Peace Organizations

The fifth and final function of a newly formed peace organization is to incorporate new members. The main difficulty with increasing membership is minimizing attrition. Keeping attrition low, especially during peacetime, is an essential responsibility for peace organizers. New members should be motivated to offer their assistance, but organizers should temper zealous members from thwarting the group’s central ideology of non-violence.

Arguably, one of the greatest challenges peace organizations face are zealous members eager to change the world. One might think is an advantage to the organization, but without well-defined objectives, members can radically transform the nature of an organization and ultimately undermine its ability to peacefully protest and to support its causes.

To combat a perceived idleness, some peace organizations have taken obstructionist stances, e.g. interrupting the military objectives of opposing agencies through the interposition of human bodies. For example, the iconic picture of "Tank Man" during the Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 is a hallmark representation of an "obstructionist peace advocate."

For me, and my particular brand of pacifism, I cannot and do not endorse obstructionist peace movements. I do support a movement’s right to protest injustice, but insofar as human lives are required to obstruct or barricade, to deflect or detour militarization efforts, I cannot and will not endorse such acts.

Note: a sit-in is not obstructionist. Thus, I would endorse those groups opting to use this means of protest. But as to more radical forms of peace movements with obstructionist stances and belief systems, I do not support them, and my arguments are not constructed with such objectives in mind.

Since peace organizations vary, the incorporation of new members will differ according to the motivations and ideologies of each organization. Some people will be attracted to obstructionist peace movements, others to non-obstructionist organizations. My support of non-obstructionist peace organizations requires that I formalize my concept of a non-obstructionist stance.

Peace organizations of the 21st century must cater to the diverse needs of interested members. To do this properly, however, requires that each organization clearly identify how it implements its central ideology, either through obstructionist or non-obstructionist means. Obstructionist members cannot be tolerated within a non-obstructionist organization, though obstructionist organizations can tolerate non-obstructionist members.

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

Starvation in Sri Lanka

The Sri Lankan government is currently battling militant Tamil rebels in the northern war zone of Sri Lanka. This battle between the government and the rebels has escalated and has resulted in the deaths of then of thousand of civilians along the Mullaiththeevu coastline.

Reports published earlier this week suggest that 165,00 civilians face imminent starvations, as the Sri Lankan government has obstructed humanitarian efforts on the grounds that the region is currently unsafe.

Apparently, the Sri Lankan government is willing to tolerate high, almost genocidal, levels of causalities in their fight against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), the local militia movement.

If the international community stands by and allows these causalities to mount, without third party intervention, hundreds of thousands of civilians could die of starvation within the month of May.

The Sri Lankan government, led by President Mahinda Rajapaksa is engaged in a full scale war against the LTTE, but the more international efforts are prevented from aiding the civilians along the LTTE Mullaiththeevu controlled coastline, the more the intentions to suppress the militant LTTE movement endorses the extermination of every civilian living under their control.

Civilians cannot and should not be held to blame for the actions of the LTTE and their battle against the government. Unfortunately, they are caught between the crossfire and international human rights organizations must be allowed to intervene on their behalf. Otherwise, it appears that the Sri Lankan government intends to endorse the wholesale extermination of all those living in LTTE control regions.

tamil,

starvation

genocide

Conservatives Must Define Torture

I really have to take my hat off to Keith Olbermann on his investigative journalism. Not only has he been saying what we bloggers have said for months, that water boarding is torture, he’s also, in this latest piece, discussed the very real threat of death associated with water boarding, even from highly trained interrogators. Here is his latest piece on torture:

To begin, there are two main techniques used to administer water boarding. The video depictions that have been repeated on television are from Current TV. It is actually the more dangerous of the two methods as seen at minute mark 2:54 in the video below:

If Hannity is really going to go through with this I hope he uses the cellophane method, which is still torture but it’s safer. Read Tom Malinowski’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the cellophane method of water boarding here (pg. 2).

With the cellophane method, water is essentially prevented from entering the nasal and oral cavities. In the non cellophane method, as depicted in Current TV’s demonstration above, the possibility of water entering the naval cavity and even lungs is almost certain. Keith addressed these seemingly conflicting statements of water accessibility to the lungs in the first video, which he should be commended for, but he didn’t account for the variations in method.

If Hannity does this, which he probably won’t and I hope he doesn’t, he had better do his research because the method they show on continuous loop (from Current TV) is actually a very advanced method of water boarding. In Tom Malinowski’s testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as noted in the link provided, he refers to the use of cellophane, which is obviously absent in the Current TV demonstration.

For the last three weeks, actually since the inauguration, liberals like me, have been attempting to draw the definitional boundaries of torture. We’ve argued on various accounts that water boarding is torture and that the U.S. government, under the previous administration, has participated in acts of torture. Most conservatives, though not all, deny that water boarding is torture.

The question, then, becomes, “how do conservative define torture?” “What criteria must be met for them to classify an act as an act of torture?” Instead of continuing this incessant bickering we should attempt to find common ground.

The GOP should release a statement defining what characteristics they believe constitute torture. They can’t possibly think that the American people are so naive as to think that torture doesn’t exist. Okay, so water boarding isn’t torture. But what is? They will surely be haunted in 2012 if they fail to offer a clear definition of what constitutes torture.

Clearly, conservatives like liberals abhor torture. Rather than emphasizing what difference we have in defining torture, we should emphasize what criteria and characteristics we share in defining torture. We have to work past this partisan bickering to forge common ground.

The whole point of attacking the World Trade Center was to divide our country, for us to start taking sides and attacking each other. My family is split right down the middle, half of us are liberals, and the other half are conservatives. We debate our competing ideologies but we respect contrary positions and usually end conversations with a better sense of the opposing argument.

I remember where I was when the towers were hit. I remember watching the second plane on impact, and I remember how much I grieved for my fellow Americans. I remember how badly I wanted to go to New York to help in the relief efforts. I remember donating money to help the families of 9-11 victims.

We weren’t liberals and conservatives then. We were just Americans. We can resort to partisanship after we’ve settled this debate on torture. This topic should be taken with the utmost seriousness. We should look beyond ratings and partisanship and try to define what we mean by torture. Something, I feel, liberals have at least attempted.

To do so, however, requires conservatives to define torture and what acts constitute torture. Then we, as a nation, can formulize, at least within a social setting, some consensus on this topic. It is important that we send a unified message to the world on the topic of torture, one both conservative and liberals can be proud of. To do so, however, requires that each party offer a definition and criteria of what constitutes torture.

water boarding, torture

The Peace Movement’s Recruiting Practices

The life of any organization is dependent on its ability to recruit new members and the same holds true for peace organizations. Recruiting is a continual process and all current group members should actively recruit potential members. This process of recruitment, then, cannot simply take place on specified days at specified times. It is a continual, informal process of introducing potential advocates to the organization’s central ideology.

Recruiting peace advocates is a sensitive process insofar as current members should have a sense of the prospective applicant’s intent and interest in the organization. In the next few sections I will differentiate between obstructionist and non-obstructionist peace movements. My emphasis and interest is in what I have labeled as non-obstructionist peace movements. Thus, the recruiting practices I will address pertain specifically to the recruitment of non-obstructionist peace advocates.

As mentioned in the last section of the analysis, recruitment is, in part, dependent on points of accessibility, that is, the virtual and geographic locations where potential advocates are introduced to current members and the movement’s central ideology. It is imperative that at each point of accessibility potential advocates are met by knowledgeable and willing recruiters capable of explaining and clarifying both the purpose and any misconception surrounding the organization.

Third party recruiting agencies, commonly known as “headhunters,” should not be used in recruiting new members. There are several problems with the use of third party agencies, but with respect to this anticipatory account of 21st century peace movements, third party agencies may compromise the integrity of the group’s central ideology. These agencies are motivated by money and will typically recruit anyone to meet their quotas.

The key to successful recruitment practices, at least for an organization identified as a peace movement, is the narrative used to attract and peak people’s interest. Human beings are social beings. We are inherently attracted to a story. We are able to process vast amounts of information if it is presented in a sequential and logical manner. For these reasons, recruiters should be the best storytellers within the organization.

Their stories should be authentic accounts, stories they have witnessed or experienced firsthand. For people interested in peace and desperate to contribute to the betterment of society, recruiters need, more than anything, to (1) deliver a simple message, (2) demonstrate how the potential advocate can help the organization, (3) determine the person’s motivations, and finally (4) invite the person into the organization. 

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

Water Boarding is Torture

In yesterday’s post I received a comment from Conspiracy Kat that got me thinking about the nature of the relationship between water boarding and torture, namely, “is water boarding torture?” With reference to Sean Hannity, Conspiracy Kat wrote, “Hannity didn't volunteer to be tortured he volunteered to be water boarded.”

If the debate is whether water boarding is a form of torture, I argue that it is. As I attempted to argue in yesterdays post, it is impossible for someone to agree to be tortured since by definition torture is a violation of consent.

If the discussion, however, pertains to whether water boarding is an act of torture then the most obvious question becomes, “can water boarding be used against someone’s consent?” If it can then it satisfies that condition.

Obviously water boarding can be used against someone’s will. But the rejoinder may be to suggest that excessive tickling can also be used against someone’s will and as a society we wouldn’t consider that torture. Thus, if one is to argue that water boarding is a form of torture, one need to be able to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for torture.

That description is at least book length, so I cannot make a proper account in one blog posting but I would argue, though there are certainly more conditions, for at least three conditions that must be met in order to classify an act as an act of torture.

First, does the act violate consent? Second, does the act impose physical and/or psychological pain or suffering? Clearly, both the terms “pain” and “suffering” would need to be qualified, something that I am not going to attempt here. And finally, does the act use the threat of death as a possibility for noncompliance?

Granted, I can detect weaknesses in this brief construction but were I to fully articulate the argument, I could defend against objections. If you answer “yes” to these questions, you’ve essentially got an act of torture.

It is not simply that the act has to violate consent. To be classified as torture the act requires much more than simple violation. In fact, there’s much more needed than the three conditions that I’ve addressed, but these three conditions cover the broadest definitional scope.

Simply stated, suffering is prolonged and undesired physical or psychological pain. Since the definition of pain is subjective, as different people have different levels of pain, what may be classified as suffering for one may not be for another.

Finally, in the act of torture the victim has to believe that the sadist / torturer has the ability to take his life and the act, itself, has to be such that the possibility of losing one’s life is at the forefront of the victim's mind. Clearly, in the example of excessive tickling the possibility of losing one’s life from such an act approaches zero.

Now, there is no question, and it is not a matter of debate that if done incorrectly water boarding can lead to death. In fact, historically, water boarding has lead to death. This is a fact that high profile victims know and tortures know. The torturer wants the victim to believe that “if you don’t comply I might just drown you.” Thus, the act of water boarding satisfies all three conditions. It is used against the victims will. It willfully induces both psychological and physical pain. And it threatens, and can result in death for noncompliance.

In short, water boarding is certainly an act of torture.

water boarding, torture

The Truth about Torture

First, I’d suggest that my readers check out Brown Man Thinking Hard and read his article on torture. The saying that, “a picture is worth one thousand words” couldn’t be truer. He summarizes the nature of torture in one picture.

I will try to briefly describe the true nature of torture and also address the challenge Keith Olbermann issued to Sean Hannity. The video for which is directly below:

I have spent the last seven years researching torture within a historical context and have even addressed the nature of torture in one of my books. While I can bore you with the details of my research, I’ll tell you a story. In sadomasochistic sex there are three operative facets that allow it to work as a consensual sex act between adults. First, there is the sadist, that is, the person holding the paddle. Second, there is the masochist, namely the person being paddled.

Now the excitement of sadomasochistic sex is that both the sadist and the masochist enjoy the thrill of perceived victimization. Typically, the sadist wants to hear “no” or “stop” during the sex act. There is a thrill in hearing the masochist yelling for the act to stop and continuing despite this demand.

Now, to be clear, there is a stark difference between sadomasochistic sex and rape. The former is consensual and the latter is not. Thus, to preserve the notion of consent the final operative facet of this particular sex act is known as the “safety words.”

First, the function of a safety word is to protect the masochist. In my example of paddling, let’s assume that the safety word is just something arbitrary like, “purple oranges.” Now, whenever “purple oranges” is used during the sex act, the sadist is required to actually stop. Though the word “stop” or “no” no longer has its dismissive qualities, consent must be preserved and is therefore transferred to the safety word, “purple oranges.”

If in the sex act, the sadist begins paddling the masochist and the masochist yells out “stop” or “no” the excitement in their sex act builds. The sadist continues despite hearing the word “no,” a fact that, outside of sadomasochistic sex, would constitute assault or rape, depending on the circumstances.

With S&M the sadist continues despite hearing the word “no.” The masochist says “no,” the sadist paddles. The masochist says “stop” the sadist continues to paddle. The masochist says “purple oranges!” If the sadist paddles the masochist after the safety word has been invoked, the act is an act of assault. If the sadist continues to have sex with the masochist after the masochist has said “purple oranges” the sex act is no longer consensual and is properly classified as rape.

Now, returning to our discussion of torture. It is similar to S&M insofar as there is a sadist and a masochist. Thus, the only thing differentiating torture from S&M is the very thing protecting the masochist in S&M, namely, the safety word.

In torture, the masochist is not a willing masochist. Masochism is imposed. The masochist is more accurately identified as the victim. And the sadist is not constrained by anything other than his imagination. I wrote about these philosophical concepts of consent and morality but framed this discussion in a narrative in my 2007 publication titled The Daughters of the Surrogate Mother: the problem of evil. Here’s an excerpt:

“Early in his practice, Vemrik [the torturer] recognized that pain elicits all sorts of confessions, since victims will often say anything to appease their suffering. However, a good confession was a truthful confession, and he perfected the art of attaining the latter.”

What both Sean Hannity and Keith Olbermann fail to realized, though I do love Keith Olbermann, is that first Hannity would have to consent to being tortured which is impossible. It is a contradiction to consent to being tortured. To invoke a safety word during a simulated act of torture and then have it televised would be extremely tragic. Instead of watching an act of torture we would be watching a perversion of S&M where “stop” or “no” preserved the function of discontinuing the sadist’s acts.

The truth is torture cannot be simulated. That is impossible. There must be a very real fear that the victim (not the masochist) has for his life. Like my fictional character Vemrik, the sadist must be willing to carry this act of torture to the point of death and the intended victim must recognize this fact, for the act to properly be classified as torture.

Simulated torture is sensationalism and it’s disgusting. It is a total failure to understand the philosophical notion of consent. I respect the fact that Keith challenged Hannity, but even Keith has to realize that on this topic he is in way over his head. I pray for the sake of this nation that this event never transpires and God help us if it’s televised!

What the general public fails to recognize is that torture is not defined by its severity. People keep using the phrase, “advanced interrogation” as if it has any meaning. It doesn’t. I can torture someone by simply binding them to a chair for days, knowing that there is a possibility that they could eventually die from their confinement.
 
Torture has to do with consent, not intensity!

Torture has to do with consent, not intensity!

Torture has to do with consent, not intensity!

Torture has to do with consent, not intensity! It is not a discussion about who can withstand punishment. It is not a discussion of who is more macho. The idea that someone can consent to torture alters me that no one in the media understand what they are talking about.

Thankfully, I will soon be employed at a university and I hope my publicist is reading this blog post because we are in desperate need of clarification.

The Peace Movement’s Points of Accessibility

The most difficult and indeed the most important task a peace organization faces is its sustainability. The sustainability of a peace movement should be measured in terms of its ability to recruit new members and retain existing ones. To do so the movement must establish points of access.

Points of access are the various locations the organization can use to recruit new and motivated members. By far the most obvious, and arguably the most effective location is on college campuses throughout the United States. Despite their coursework, university students have lots of time for social interaction, which is a major part of the college experience—in fact, it is an expectation for many new students.

But college campuses are just one of many points of access peace organizations can use to their advantage. Unfortunately, women and children are typically targeted for crimes of violence and abuse. Battered women’s shelters can also serve as effective points of access as women and their children transition from dependent and abusive environments to independent and supportive ones.

Though the college campus may present more opportunities for recruiting members, the battered women’s shelter would probably attract more motivated membership. Gradually, in sharing their stories, these women could facilitate the organization’s expansion by personalizing their experiences with violence.

Points of access, however, need not be limited to geographic locations. 21st century organizers can and must use virtual communities to aid in recruiting new members. Blogs, forums, and message boards are great tools for attracting new members, and since they’re based on the internet, they automatically have a potentially global audience.

Though internet stalking and intimidation are often discussed rather lightly, they present very serious threats to organizers wishing to establish their peace organization within a virtual world. I would therefore argue that legitimate peace organizations should refrain from establishing the base of their organization primarily through social networking sites. It is very difficult to control person-to-person interactions within a social networking site, which leaves former victims of violence exposed to the possibility of having to interact with very abusive personalities. This threat can undermine the existence of the group. Thus, peace organizations established wholly through social networking sites are sure to have high attrition.

To combat these possible threats, the virtual face of the organization should be controlled by organizers and senior members. The information should be interactive and informative, but the site should not be structured as a social networking site. Social networking should take place in the real world among group members who have been screened and have demonstrated their commitment to the group’s central ideology.

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

The Organizational Structure of Peace Movements

In the last section of this analysis I discussed how the central ideology of nonviolence manifests in a diversity of peace organizations, which differ in aim and focus. Differences in purpose also account for organizational differences, as, for example, the purpose of an antiwar movement will differ from that of a pacifist movement.

The organizational structure for a peace movement is similar to that of any other organization, but there are at least four key distinctions differentiating its structure from most others. First, for those with an antiwar aim, ease of recruitment is ironically facilitated by war, which presents a particular structural problem during peacetime.

Second, since the central ideology of nonviolence is shared by every other peace organization, it is difficult for organizers to distinguish their goals and motivations from the goals and motivations of other such groups. For this reason, peace organizations have the added difficulty of succinctly identifying and differentiating their particular purposes.

Third, since peace activists are typically active in other social movements as well, movements with clearly defined objectives, it is imperative that the objective for each peace organization be clearly outlined. It is also important that the objective be based on a quantifiable goal that can be attained within a given timeframe. Otherwise, the integrity of the organization will be reduced by subjective interpretation of success and accomplishment.

Finally, like all organizations, peace organizations depend on the ability to attract new and sympathetic members. The appeal for new members, however, cannot simply be based on an antiwar stance, as the integrity of the organization will inevitably be challenged by peacetime. Thus, recruitment must be based on the subjective narratives of former soldiers, wartime survivors, and victims of violence. These narratives enable those sympathetic to peace to form the emotional attachment, both to the group and to people within the group, necessary to incentivize their continued participation.

The most important caution that any peace organization must take is to ensure that its members avoid dehumanizing those who have participated in violence. War is a fact of our political existence, though I would argue that it is not a necessary fact, and wars require soldiers. Thus, the organization cannot endorse or facilitate blame at any level. Rather, the organization must allow open discussion about the particular experiences of violence. Doing so goes a long way towards ensuring the organization's viability and expansion.

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

The Central Ideology

In the last section of the analysis I introduced the five functions of peace organizations as the movement’s central ideology, its organizational structure, its points of accessibility, its recruitment practices, and the incorporation of new members into the group. In this section of the analysis, I will discuss the structure of the organization’s central ideology in defining the core tenets of a doctrine of peace.

An ideology can most simply be described as a system of beliefs. While the beliefs being defined within a particular ideology are of the utmost importance, it is equally important to understand how these beliefs are organized and the functions they serve in transmitting the organization’s core principles.

By discussing an organization’s central ideology one is also gaining insight into the underlying motives driving members of the organization to act. In effect, then, the purpose of its central ideology is to motivate members to act in accordance with a system of belief as defined within the core tenets of the organization.

In discussing peace organizations, the core principle and the central ideology governing the organization must be the same for all organizations defined as peace organizations; namely, the organization must be founded on the principles of nonviolence.

The spectrum of peace organizations is as diverse as the members that participate in such movements. From antimilitarism to antiwar and from pacifism to conflict resolution, though the aims of these organizations differ, their central ideologies are the same. Thus, in discussing the central ideology of nonviolence it is also imperative to describe how the application of nonviolence differs among various peace organizations.

For example, in applying an ideology of nonviolence, an antiwar stance may differ from a pacifist stance. Though the central ideology is the same, the application or the manifestation of this ideology may have varying degrees of intensity with respect to its implementation.

Antiwar supporters may not be pacifists. They may renounce or protest a particular war without also ascribing to a categorical refutation of all military engagements. An antiwar supporter may renounce the War in Iraq or even the first Gulf War, while also supporting American’s role in WWII after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. The pacifist, however, cannot support either of these stances as all war, irrespective of the justification, is opposed.

Thus, it is important to first realize that though all peace organizations may share a central ideology, they are not the same and they can serve very different purposes. The purpose of an antiwar organization can be vastly different from a pacifist organization and members of these organizations can and will have different motivations.

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics

Hip-Hop Infantilizes the Black Male

There is a tendency among young African-American men who are desperately hoping to make it into the record industry to infantilize themselves - a practice that has unfortunately been adopted by many African-American males. Within contemporary hip-hop, rappers have chosen "Lil'" as an essential characteristic to denote their identity, for example, Lil' Wayne, Lil' Bow Wow, Lil' Cease, Lil' Romeo, and so on - all of which serve to infantilize the African-American male.

Within hip-hop culture, the terms "son," "boy," "kid," and "baby" refer to African-American men rather than children. Songs like "What Happened to that Boy" speak of the murder of African-American men, but refer to those murdered as boys. The lyrics are not speaking of murdering children, but men.

Hip-hop mogul, Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, has chosen the rebellious black infant, garbed in a diaper, as the icon of his multi-million dollar company. It is certainly true that contemporary hip-hop reinforces this tendency. Aspiring young rappers imitate this practice and are thereby willingly infantilizing themselves.

It is time for the hip-hop community to reject this practice. Power is stripped from the infant. The infant must be coddled and cared for, and cannot function as an autonomous agent within the world; he must be provided for.

Surely if one were to confront contemporary rappers, they would undoubtedly insist that, "It's not that serious" or "You're making a big fuss over nothing." The truth is that there is a big fuss to be made. How is one to take the plight of the African-American male seriously if members within our own community refer to themselves as boys and kids?

When I was younger, in all truthfulness, I didn't see the harm or what all the fuss was about. Now that I'm a man, I can understand the terrible threat of ascribing infantile names to one's identity and how it ultimately undermines the effort and knowledge used by these men to amass their wealth.

The biological truth is that boys grow to men, which is natural. To willfully identify a man as a child is counter to what nature intended; thus it is unnatural. Hip-Hop artists have poisoned the minds of young, black boys for too long with the ever-elusive hope of a record deal and a pathway out of poverty.

The sobering truth is that the vast majority of these boys will grow to be men, yet retain the mentality of an infant. This is what is at stake. It is therefore imperative, and I would challenge all hip-hop artists, to drop the "Lil'."

Originally published for Blogcritics.

norms, americana, culture, assimilation, globalization, ethics