In a world where violence surrounds us, where despair and hate seek for revenge, one has to believe that there is another, better option than violence. What is violence? Why do people hate each other? What is war? Why do people choose war over peace? There are many answers to the questions above. Violence is a physical force that is used with the intention of hurting or killing someone else. Hate is a superficial feeling that people of different societies, cultures, and opinions have for one another. War is when “destructive intraspecies fight between organized groups using tools as weapons” (Seville par 1). People choose war over peace because it is the easiest route for some people and it benefits a few select people who are in power. If we could break this trend of violence, our world would be a much better, self-sustained environment, one that would be better for everyone to live in. Even in the face of injustices, we must be the stronger people. Nonviolent direct action is the most successful method when faced with injustices; not violence, not war.

The history of the human species is full of wars, bloodshed, tears, pseudo-borderlines, and hypocrisy. Only recently in the history of our species has the method of nonviolence been so thoroughly tested. It has proved to be the more successful power when faced with violence, and yet we, as humans, still fail to acknowledge its success and potential. Many people would argue that violence is the stronger force and that nonviolence is the route for cowards. I would like to argue against that opinion.

War advocates may argue that nonviolence is an ineffective method because it takes too long. If we were to take a look at the long history of the human species, we would see a long series of wars that have never ceased to exist. There are wars going on today that are as old as the societies that are fighting. James Hillman says that, “There have been 5,600 years of written history and 14,600 wars have been recorded” (Sunbeams par 2). When a war is said to be won, one side comes out victorious and the other defeated. The losing country is often times suppressed and forced to suffer for the crimes that they committed during the war. At some point down the road, either another country steps in to stop this aggressive country, or the oppressed country revolts and another war begins.

Now let’s take a look at the time it takes nonviolence to work. In his essay, Paul Loeb makes several valid points about nonviolence, one being that “change happens—slowly” (176). He points out that Rosa Park’s decision to refuse to move to the back of the bus in Montgomery, was not a “spur-of-the-moment decision.” Her decision to boycott the segregated bus laws was well planned out ahead of time. He points out that “she had attended a 10-day training” within a year before her nonviolent boycott action. Martin Luther King Jr. points out that African Americans had been fighting against injustice and waiting for their rights for “more than three hundred and forty years” (257). A supporter of war might point out the length of time that it took nonviolence to work for African Americans and that war is the quicker, more efficient method of fighting injustices. I would ask that person, if war is the better answer, then why are we still fighting? Why is it that the civil rights movement and Gandhi’s Salt March succeeded in changing the ways of society, and yet we are still fighting in countless battles?

Some people may argue that war is part of human nature and that it is our biological nature to fight and kill. Yet Jane Addams pointed out how during World War I, generals had found it so hard to convince soldiers “to make the bayonet charge…that [they] had [to be] stimulated” to fight with some form of alcohol (93). Similarly Barbara Ehrenreich talks about how unnatural war is to humans. She points out that, “only three types of creatures engage in warfare—humans, chimpanzees, and ants” (par 1). Many species engage in violence among other species, but not their own kind. Humans are not genetically prone to violence and warfare. Even though, “genes are co-involved in establishing our behavioral capacities, they do not…specify the outcome” (Seville par 7). The Seville Statement also pointed out the fact that “violence is neither in our evolutionary legacy nor in our genes” and that there has not been a selection for violence and aggression in the evolution of the human species (par 8).

Another important point to consider when accusing humans of being genetically prone to violence and aggression is the fact that, especially in modern warfare, soldiers do not act on pure instinct. Rather, they are desensitized and trained to do as they are told and to follow the strategic orders of the country that they are fighting for. Accusing war of being an inevitable event for humans to fight in is unfair because war is not inevitable. Yes, we have to contend with the fact that society has made us so that we “dislike, distrust and finally destroy the individual who differs from the mass in time of danger” (Addams 95). But we have the choice, as a society of people, to choose our own future. We do not have to give in to the orders that benefit a few select people. Why should we have to fight a war for the few people that hold grudges and prejudices against other cultures and people?

Some war advocates still may not be convinced in my argument for nonviolence over war. Not only is war time-consuming and ineffective, but it is also not an instinct of ours to kill other humans. Maybe the thought of comradeship is what allows each generation to continue the violence and hate. William James made a plausible alternative to war in his essay, “The Moral Equivalent of War.” He suggests that we provide our youth with an “equivalent organized discipline” in the form of “conscription of the youthful population…[fighting] Nature,” which would allow the injustice(s) to be evened out” (73). This would allow all people the chance to get any anger out of them at a young age and would provide them with the opportunity to gain a sense of pride for serving their community and, at the same time, would advance their society. I believe that this substitution for war would be an effective way of ending the need for people to go to war because of this so called ‘instinct’ to fight because it will replace and fulfill that need to be brave and to sacrifice oneself for their country.

Another benefit of nonviolence is the fact that it is a lot less expensive than war; both materially and spiritually. The cost of war is significant for both sides of the fighting field. The cost for weapons gets more and more expensive as technology increases. The cost of nuclear weapons across the world is great, and we can only hope that there will not be a need to use any of them, in which case, the production of them was pointless and unnecessarily expensive. The effect of war on the environment is also a costly one. Bombs tear up the earth, trees are destroyed and are not replaced to help maintain our atmosphere, and pollution is expelled from tanks, nuclear factories, and weapons. These are all contributing to a world that we will not be able to live in much longer at this rate. Nonviolence does not contribute to any of these negative influences to the world. Instead, nonviolence focuses on promoting love and equality for all. Nonviolence costs nothing because it is found from within. It has the great potential to lead to a happier world that can replace hate with love and can then focus on bettering the planet we all live in.

On top of being materially less costly, the spiritual cost of war is really significant. As Martin Luther King Jr. said one year before his assassination, “A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death” (Kohls). The oppression of countries and their people leads to the death of those oppressed societies through suffocation. The oppressing country begins to change the repressed country by implementing their own values, beliefs, social standards, political structures, and forcing these other countries to abide by these new pseudo-society laws because the oppressor felt the need to “help” this “underprivileged” country. What needs to happen is a transformation of the heart. People need to begin to teach themselves how to love others and how to accept their differences. The cost of nonviolence is cheap, a small self-sacrifice and giving up a little pride.

In fighting off injustices, nonviolence truly is the best answer. Nonviolence will not destroy the spirit of the world. Nonviolence is not expensive. Nonviolence can be found from the heart of everyone and is formed from the willpower and courage to be strong in fighting for what is right. Nonviolence is cheap; it is not as time-consuming as war; and when people are brought together with similar ideas and goals, nonviolence is the stronger, more powerful force as has been proven numerous times, such as Gandhi’s Salt March and the civil rights movement of the 60’s. As Staughton Lynd said, “through nonviolence, courage displaces fear; love transforms hate” (xli). It can bring down hate, prejudice, tyranny, and unjust laws. Nonviolence brings people together, and once that is done, nothing would be able to stop this powerful force.

Address:
Veterans For Peace
William Ladd Chapter
P.O. Box 10
Deer Isle, ME 04627


e-mail:
vfpmaine@vfpmaine.org


site problems?
webmaster