Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Jesper Green: I don’t really feel that qualified to answer this question. What is between non-violent resistance and armed struggle? Is it a bar brawl? I don’t really know and I wish that those who watching this maybe can provide me with an answer. I’m not clever enough.

by Jesper Green

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Jodie Evans: Of course a great and complex question. So she asks the question like there's only nonviolent resistance and armed struggle. That I think the problem is that we get caught in these dichotomies we get caught in these either-or’s. Where is reconciliation? Where's all the things that happen in between that? Where's the stepping back? Where's the movement that isn’t either? I think we're seeing a time where neither is effective that we have to use our imaginations and use our hearts and use our frustration to come up with new ways to deal with all the problems. Its both -- I'm all for nonviolent resistance but I’m watching it become frustrating. Isn't there something else we can do? We tend to get stuck into it’s force or non force and I’m not saying that nonviolent resistance is passive but it -- if your nonviolent resistance is in the face of someone who doesn't care at all there are other forms in between of going around and out other sides to create new ways -- to experiment with new ways it can be effective. A biodiversity of resistance, of course. But in every place, in its region, in its structure, in its complexity we need to be able to show up and figure out what is the beneficial offering. The word resistance always makes me nervous because what we resist persists. So what’s the way that we allow what happens in this is our frustration, our sense of powerlessness, our incapacity to move power or essentially get our needs or force power to see its unviolence. That given what that power is and where it is and what the complexity of the situation is are going to continually need more creative experiments. I think unfortunately we get stuck in it’s this way or that way or we follow old great heroes and I'm looking across at Martin Luther King, and Gandhi and the Dali Lama but we need to start listening to people who are suffering a great -- looking in Chiapas and seeing the long term, the capacity to be patient and try things [audio cuts out]

by Jodie Evans

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

John Gage: The question assumes that violence is a fundamental and essential component of resistance. The spectrum, the continuum from non-violent action to armed and violent action encompasses many, many, many different ways of behavior, to resist injustice, to resist application of power in ways that cannot be accomplished through non-violent means requires a certain attitude toward change, an attitude that says, “if I do not make manifest my opposition to this policy or to this situation, I can’t expect it to change”. Change can come in many different ways. One of the most fundamental ways to change that’s not on the spectrum from non-violent resistance to armed struggle is the process of altering the language by which we describe, what it is we are, what it is we do, and what it is we would like to do. Finding the language that describes how we live is a challenge equally difficult to that confronted by those choosing among a variety of armed and violent tactics. So, I believe that if we are capable of seeing the world through new eyes, through new points of view, through new ways of expressing what it is we do, we can be as effective in resisting order as we can be by applying violence. It’s a literary exercise, it’s an artistic exercise, it’s an emotional, it’s a human exercise, it’s a recasting of human experience. So, the political dimensions, the application of power, the application of violence through a variety of rules, regulations and punishments can be addressed from a different side [through] the side of redefining and reexpressing the fundamental ways we think about what it is we do. And in that, we have to draw on the metaphors of life that are inherent in each and every one of our experiences, the experience of child’s sort of infant dependence on the mother of maternal love, of relationships between people in families, [key] of brutality and violence exerted by those more powerful against those that are less powerful, and the strategy is a less powerful devise to be able to deflect or avoid or expose or remove themselves from these inequal power, expressions of unequal power. So, I suppose I am calling in a sense for a way of thinking that recasts existing situations in terms of completely new metaphors. And in that, I think we see the seeds today in this new kind of human experience made possible by [audio ends].

by John Gage

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Jonathan Granoff: We need a biodiversity of insistence. Of insisting on non-violence in all or our institutions, but beginning with the nonviolence within ourselves. The cycles of violence that we’re seeing are not only impractical, but they reinforce the very problems that we're trying to address. So, we live, for the first time in human history, when the voice of conscience has the capacity of reaching out to the world. We must insist on getting the microphone back, and getting it out of the hands of those whose interest is to divide us. A biodiversity of insistence on human unity. A biodiversity of insistence on diplomacy and law. A biodiversity of insistence that our human qualities are more important than any other human venture that we can take on. A biodiversity that respects the biodiversity of life and ideas. That's what I think we need.

by Jonathan Granoff

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Jonathan Meese: Resistance is resistance, armed struggle is armed struggle. Any form is its own diversity, its own variety. We may stay there where we always have stood and not move at all. Every move is inhuman. We always drop back to the same point and this is good as we are what we are. Only those that are effective are effective, but this comes extraneous. We let our inner life being transported outwards, our energy, our emotions are located latently in palaces built by ourselves. What is the right - nobody knows. Belated resistance is no resistance. Resistance may be its own power, breed, fear and scheme. Let resistance resist itself, as any other fight fights itself. The movement goes neither outwards nor inwards, but it goes around a helix towards ultimate point at the top or bottom. This point always is resistance and fight at the same time. Arm the fight and free the resistance to be free of fight. Both of these phenomena, fight of resistance, may unite and become the most neutral weapon of themselves, i.e. the pendular stands in the middle of the affair and is centralised - a reflection of its own. Human being reflects a animal full of shame. Why does the animal still have shame, while the human already lost any shame? Only that that is able to feel shame is able to offer resistance.

by Jonathan Meese

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Jonathan Stack: I believe we do need a biodiversity of resistance, but I can't believe violence is one of the qualities that needs to bearing. I think we need to figure out how to transcend the violence in ourselves so that we can actually make changes. I don't think that violence is going to be -- have the -- it now depends on what your desire is. If you want to make a better world, I don't think violence is going to lead to a better result. If you want to just change your own personal circumstance, violence is a very effective and efficient way of applying your energy. But, the idea of biodiversity of resistance I think is really important because there is no one way of doing it. There is -- trying and think resistance, even that word, to resist, resistance is -- is that a defensive pose to resist something because something negative is coming in your way and so you resist. It's like what you need to do is be resisting and at the same time protesting, which is now the opposite end of it where you put your effort and energy towards engaging actively in trying to change something that you deem to be wrong. So, the language we choose to help make sense of our role and that part in trying to make a better world is critical, finding those right words. I find that when things are coming my way that are to the negative, by best way of resisting is by letting go. But, I think everybody -- there are no two situations, if somebody is putting a gun to your head or a gun to your child's head, then your best way to resist is to shoot that person who is about to hurt someone who you love. So, is that called armed resistance? I don't know, but if I really wanted to answer this question, I would ask Arundhati Roy the same question because I have never met anybody, never met her at all, but I just love her book and her ideas are so humane and so inspiring in terms of their strength and gentleness that my best answer to your question is go read her books because that's what I do.

by Jonathan Stack

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

José Manuel Prieto: Well, I find this question a little bit difficult, which way to choose, non-violent resistance or armed struggle. Without a doubt it’s a question of somebody who is examining ways to abandon the backwardness and the points of view that were the focus of interest in the 60’s, namely armed violence that depends and comes from anger on the one hand, and a peaceable society as it was orchestrated by Mahatma Gandhi on the other hand. I think at long sight it has been experienced that non-violent resistence or non-violence is much more effective, its effects are more lasting and that it doesn’t cause such a painful trauma in any matter as violence does. Violence or armed struggle can have an effective moment and offer a solution for all the problems, as was propagated e.g. in the case of Cuba, a country where a movement seized power after a certain small struggle, but a struggle that had an enormous propagandistic effect and an enormous effect that generated much tension on the entire South American continent and in the entire world. This was visible after all these years. I believe that there can be achieved a balance []. I think that there would be other results, if there had been fallen back to an other non-violent peacable solution. I think that the natural election, maybe a term of magazines, has devoted itself to non-violence and has made clear its enourmous benefits and has questioned the possible benefits of armed struggle. I think this is my opinion on this issue; no to armed struggle and yes to non-violent resistence. Thank you.

by José Manuel Prieto

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Jwan M. Aziz: I think the the true concept is the peaceful resistance but under the condition, that the other side should understand that this peaceful behavior comes from powerful position and not from weak position, but if he did not realize that and continue violence,then i will be obliged to use the violence,so there is biodiversity,,yes there is biodiversity of resistance.

by Jwan M. Aziz

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Kailash Satyarthi: It’s unfortunate that we still express ourself through violent means and arms and instead of expressing ourself in a non-violent manner. How can we call of ourself more civilized and more cultured if we keep on using arms to express ourself? So it is necessary that we try to devise those ways and means where we can express as individual as well as a society through the non-violent resistant manners. There are examples like in case of India, the entire freedom struggle has been fought and win. I won’t say entire, but the big portion of it has been fought and won with the involvement of millions of people only due to the non-violence means adopted by Mahatma Gandhi to resist the British government. There were definitely very strong armed resistances, which might have created some sort of fear in the minds of the Britishers in that time. But majority of the people can never join in any kind of armed resistance. If you wanted to make a participatory resistance, then you had to go for a non-violent resistance and that is much more effective. That is much more long-lasting. That is much more deeper, because it comes out of the realization of so many people where they are prepared to tolerate some of the atrocities and reactions from the perpetrators and the states which normally use the violence and arms against the ordinary people. So, when people are prepared for non-violent resistance, they are much more prepared to keep it forever close to their heart and minds in their behavior and their lives. So it is much more effective and that has to go. So I will definitely go for a non-violent way of non-resistance. That is much more effective. And you can definitely think of the diversity. I can’t understand the meaning of biodiversity in the manner of resistance, but definitely the new methods and ways of resistance could be devised. It is not always the hunger strike or it is not always the silent protest or it’s not always keeping the black band or white band on your soldiers. They are going on as strikes and so on, but there could be many more ways which should be invented and devised to express yourself in a non-violent manner.

by Kailash Satyarthi

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Kamal Boullata: Non-violent resistance in history, be it in the War of Independence in India, or in the Civil Rights Movement in the USA did not only liberate those who fought against injustice, but it also liberated those who were counted as their enemy. That is why non-violent resistance should be a first choice in the struggle against injustice. It's visionaries like the Mahatma Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Martin Luther King in America have led the way and have showed us how wars can be won through non-violent resistance. Sometimes, they do fail. If we look for example in the history of the Palestinian struggle for self-determination, it has been throughout one of non-violence. The six months of strike in 1936 perhaps was the example that set the tone for that kind of resistance. Through the outbreak of the popular uprising in Intifada in 1987 that also was a movement of non-violent -- that expressed itself non-violence. During the '70s and the '80s, a close friend of mine, by the name of Mubarak Awad from Jerusalem, has started a movement in under occupation in which he was able to organize peasants whose trees were being uprooted to ask the peasants to go back and replant the trees. Homes were being destroyed; people would go out and build their own homes against the Israeli laws that brought them down. But, Mubarak Awad was not tolerated in this kind of struggle. He was soon jailed and then he was deported. There was a decision by Israeli court that he is -- he does not belong there. Since he carried an American passport, he better goes back to America. And, he was actually carried by people throughout -- from the prison -- from his prison to the airport in Ben Gurion on the plane by force and he was not allowed to come back and live in his own country of birth. That’s why all means of resistance should be applied in our world today.

by Kamal Boullata

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Lesego Rampolokeng: Sense is strung across the universe
tattered voices scream
the dream was killed before it ripened
innocence died
before the skies first opened and sucked conscience souls up to the heavens
in the hour of our genesis.

The prophet of war never preaches upon the battlefield
the echo between liberation movement and political party cast votes and cut throats
ballot box sealed and stamped out
the holocaust
the backdrop
apartheid the prop
suffering a clutch
entitlements close crotch
silence is violence’s applause
the blood gates open.
Let the air down gently
it's broken
human relations are con game
put up your four legs if you have got the power sickness
the earth inherits meekness
steroids to hemorrhoids and other things to scratch besides anus.

I believe that between standing on the one side, holding hands and dreaming, we shall overcome, and throwing stones at the apartheid beast or wielding a stick against the monstrosity of Nazism, the monstrosity of Zionism, the monstrosity of that whatever it might be which deems it necessary to dehumanize in order for it to be. I think between all those strands stands the human question. I think the right thing to do is to pull down all the structures that stand in opposition to a celebration of life. I don’t think that there can be any plastic surgery applied to these monstrosities. I do not think that painting over the walls, cosmetic surgery is what is essential. I just believe that the entire structure has to tumble down and tumble down in the most basic, meaningful, total manner possible. Only when it does not exist, only when there has been a total eradication can we begin to rebuild. Nonviolent resistance is waving flowers at machine guns.

by Lesego Rampolokeng

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Leung Ping-Kwan: We hope that we could find ways using non-violent resistance rather than armed struggle. We do see some practices in between, like to raise the awareness of the people. Even with non-violent resistance, this doesn’t necessarily just mean to suffer and to bear all inequality. It could also be a peaceful method in raising the awareness of more people to be able to see what the problems are, and to suggest different means of solution to reform, to change the pattern and equal situation. So, there could still be action in between in raising people’s awareness, in gathering, in open speech, or in reading, in writing, in writing about the inequality, in writing in a direct way as a manifesto, or writing in a form of fiction, creative work, to help people to be aware of the situation that they are in. We do see writers writing about South Africa’s situation. And literature has been a way, has been a main in waking people’s awareness, and in the long run, help them to see the deep-rooted reason for this kind of problems and help people to be able to react upon it. So, it’s not just one part action to trace and adhere in a way, but rather to examine what’s the reason for the killing? What is the reason for the dictatorship and how to solve the situation and what would be effect of war and with this way to deal with this kind of problems. So, writing, discussion, dialogue, literature, different forms of counter expression could be a way in between to deal with problems, could be a kind of long-term resistance as well. It’s always very difficult to say whether it is destructive or whether it is the right thing to do, but definitely there should be diversity in resistance. When we’re trying to resist a dictatorship, we should not just be, that it is only one way or one dimensional, otherwise, the resistance is now could turn into a kind of [audio ends]

by Leung Ping-Kwan

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Lijun Fang: We keep wishing that we could find a settled pattern to get every problem solved once and forever. Is this possible? It shows our expectation for man's wisdom, as well as our silliness. It constantly reveals the human nature. Secondly, what do we need to resist, and what do we struggle with? We can find the right way very naturally, when we really need to fight. What kind of idea is it to resist in order to resist, or to struggle in order to struggle?

by Lijun Fang

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Lillian Holt: Yeah, this is an interesting question, and again, they’re all interesting questions, but-- now, what is the right thing to do? I can only speak on my own behalf, and ultimately I think I know what is the correct thing to do. I’m a very great admirer of Gandhi, who talked about non-violent resistance. And I think the idea of non-violent resistance is actually a good [inaudible]. I think that love is the most powerful force in the world. And I think that it’s been [pooh-paahed] because it’s been romanticized by Hollywood in the sense of finding the right person. When you think about it, love is a powerful, important force. It’s the exact opposite of fear. So if I actually can see the divine within the other person, I can see life. Of course, as Gandhi said, "I see the truth of the existence of the other person, to which I’m connected." And the truth is, when I hurt or maim another person, I hurt or maim myself, because of their connectedness. And armed struggle, well, I’m a baby boomer. I grew up in the 60s, this revolutionary period. I think it was Mao who said that power comes from the barrel of a gun. And I used to think it was okay to use all sorts of things, and to [inaudible] non-violent resistance. And as I get older, I see the sanctity of life and that connectedness that needs to be really nurtured. So what is effective and what is right for me, it is about non-violent resistance and ultimately, it is about love. And that’s a very, very hard path to take sometimes, to love your enemies and to know yourself.

by Lillian Holt

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Livingstone Maluleke: I believe in the non-violent struggle. We need to check what is affected. When we resist, what is also affected? In my understanding, armed struggle is an accepted action which is needed to unlock the doors of democracy. People should result to armed struggle in order to get to their democracy. These examples have been cited by many countries whereby, when there was no democracy, they would resort to violence, which would then change the kind of that country into a democratic society. Like in South Africa, the democracy which was obtained there was mostly obtained through violence and armed struggle, resistance and all the negative way of bringing the government into a standstill. And after the attaining of democracy, then people need to react from all the negative struggles that they will put in place and revoke and work out their position on how do we then go out from there, after attaining the democracy. This is a factor that is important in the growing up of a country. Struggles will be there, but then they need to realize why, and to what extent are these struggles going to be held.

by Livingstone Maluleke

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Mae-Wan Ho: I think concentrating on resistance, there is something wrong with that. We are not just concentrating on resistance. We’ll have to create [attractance]. We have to create a new paradigm, which is attractive to go to from this old one. We need nothing short of a social revolution. Sure, we can break the law. We can actually have -- we can go and tear up GM crops from fields. We can stop going to war. We can have non-violent resistance. But that’s not enough. Our young people, people need to be attracted, to be in love, to have their passions aroused. We cannot just say we don’t want these things. We can’t actually fill their lives with a whole lot of negativity because that really is [off putting] that is really what ultimately induce people into paralysis or at least most people into paralysis. And therefore, in my -- in our Science in Society magazine, we take care to say what the solutions are. For example, zero energy options are available now. Non-violent attractive options are really available and we have to go for them.

by Mae-Wan Ho

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Mahsa Shekarloo:

by Mahsa Shekarloo

Sep 9, 2006 1:00:00 PM cite

Mark Benecke: We always have biodiversity. We always have that for everything. Not only for resistance, but also for the evil brands, the evil governments, the good governments and the good brands. We always have a diversity of everything because that's in the nature of things. In our case also in the nature of mankind. There is no mean value. There is no consent, there is no one good compromise. There will always be diversity. So if you ask yourself, is it better to be non-violent or violent in a fight, then the answer is – it depends. It depends on you and it depends on the situation and it especially depends on how willing are you to take responsibility for what you do? Do you want to shoot the evil dictator knowing that you will be shot one second later? I don't know, you have to make that decision yourself. Do you want to give your life to work in an organization that does support a goal that you like? Be it rescuing whales or forests, be it an economical goal to make people rich all over the world or just your people. How much are you willing to give? How convinced are you of your goal? And then you can choose the weapons. It could be a pen, it could be a gun, it could be a camera, it could be a piece of paper, it could be a knife, it could be your life.

by Mark Benecke