Is violence nessesary ?

To the editor ( August 27, 2011 )

A fact about history we seem to have forgotten.

“Violence never solves anything.” Sure it does. Any reading of history will make it clear that without violence things do not change. Violence is ugly and painful, not something most people want to have any part of, but it is a necessary activity in life.

Standing up to the school yard bully means more than looking him in the eye and saying “You can’t have my lunch money.” Passive resistance is noble in theory, but in reality the bully will take your money if you don’t act to stop him. You have to fight. You have to prove that winning for him is more trouble than its worth.

Unlike the modern notion that we should avoid violence at all costs, some believe we should uphold the older value; that calls on us to talk first while being ready to fight. Backing down or staying quiet is almost always a victory for the other side.

The clearest example is WWII. What would have stopped Hitler if our grandfathers did not stand up and go to war? If they continued to talk and refused to act, would the expansion of Germany have stopped? Violence clearly solved this problem.

The other lessons of history are less well known and often less clearly understood. But I have noticed that every serious social change comes with some violence; public disruptions, riots, property damage, and police brutality. If a movement is quiet, civilized and peruses only the proper channels for change, it is ignored.

I am not saying anything about any particular movement’s goals being good or bad. I am trying to explain a historic truth. With that in mind I would like the reader to look at some of the recent news events, from the riots against austerity measures in Greece and England to the protests over shale gas in New Brunswick.

If a person holds the modern view; that conflict is to be avoided, they will complain and be ignored. If a person holds the older view; that change requires fighting for it, then they will cause disruptions and damage. In the first case the goal can never be achieved, because even a huge number of quiet protesters can be ignored. In the second case, the authorities must take some actions to appease the mob if its numbers grow large enough.

You may call it ugly but it is democracy at its most basic level.

Think about it.