And yet a further reminder that we must constantly fight the notion that the solution to violence is 'more violence'. I just left a comment in regards to a posting on another blog about the need to 'keep some swords' rather than beat them into plowshares that is apropos here as well.
This is beautifully written, but flawed by the worldview the author has accepted - the cage of the 'necessity of continued violence' as the solution to 'continued violence', rather than one of the main reasons that violence continues to exist.
You have correctly identified that violence is a normal instinct of humanity, and has always been, a relic of our evolutionary past. But you incorrectly assume that violence as a tool for social change is a necessity to create that change. We have seen, though, many instances in history and indeed, everyday law, that change can arise even in the absence of violence on the part of those who desire change. So while violence can occasion changes that result in progress in stabilizing societies, it is not unconditionally necessary to achieve such gains. Indeed, it is that very notion of the acceptance of violence as an acceptable means of social change that enables the creators of Rwandan genocide or Nazis to rise to power.
That acceptance of violence as the means to create change is not the solution to such atrocities, it is the father of such atrocities.
As well, this worldview backstops the false dichotomy that we must either accept violence as a necessity to stop evil, or simply accept the loss of 'peace'. By ignoring the fact that societal change occurs in many nonviolent ways as well as violent ones, one simply discards the ability to reduce violence, rather than increase it in the name of 'peace'.
We have the power to change many of the things that give rise to international players such as ISIS peacefully. Peoples who feel they have decent lives and hopeful futures are poor recruits for groups like ISIS. They recruit mainly based on despair and unfairness, and a hatred for those they see as promoting violence upon themselves - the harvest of violence is future violence.
If, instead, we stop helping dictators who oppress their own peoples, and instead work to empower those people directly, improving their lives so they see us not as enemies, but as friends, groups such as ISIS will never be able to recruit enough emotionally (and perhaps physically) scarred recruits to pose a threat across international boundaries.
Our violence and exploitation of others creates the terror our children and grandchildren will face. The best gift we could give unto future generations is simply to reject the notion that swords are 'necessary to protect the harvest', and instead recognize that sharing the harvest is the best way to protect it.
(Edit: obviously the excerpted passage does not refer to Hedge's piece, but rather the one I was just mentioning that refers to the need to continue to play 'world cop'.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
