I’ve been thinking a lot about the benefits of conflict, the current train of thoughts spurred on by Gandhi. A key line of Gandhi’s can be found from the movie script:
Gandhi has removed his sandals and is sitting cross-legged on a fine upholstered chair. Jinnah’s eyes rake him with anger and distaste.
JINNAH (coldly): I too have read Mr. Gandhi’s writings, but I’d rather be ruled by an Indian terrorist than an English one. And I don’t want to submit to that kind of law.
PATEL (to Nehru - diplomatically - but with trace of condescension): I must say, Panditji, it seems to me it’s gone beyond remedies like passive resistance.
GANDHI (in the silence): If I may - I, for one, have never advocated passive anything.
The definition of conflict, according to The Free Dictionary:
con-flict (noun)
- A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war.
- A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.
- Psychology A psychic struggle, often unconscious, resulting from the opposition or simultaneous functioning of mutually exclusive impulses, desires, or tendencies.
- Opposition between characters or forces in a work of drama or fiction, especially opposition that motivates or shapes the action of the plot.
con-flict (intransitive verb)
- To be in or come into opposition; differ.
- Archaic To engage in warfare.
And the etymology of the word (gathered from the Online Etymology Dictionary):
Origin of conflict (verb)
circa 1430, from Latin conflictus, past participle of confligere “to strike together,” from com- “together” + fligere “to strike”
And then last Saturday I see a logo on a shirt:
Terrorism is a Poor Man’s WAR is a Rich Man’s Terrorism
And even a monkey, taking a break from writing Shakespeare, would have no problem blundering along the Google search engine to find modern conflict after conflict after conflict after conflict after conflict… and I could go on and on. Feel upset that I might have missed a conflict out there, or in particular your conflict? If so, you should read this article and digest it more than anyone else.
My assertion: conflict isn’t bad, it’s natural. Jesus used principles of conflict, so did Gandhi, so did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Beyond this, so have all the many war chiefs (my general term for any army leader that condones violence). But no one was right. Jesus wasn’t right, Gandhi wasn’t right, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wasn’t right, and neither were/are the war chiefs. They just have all had an idea, and they were willing to die for their ideas.
But I ask every person to just think about the following numbers, the numbers that I’m a part of by being an American and paying taxes to the American War machine, by purchasing American products, and by continuing to work and live in America:
Number of confirmed “Coalition” lives lost in the Iraq Conflict: 3,893
Number of recorded “Insurgent” lives lost in the Iraq Conflict: 4,895 to 6,370
Estimated number of Iraq Civilian in the Iraq Conflict (various sources (1) (2)): Between 65,000 and 655,000
Even though neither group, the violent or non-violent group, is right (righteousness is another giant topic), which side would you really support? Are you really a “kill kill kill” supporter? Would you really kill another human being, were that human being not “the enemy?” Could you move beyond treating other humans as enemies?
Given all the various conflicts out there, and their awful results, you can count me out of wars. I’m willing to fight, but I have never seen a war worth fighting, not in my lifetime. Not even after the events on 9/11. That is not an excuse to go invade another country. And it’s the opposite of what a so called Christian nation should do. Those stupid religious zealots had best be happy they haven’t caused Armageddon yet, because when Jesus comes back, he’s going to quite pissed at them for all the shit they’ve done.