Conflict resolution.

[T ReXXX]

I've asked this question before..and it can make for pretty decent discussion.

 

Sooo...on a large scale (national, international, etc.) is it possible for/how can conflict be resolved, or things be accomplished without the use of violence?

 

For the most part violence only brings about more violence. As history has shown...a lot of the monumental happenings/changes in society have happened as a result of a war or something to that effect. Revolutionary war...civil war..the current war in iraq..etc. Even in nature..things need to die for others to thrive. However...one cant look past the influence Ghandi and MLK Jr had...on the same hand though...they were both gunned down. For the record..I am against war. But in this day and age is peaceful protest and demonstrations a realistic way to make change? Most of the demonstrations I have attended (a few of which have been 2-300,000 people or more) have been quite divided. Almost all of the people are there for the same reason but they all have different ways of achieving it. Its still divided, and because of that, things rarely get done. However for the purpose of making change happen...violence works.

 

Its 3:20am and Im getting tired...I have a bunch more to say..but lets see how this does for now. Enjoy.

[smooth bruce]

I've asked this question before..and it can make for pretty decent discussion.

 

Sooo...on a large scale (national, international, etc.) is it possible for/how can conflict be resolved, or things be accomplished without the use of violence?

 

Sometimes

 

For the most part violence only brings about more violence. As history has shown...a lot of the monumental happenings/changes in society have happened as a result of a war or something to that effect. Revolutionary war...civil war..the current war in iraq..etc. Even in nature..things need to die for others to thrive. However...one cant look past the influence Ghandi and MLK Jr had...on the same hand though...they were both gunned down. For the record..I am against war. But in this day and age is peaceful protest and demonstrations a realistic way to make change?

 

Sometimes

[xrebelheartsx]

unfortunately it doesn't seem to me like demonstrations have nearly the effect they once did. and realistically, the ones that did have an effect more than likely only seemed like they did.

 

it's absolutely possible for a conflict to be resolved in non-violent ways. will that actually happen in today's world? probably not. there's a lot of passion behind all of the conflicts that are going on today, and that's a very difficult fire to quell. when you have people that are incredibly heated about something, you're going to have a hell of a time trying to convince them to just sit down and talk it out.

 

i wish i had some insight as to how peaceful resolution could work for all of the conflicts in the world, but if i had that kind of insight, i wouldn't be typing all of this on a graffiti message board.

[Juan Fuentes]

solving conflicts must always be dealt with non-violent ways.

 

the wars and death sentences are for people who cant and will not compromise anything through a peaceful way. with them oneself cant solve the problem talking, and when that happens to you it will happen to anyone that person deals with, making them a thread to human life and action must be taken.

[smooth bruce]

solving conflicts must always be dealt with non-violent ways.

 

Wrong

[~KRYLON2~]

let nature decide the resolution to the conflict. the strongest survive.

[Juan Fuentes]

Wrong

 

right

[T ReXXX]

solving conflicts must always be dealt with non-violent ways.

QUOTE]

 

So in nature..a lion wanders into another males territory..do they sit down, talk it out, and ask the other one to politely retreat back to its domain? No they duke it out until one goes away That there is proof that things MUST not always be dealt with in non-violent ways. Back your shit up...dont just say "...na ah...you're wrong and IM right." you sound like a 4th grader.

 

 

...and to argue the point of "let nature takes its course" ..that works fine for the animal kingdom..because everything balances itself out....but as much are we are animals, we have taken ourselves out of the food chain because we prey upon things that dont need to die for our survival. We do it for our comfort. I would argue that becasue of this...not all the rules of nature apply to us anymore...sad but true.

 

I could be wrong though.

[Juan Fuentes]

you must not be saying i sound like a 4th grader. point out who you direct that to next time.

 

peaceful way is the best way. and like i said before. the violent way is for the violent.

we are humans that can reason and use logic, not use selfish force to gain power like animals.

 

we have evolved to a point we can deal without violence.

anyone outside of that is the primitive man and those change the way we have to deal with them.

 

 

 

this thread would have more sense, if it was being discussed, WHO and WHEN to deal peacefully/violently with.

[T ReXXX]

we have evolved to a point we can deal without violence.

anyone outside of that is the primitive man and those change the way we have to deal with them.

 

 

this thread would have more sense, if it was being discussed, WHO and WHEN to deal peacefully/violently with.

 

If we have evolved to a point where we can resolve things and deal with things without violence..then why is there so much war? and murder? ..and other violent crimes..? I agree that ideally, non-violent action is the best way to go. But..in todays world..i also believe, sadly enough, that it will not work. If other countries or governments or people would be willing to use nonviolence...then it would be a different story...but how can we get to that point...realistically?

[kizops]

....

[kizops]

What determines whether a protest or movement suceeds non-violently vs. violently depends on the circumstances of the protest/movement. What it is asking for?Where is it taking place?How does it effect Domestic Politics?How does it play in International Politics? And the list could go on forever. For instance part of the reason King and the Civil Rights movement were so successful, besides having practical demands and a solid organization (Although the SCLC had a rivalry with SNCC, which in turn both had a rivalry with the NAACP), is because the US was in the cold war. The US couldnt afford to keep having terrible news and pictures coming out of Selma and the rest of the south at a time when the US was trying to convince countries, often in Africa, not to side with the Soviets.

 

Division within movements isnt always a bad thing either. The Civil Rights Act was passed because of the outbreak of race riots, the rise of Malcom X, etc. The US Government was afraid the situation was going to spin further out of control so they gave into the moderate demands and passed the Civil Rights Act.

 

So I guess what Im saying is that change CAN be brought about with non-violence today and probably more so than many times in history, but its all up to the circumstances.

 

One last thought----With globalization and complex interdependence it also means that states can use economic options to get other states to do something. Also, beacuse of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction we cant really have another world war again.

 

 

"Most of the demonstrations I have attended (a few of which have been 2-300,000 people or more) have been quite divided. Almost all of the people are there for the same reason but they all have different ways of achieving it. Its still divided, and because of that, things rarely get done."

 

What were these about?

[T ReXXX]

"Most of the demonstrations I have attended (a few of which have been 2-300,000 people or more) have been quite divided. Almost all of the people are there for the same reason but they all have different ways of achieving it. Its still divided, and because of that, things rarely get done."

 

What were these about?

 

The 2 largest ones I have attended was the march on the republican national convention in NYC a few years back....and the 2nd year anniversary of sending troops over to Iraq, again, in NYC. The latter was reported around 2-300 thousand people..may have been more. The first one was huge as well.

 

and the 2 of them combined...there was almost no violence..there was a few arrests with people setting shit on fire but nothing big.

 

..but..they didnt accomplish anything. They brought a bit of media to the fact that people werent happy with waht was going on but little change came as a result.

[Guest shai_hulud]

Are you going to the RNC this year?

[T ReXXX]

Division within movements isnt always a bad thing either. The Civil Rights Act was passed because of the outbreak of race riots, the rise of Malcom X, etc. The US Government was afraid the situation was going to spin further out of control so they gave into the moderate demands and passed the Civil Rights Act.

 

So I guess what Im saying is that change CAN be brought about with non-violence today and probably more so than many times in history, but its all up to the circumstances.

QUOTE]

 

I could be wrong, but the outbreak of race riots included a bunch of violence. And as you said that is was brought the change about...or at least got it moving to a point where nonviolence could be used. Either way violence got the ball rolling. Do you think that if it was just people walking around holding signs saying that they didnt like what was going on, that it would have gotten the same attention? I agree with you that the circumstances play a huge part in it all. But the as fucked up as it is..i believe that people pay waaaay more attention to violence then to peace. Violence sparks a sooner reaction..whether if its the best way to solve a problem or not is irrelivant. Becasue our country ignores the problem (in almost every area of our society) and simply trys to extinguish the symptoms so nobody notices....until it poses a threat to them. And that is when action is taken.

[T ReXXX]

Are you going to the RNC this year?

 

Wasnt planning on it. I barely have the money to eat man..if I can hitch up with somebody for a ride..and a place to crash for free..id prolly go..

[Juan Fuentes]

why so many wars and murders, t-rexx?

 

well there is this group of families that think they rule the world because they have determined their time and wealth to study and learn about population manipulation, and they have been passing the knowledge from generation to generation.

they are old, many generations, in fact, we could add to the group passed civilizations, and although not related by blood the new world order takes methods of those empires and makes them better(religion business from the egyptians and mayans, false flag from the romans, etc).

 

they have been accumulating power for years, and they decide what happens politically. they have an agenda and they follow it.

if you want to know what that agenda is, you need to look into history. see the past and you'll see how things are going.

 

 

yet!

 

we have so much to learn from their methods!

but use it for good and to fight against them...one of them being one of the most important ones, the one that keeps them alive, is secrecy(although their mistakes, arrogance that makes them open their mouth and use symbolism, makes them less secret)

secrecy has to do also with privacy. that's why is important for them to access our lives to see what our weaknesses are, and if we are a threat to them.

they cannot show who they really are to the world because they'll be doomed. that's why everyone exposing them does a great good to this world.

 

___

 

 

about movements breaking up and not getting things done, for me at least seems like the bigger the movement the easier to bring down, divide, accuse negatively because of a few of it's members, infiltrate corruption and all bad things.

also.

by the movement being large, it becomes be less secretive, so the opposite side will investigate and attack the weak points.

there should be many groups, with different methods and tasks, all with the same goal.

 

violent protests hurt more than help the movement/cause.

I'm not a hippie, I'm just saying going out to destroy public property and private property without a serious goal to at least sabotage something that is not good for the people of the city, has no purpose.

[Juan Fuentes]

Violence sparks a sooner reaction..whether if its the best way to solve a problem or not is irrelivant. Becasue our country ignores the problem (in almost every area of our society) and simply trys to extinguish the symptoms so nobody notices....until it poses a threat to them. And that is when action is taken.

 

 

they dont try to solve the problem peacefully(because they can...and when they solve it they lose power, because the problem is tied to them, and they dont compromise 1 single thing)

 

 

violence is never the best way to solve a problem. it might solve it. but peacefully has less or no side effects.

everything can be solved peacefully.

[the district]

I thought martin luther was the main reason for the civil rights being passed.Am i wrong?

 

Its where you focus your actions.

If you focus on being "anti war" you have just focused on the negative.You are going against an already more powerful idea, "war".

If you focus on peace you have set yourself to find solutions on what would create the most peace.

If you focus on anti war you have set your self to find solutions on what could create the most anti war, meaning there will still be war just more conflict.

 

Mother Theresa once said "I will never attend an anti war rally, i would rather attend a pro-peace rally."

 

It is hard to adapt this kind of thinking because it is so embedded in everything we do.

"I dont want more bloodshed", well thats exactly what you get, you will recieve more bloodshed and not want it.

 

If you say and focus on saying "I want more peace", thats exactly what you will get "more peace"...

 

 

If anyone can disprove anything taken from "the secret" i would love to hear it.

[Guest shai_hulud]

Wasnt planning on it. I barely have the money to eat man..if I can hitch up with somebody for a ride..and a place to crash for free..id prolly go..

 

I think if you went, you'd probably do fine. Minneapolis is an easy city to get by in. Lots of punks, punk houses, free food...the winters are out of control, but the RNC starts Labor Day. That's not an issue.

 

Getting there would probably only be a matter of hooking up a Craigslist ride. Plenty of folks on there will be going, I'm sure.

 

I might go. It's a while from now, I could plan for it. I'd probably mostly go to visit my friends, though. I don't really care much for some of the crowd the RNC and DNC protests seem to attract.

 

As far as what whether conflicts can always be peacefully settled, no. I don't think they can.

 

But, a lot of the current conflicts in the world never had to happen in the first place.

 

I think WW2 was a worthwhile conflict. It may have been one of the only NECESSARY wars in history.

 

I'm not so sure about the rest of them. Maybe things could have been settled amicably, maybe not.

 

Point is, humans are going to have to evolve quite a bit before we get to the point where war is an obsolete construct. I thought- well, wanted to believe- we were getting there in the early 90's, but it appears that I was rather mistaken.

 

Mostly what you are talking about requires a lot of patience, objectivity, compassion, and foresight. These are traits that sadly seem to be lacking in leadership...you really have to be a prick to get ahead in politics, and not be afraid to step on people's heads or fuck over your opponents.

 

Until we get past that mentality, I'm not too optimistic. I'm just trying to be the best person I can be.

[kizops]

I thought martin luther was the main reason for the civil rights being passed.Am i wrong?

 

He was part of it, but so was all the work the NAACP had done for Brown v. The Board of Education, the SNCC (Students NonViolent Coordinating Committee) Sit Ins that spread across the south, CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) and SNCC Freedom Rides, and the SNCC/SCLC( the SCLC was Kings group) marches from Montgomery to Selma. All these things built on the next one, and each time there were images of non-violent protesters being brutalized. The U.S. couldnt afford this in the Cold War and people in the U.S. knew this was wrong and were getting angrier, so the U.S. moved on it and Johnson pushed the bill through congress after Kennedy's assasination. King was the figurehead of the movement and maybe without his skills and charisma it wouldnt have happened like it did, but a lot of other groups played just as strong a role and many didnt agree with Kings way of leading the movement. SNCC wanted to have a more democratic movement that emphasized grassroots leadership, so that even if one leader faded out or died, all wouldnt be lost, it would keep going. The SCLC was pretty much the opposite of this, a group of southern ministers who acted as a rubber stamp for King (although thats not realy a bad thing) and didnt emphasize building up so much grassroots leadership, but instead just had King show up in communities and organize events.

[the district]

Didn't the black panthers provoke the flood of crack cocaine?

[smooth bruce]

everything can be solved peacefully.

 

You live in a fucking fantasy land

[T ReXXX]

Hahaha.

[Juan Fuentes]

ok tell me what CANT be solved peacefully?

[T ReXXX]

You are right. Ideally..maybe in a utopian world, everything can be solved peacefully..BUT this world is anything but that. If everybody was on the same page and thought along the same lines with the same morals then peace might be an option. How can you say that peaceful resolution will work with somebody who doesnt want to hear anything about it? All the parties involved need to be willing..and that just wont happen...is it possible...maybe...but it is soo far fetched that its barely worth thinking about. Something that couldnt be solved peacefully....WW2.

[CACashRefund]

However...one cant look past the influence Ghandi and MLK Jr had

 

The impact ghandi had on the liberation of india from british colonial rule is a product of propaganda

 

His movement of non violence is considered a failure by most historians

 

There were other people who achieved more towards the liberation of india than ghandi

[CACashRefund]

Something that couldnt be solved peacefully....WW2.

 

ww2 could have been solved peacefully

 

if other nations kept appeasing hitler like they did with parts of czechoslovakia france and austria

[Juan Fuentes]

If everybody was on the same page and thought along the same lines with the same morals then peace might be an option.

 

you are part of everyone, start by thinking positive and knowing that everything can be solved peacefully. dont wait for the world to give you the signal that there's a lot of people thinking that way.

the revolution starts in our minds.

 

 

 

How can you say that peaceful resolution will work with somebody who doesnt want to hear anything about it?

 

im saying everything CAN be solved peacefully. not that everything WILL be solved peacefully.

as i made my self clear up there in the firsts posts, i see a violent solution happening. but is the last option.

 

 

 

ghandi is propagandized because they want people to be all soft and let others abuse them without them doing anything to defend themselfs.

ww2 could have be solved peacefully. how hard was it to just FINISH IT. admit some of us were wrong and carry on together trying to make a better world. very hard. but not impossible.

[T ReXXX]

Juan, I think you are too idealistic...but, whatever gives you hope man.

 

Maybe I was wrong about WW2...CA, who else other than Ghandi? I admit I only have a very basic knowledge about the liberation of India..maybe that was a poor example on my part.