Violence only breeds hate
Last week, The Eagle ran a column about how there are some times when it is appropriate to use physical violence in a situation, and how we should be able to encourage children to use violence effectively to solve our problems.
Doesn’t the thought just fill you with warm fuzzies?
Shall we take a quick peek at some statistics on violence in schools? In 2011, there was a survey by the CDC that reported that 5.9 percent of students did not go to school for one or more days in the days preceding the survey because they felt unsafe at school; 7.4 percent reported being threatened or injured with a weapon on school property; 20.1 percent reported being bullied on school property; and 32.8 percent reported being in a physical fight, the prevalence higher among males.
These statistics are nowhere near as low as they ought to be, and I believe it’s fair to say that this is because some people still find it fit to support violence as a solution to a problem.
Now, let me make myself clear right away. I think kids are going to be kids. Boys will always get into playground scraps. One day, that annoying little ginger kid from “A Christmas Story” is going to cross the line one time too many, and the object of his bullying is probably going to beat him up a little.
That’s not to say that I believe we should encourage behavior like this. Teachers and parents should be encouraging non-violence in as many ways as possible.
Just last week, we celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day. There is a reason that King stands out as a modern hero, and it is because he used non-violent means to achieve his goals.
There are plenty of non-violent heroes in our history that society adores. Rosa Parks, Mahatma Ghandi, John Lennon. There’s a reason these people are remembered. And it is not because they decided to solve their problems via violence.
These should be the people we should teach today’s youth about. These should be the people we encourage our children to look up to. Rather than telling today’s youth that fighting can be a solution to problems, should we not try looking into helping our youth learn peaceful means of solving problems?
Now before I sound too much like the “braid flowers into your hair” hippie (which I willingly admit to being), I’d like to diverge my argument to say that by letting kids get into scraps, we are letting them get hurt.
To say that getting the crap kicked out of you is a “valuable learning experience” is one of the biggest misconceptions I’ve ever heard. Our culture wants to say that getting beat in a fight is learning something valuable.
The only thing this could possibly teach our kids is how to hold onto hate. And who wouldn’t want to “get even” after being beat up. Should we encourage today’s youth to continue an endless cycle of violence? Or should we teach today’s youth that it is better to learn how to turn the other cheek, and address our problems in a civil manner?
An eye for an eye is not a philosophy to live by. And I believe that the still-fresh memory of students being shot by a peer should be enough to prove that.
Dear Ms Labor
I think you have missed the point of Franklin’s article. He was not advocating
for the general use of violence to solve problems. He did not suggest that we
do not teach non-violent solutions to our children. He was just stating that if
all non-violent methods have failed, than violence may be the last option.
The statics you used to try to prove your point only demonstrates that we are
having problems with violence. However these statics are also taken in an
environment which does not teach an “escalation of force” concept to conflicts.
The current system only presents non-violent means of problem solving. Without
education on violence when students employ violence it is often done without
restrain or proper application. Pretending that totally non-violent approach to
every solution doesn’t agree with human reality. There are reasons why the
President sometimes states that “military options” are still on the table when
dealing with foreign countries.
Human males are naturally aggressive. Without the presence of positive warrior
cultures in our society, young boys often are attracted to negative warrior
cultures. Inner city gangs that support uncontrolled violence have become
America’s new warrior culture. Without a positive warrior culture that teaches
the avoidance of violence, we are stuck major problems of uncontrolled violence
in our society.
While you suggested a number of non-violent heroes you admire, I
am not sure if you accurately represented their struggles. Rosa Parks was a
great non-violent icon. But her non-violent methods were also effective.
Imagine if history would have turned out different and she was forcibly removed
from that bus. Would we expect her not to defend herself?
You list Mahatma Ghandi as another non-voilent hero to support
your argument. I ask that you only consider looking deeper into his
philosophies before you apply his theories to this case. Here are a couple of
his many quotes that run contradictory to your assertions.
“I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice
and violence, I would advise violence… I would rather have India resort to
arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner,
become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.” – Mahatma Ghandi
“I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot
protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently
facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He
who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of
a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in
helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.” –
Mahatma Ghandi
After a young boy had attempted all the non-violent methods he could think of and
applied several times to for the aid of his teacherss, I think even Ghandi may
have authorized the use of force to escape from oppression.
The very existence of the United States of America is a good example of the
justified use of force. After multiple attempts use diplomacy to correct the
oppression of the British King, the American colonies took up arms to ensure
their liberty. It was only after the non-violent methods have failed can you
ever justly resort to force.
But maybe most importantly, we should stop lying to our children about violence. We
cannot say that violence is never the answer in society while at the same time
having armed police and a military to defend the country. Ultimately, the
American culture supports the use of violence in select situations to preserve
our liberties. While this we celebrated the 40th anniversary of an
all-volunteer military this month, do not fool yourself into believing that we
could do without the military. Now a continually smaller group of Americans are
asked to appropriately use force to preserve your freedoms.