sweep

The following passage is from Jared Diamonds 'Guns, germs & steel':

"On the Chatham Islands, 500 miles east of new Zealand, centuries of independence came to a brutal end for the Moriori people in December 1835. In November 19 of that year, a ship carrying 500 Maori armed with guns, clubs, and axes arrived, followed on December 5 by a shipload of 400 more Maori. Groups of Maori began to walk through Moriori settlements, announcing that the Moriori were now their slaves, and killing those who objected . An organized resistance by the Moriori could still then have defeated the Maori, who were outnumbred two to one. However, the Moriori had a tradition of resolving disputes peacefully. They decided in a council meeting not to fight back but to offer peace, friendship, and a division of resources.

Before the Moriori could deliver that offer, the Maori attacked en masse. Over the course of the next few days, they killed hundreds of Moriori, cooked and ate many of the bodies, and enslaved all the others, killing most of them too over the next few years as it suited their whim. A Moriori survivor recalled, "[The Maori] commenced to kill us like sheep...[We] were terrified, fled to the bush, concealed ourselves in holes underground, and in any place to escape our enemies. It was of no avail; we were discovered and killed-- men, women, and children indiscriminately." A Maori conqueror explained, "We took possession... in accordance with our customs and we caught all the people. Not one escaped. Some ran away from us, these we killed, and others we killed-- but what of that? It was in accordance with our custom."

Surely this leaves any case for humility and peaceful non-resistance in tatters. Those people were killed as sheep. If you can't fight and win, then everything you built suffers and dies. Of course, I'm not denying peace and non-resistance outright, but to value a policy of non-violence absolutely, leads to disaster. I don't revel in violence, but I need to protect those I love, even if others burn to keep my loved ones alive.

I'm interested to hear what some of the gurus, mystics, christians*, buddhists, in particular, those in favour of the virtue of humility have to say in defense.

*(keeping in mind that christians have often used their own doctrines to justify violence and torture, despite advocating humility. DAMN; religion just seems to be rife with hypocrisy. I give up. No! I mean, I fight!)

Seraphim

I will fight if I means dying for sake of my loved ones ...

Like what Mr. Spock always says - "the needs of many outnumbers the need of one" (or something like that).

sweep

sure seraphim, but isn't desire the root of all suffering? If we use your spock quote, we can see that the greed of the Maori (from the Northern land mass known as New Zealand) and their reports of all the lovely shell fish and eels in the tiny polynesian Island of Chatham, led them to massacre their peaceful neighbors.

There again there is a big difference between need and want, in this case. Also these people were all originally Maori, according to the book, but the difference in environments of the Polynesian lands caused the cultures and their traditions to diverge. hmmm?

Well, I say that the stomach is the root of all suffering. If you read jareds great book you'll see that food production leads to war. Speaking of which, time to bung a chicken in the oven! 'here chicky, chicky!'

Seraphim

sure seraphim, but isn't desire the root of all suffering?

My reply : To me, No ... desire is not root of all suffering, overindulging in desire is.

Example - Desire for sexual relationship is healthy and find a mate for yourself which you can spent years together is healthy. Overindulging yourself with your mate OR with multiple partners ARE not healthy because it could cause various sickness (or weak knees to say the least).

There again there is a big difference between need and want, in this case.

My reply : No. In need, your sacrifice is needed for sake of others, question is WILL you sacrfice yourself for others?

In terms of Want, question is WHO wants your sacrifice? Is your sacrifice will accomplish anything?

Also these people were all originally Maori, according to the book, but the difference in environments of the Polynesian lands caused the cultures and their traditions to diverge. hmmm?

My reply : That didn't change anything. Moari WANTED those resources so they fought for it, Moriori NEEDED peace so they tried for that.
Are you going to make excuse for barbaric acts just because circumstances in favour of war rather than peace?

sweep

Yes, I can see your point. This leads to the question would you die for another? I asked this one in another thread called 'doing doubles'. Sounds sinister huh? Well, yes, if two people are bound and an 'about to be' slayer questions each on 'who wants to be the first'; one view posited by a real killer was that both are eager to get the other 'popped' first. My view is that I would want the other person to go first so that (A) they wouldn't be alone (B) so that I know their suffering has ended. All hypothetical; how would I really act?? Or in a different scenario, which one goes? That's a really tough one to answer. WEll, back on track.

In this instance, if I were the Moriori, I would sacrifice myself to save those I love, and try to kill the Maori (In real life I would probably get a royal wupping, BTM). If that is your point then we agree.

simple. The maori want to eat me and my shellfish, and they want my wife and children to be slaves. My sacrifice will fill the Maoris pockets with eels, and their bellies with my wife and children, if you would call that an accomplishment.

No. that isn't the issue. Circumstances didn't favour war in my example, but the Maori had the power to (try to) take. The Moriori also had the power to stop the taking, sacrifice, but ended up as 'lambs to the slaughter, due to their policy of non-resistance. War might have been averted had the Moriori acted aggressively. There again, it might have resulted in an age of bitter conflict. What I am suggesting is that a policy of non-resistance, which can be found in christian doctrines and (some) buddhist schools, makes little sense in the light of amoral egoism, or the philosophy that 'might makes right'.

Some people may be as slippery as an eel or hide in a brittle shell, but a shell can always be broken. GRR... where are all the christians when you need 'em? Right, time to sleep. c'ya.

Seraphim

By sweep

Yes, I can see your point. This leads to the question would you die for another? I asked this one in another thread called 'doing doubles'. Sounds sinister huh? Well, yes, if two people are bound and an 'about to be' slayer questions each on 'who wants to be the first'; one view posited by a real killer was that both are eager to get the other 'popped' first. My view is that I would want the other person to go first so that (A) they wouldn't be alone (B) so that I know their suffering has ended. All hypothetical; how would I really act?? Or in a different scenario, which one goes? That's a really tough one to answer. WEll, back on track.

My reply : That is not NEED, that's WANT. You want to be sure that others are sincere in their fight by dying first so you could follow. At least, that's what I understand from above.

In this instance, if I were the Moriori, I would sacrifice myself to save those I love, and try to kill the Maori (In real life I would probably get a royal wupping, BTM). If that is your point then we agree.

My reply : Outnumbered 1-2 means you will most likely will die if you fight. Question is - "Is the cause worth the sarcifice it is asking?"

If I was a Moriori, I will be fighting back, not because I'm a suicidal maniac, but at least by doing so I can take a few Moaris with me to hell and maybe buy some time for others to escape.

simple. The maori want to eat me and my shellfish, and they want my wife and children to be slaves. My sacrifice will fill the Maoris pockets with eels, and their bellies with my wife and children, if you would call that an accomplishment.

My reply : Then FIGHT. If they want your food, make them work for it. They want to kill you, try hard to kill them first ... afterall, you have nothing else to lose.

No. that isn't the issue. Circumstances didn't favour war in my example, but the Maori had the power to (try to) take. The Moriori also had the power to stop the taking, sacrifice, but ended up as 'lambs to the slaughter, due to their policy of non-resistance. War might have been averted had the Moriori acted aggressively. There again, it might have resulted in an age of bitter conflict. What I am suggesting is that a policy of non-resistance, which can be found in christian doctrines and (some) buddhist schools, makes little sense in the light of amoral egoism, or the philosophy that 'might makes right'.

My reply : OK ... I see your point.
There is old saying ... I believe from Hindus as well (heard about it from someone - maybe from that Vishnupurana I watched on Saturdays (just to learn more about Hindusm), the saying stuck there but the rest of the details faded).
It goes something like this - "If someone sees injustice and do nothing about it, then he is one of the cause of that injustice"

Simply put - a person who wants to fight back must first acknowledge his Needs and Wants. Is he fighting because such fighting is needed? Is he fighting because he is wanted to fight?

A Buddhist who fights back doesn't mean he goes against his teachings, it is simply could be an act to prevent injustice to others. His fight should be for sake of others and not for personal gain or vendetta.

Old Man

Yes, but what is torture? I would say that being locked up in a US jail is torture.

And to prohibit violence in the way of self defence is certainly hypocritical. The bible never advocates that.

andy_d

I think it's very foolish to completely discount the option of using force in this world (something which any sensible religion acknowledges) That doesn't mean that violence is a good way to solve your probelms, just that it is prudent to be prepared for that option.

Of course, the first rule of fighting is always "don't fight what you can't beat"

In the case of the Moriori, they couldn't have fought effectively. They weren't a warrior culture and would have got annihilated by the extremely fierce Maori if they had tried. They had no chance in a fight, none at all. There's no honour in being slaughtered.

Surrender was really their only option, because there was no possibility of escape. Unfortunately for them, surrender led to the same result as resistance would have. Bad luck for them

Shake

Not to get too far off-topic, but IMO being locked up in a US jail is far better than many in the US live (i.e. the homeless, but not limited to them).

Back on-topic: as the Xians good book ® says: there is a time for peace and a time for war.

Sarpedon

Non-violence only works when your audience has a concience. I think I have said this before somewhere. It worked for Gandhi, it worked for MLK. It did not work for the Tibetans, the Tianamen square demonstrators, the Moriori, the hawaiians, or any number of other groups. A far better way is violent actions without violent thoughts. By renouncing hate and anger, and acting unselfishly, one can fight without gaining any negative affects (guilt) for oneself.

Think of it as the ideal samurai mentality. You do your duty without any thought for yourself. This is the way for violence without anger or hatred