I think the most appropriate thing to begin with is the article that I just read which finally motivated me enough to get on here and post. It is certainly not a major news story, but it is indicative to me of a growing trend in the U.S. today whereby common sense is being slaughtered and maimed at an unprecedented rate. You can read the whole story here if you wish (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_on_re_us/anti_peace_sign_4) but for those pressed for time (and if you are why in god's name are you reading this?) I will summarize: A homeowner's association in Colorado is threatening to fine a woman $25 a day for displaying a Christmas wreath that is in the shape of a peace sign. Read that again if you have to. The association sent her a letter saying that residents were offended by it and that the board "will not allow signs, flags, etc. that can be considered divisive." Say what? The symbol for peace is offensive and divisive? Really? Maybe I have just missed the boat on this one. I decided to turn to our good friend Webster and see which of the many definitions for peace might conjure up these feelings of animosity.
Definition 1: A state of tranquility or quiet. - Hmm, seems innocent enough.
Definition 2: Harmony in personal relationships. - Who doesn't like that?
Definition 3: Freedom from disquieting or opressive thoughts or emotions. -Kinda seems like the opposite of divisive. Let us pause to reflect on the irony.
Definition 4: A pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity. - Ding, ding, ding!
So it all comes back to the war. Really, it all comes back to people being offended when they think others are displaying anti-war feelings. This leads to several questions. First, if a word or symbol has several definitions and only one of which can be considered offensive, does it then become offensive in all cases? Is it the responsibility of the individual displaying the piece to clarify their intentions? Why is it that the act of displaying a Christmas symbol (which is a Christian symbol) is not considered divisive but advertising one of the core tenets of that religion is? Actually, let's set aside all of those questions and just ask this: isn't peace a good thing? I mean, ultimately whether you are for the war or not, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, etc. aren't we at least unified by that? I'm pretty sure that if you asked President Bush if he wants peace in the Middle East he'd look at you quite oddly and answer "yes" in the same tone as if you'd asked him if he knew how to speak english. Isn't that supposed to be the main thing that separates us from the terrorists that are trying to kill us? I always thought that whether or not we liked the idea of getting into the war, we could all agree that the best case scenario was a peaceful resolution as quickly as possible with the least loss of life. If we don't have that as a common foundation, then I don't know what we have. Perhaps I am making too much out of this, but for the last 10 years I have signed pretty much every personal e-mail correspondence "Peace" before my name, because I believe that peace is one of those ideas that is just unilaterally good. Inner peace, outer peace, it's all good. It transcends partisanship, race, ethnicity, and pretty much any other thing you can think of that is divisive. The only things it doesn't transcend are hate and anger, and that's the problem. Peace really doesn't have a chance against hate and anger. And that's too bad.
By the way, by far the most hilarious thing about the article is this line; "some residents also believed it was a symbol of Satan." That is just priceless.
OK, I promise the majority of my posts will not be in such a hippy mold, and I further promise to infuse them with not just a little bit of ridiculous thoughts and idiocy as well. Until then:
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As someone who has many times signed off with the quote “war,” I would like to officially come out against peace. In fact I generally find it to be a bad idea all together. Perhaps in small doses it can be stomached, but overall, bad. I know what you’re thinking, that I always have to argue, and that even I cannot really mean peace is a bad idea, but it is. Only through conflict (the opposite of peace) do we as individuals grow and gain greater understanding of the world and ourselves. Let’s look at your definitions again from another point of view.
>>Definition 1: A state of tranquility or quiet. - Hmm, seems innocent enough.
Yes, it does until you realize that tranquility or quiet is a state of inaction. Totally void of excitement, challenge, or adventure.
>>Definition 2: Harmony in personal relationships. - Who doesn't like that?
Once again the surface is great, but realize that harmony sucks all the passion out of a relationship. No longer does that person understand you better than everyone else. There would be no little annoying things that become endearing because you could not tolerate them as well in any other person.
>>Definition 3: Freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions. -Kinda seems like the opposite of divisive. Let us pause to reflect on the irony.
Yes, let’s! Let us take a moment to look at a man pushing his oppressive (everyone must agree with me) view of peace through a blog, while championing the banner of peace. Oh, and by the way once again we would not want to ruin the world by thinking for ourselves!
>>Definition 4: A pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity. - Ding, ding, ding!
(Please do not push your view of the Iraqi civil war into this statement) There are still times in this world where we have two opposing views of such conviction that we have yet to find a way to resolve them without hostilities (and only through this conflict can we ever hope to). Now realize this: No war has lasted forever. That is correct. Wars come to an end. Hostilities eventually wear down one side into giving in or being destroyed. The people on the losing (really both) side change, learn, and adapt. They understand that open warfare will not allow them to obtain their goals (everyone does this—see every empire in history, the mighty will not always be on one side).
There may come a time when every being has reached the pinnacle of enlightenment that conflict is not needed, but until then peace is great in small doses because it is different and rare. It is that calm before the storm that you enjoy because the storm is often harsh. Peace is an unattainable goal, and needs to remain that way so we can continue to build a better tomorrow, and once peace finally wins there will be no more need for us.
In the end I stand by my statements above, and all of you peace loving beatniks will either come around to my way of thinking or you will fight me on this (which is coming around to my way of thinking) because I am steadfast in my support of conflict.
b-towne is evil.
But I like this part: "look at a man pushing his oppressive... view of peace through a blog" hehehe
Ah Towne, always good for a dissenting opinion. I can tell we're gonna really have some fun when I eventually get around to writing about global warming.
There are so many ways I can attack your reasoning that I must confess I have been paralyzed to this point trying to narrow down from the dozen or so that immediately spring to mind. I'll try this one:
Of course conflict is necessary for progess. Really you just need the interaction between people and/or their environment for progress to occur but conflict is an inevitable product of that so I will concede that it is necessary. But that doesn't mean that all peace is bad or that all conflict is good. Ultimately the whole point of a conflict is to achieve peace. Every conflict boils down essentially to Party A saying "This situation with Party B is not satisfactory to me" (i.e. I am not at peace), "I want the situation to be like X" (i.e. then I will be at peace). And Party B says "Your proposed settlement is unacceptable to me" (i.e. what puts you at peace will make me not at peace). Really you can fit any conflict into that framework, from a bar fight to employees arguing over an HR policy to an agrarian revolt. (Side note: More conflicts should be solved via the agrarian revolt. There's something about people marching in the streets carrying torches and pitchforks that just screams "I have a reasonable point to make, and might I have a moment of your time?") The point is that both sides still want peace, they just want it on their own terms and often the terms are incompatible. And of course when one side gets there way and the other doesn't not everyone is at peace. At the same time, even the side that gets its way inevitably starts desiring something else which leads them into another conflict. In this way it's like the free market. We have this abstract concept of equilibrium which market forces are always pushing prices towards but they never get there because things are always in a state of flux and thus equilibrium is constantly changing.
There is an old Indian proverb that goes "There is no answer. Seek it lovingly." I suppose I am saying "There is no peace. Seek it anyway."
Besides, you're just ornery because you've been dead for 300 years.
Post a Comment