On Self-Defense

'An eye for an eye makes the world blind'...

There are a lot of problems I have with non-violence and any movement that confines itself to just non-violent tactics.

Just by studying history, it is very clear that in any situation where there is a disparity between power, where one group is oppressing another, the people in power will do anything to defend their power - by any means necessary.

In fact, it is absurd to believe that the oppressor will not consider completely annihilating a population to keep power. We have seen evidence of that in situations such as Nazi Germany with the holocaust, or even in Việt Nam where Kennedy believed that the only way to win the war was to send the Vietnamese back to barbarism.

I believe that Malcolm X said it best when he stated that the language of the oppressor is violence and that unless we speak to the oppressor in the same language, the oppressor will not be able to understand our demands.

Unless people rise up to defend themselves they will be wiped out, either by force or by mental and social colonization.

What about the glorified heroes of non-violence?

Let's start with Jesus.



The son of God's most famous contribution to non-violence was the whole turn the other cheek deal, however, I think it is obvious to anyone that not all of us have the luxury of being resurrected after we die. While people may praise Jesus for being a champion of non-violence, I see him as the greatest deterrent. The lesson I learn from Jesus is as follows: turn the other cheek, and get crucified (I'm being real, I don't mean to be offensive). I don't know about everyone else, but being crucified isn't my idea of liberation.

Let's take another example: Thích Quảng Đức.



Many know him as the burning monk on the cover of the Rage Against the Machine CD cover. He immolated himself to protest the unjust Diệm regime. Many people champion Thích Quảng Đức as a shining example of aggressive non-violence and that he and other self-immolating monks contributed to the downfall of Diệm.

I disagree. Diệm was recording saying that he enjoyed watching the Buddhists monks kill themselves and compared it to a human barbecue. It is clear that Diệm had no intent on changing his oppressive policies towards the Buddhists just because they took their own lives in noble ways, and if anything, they made Diệm's job easier, since he was already out to kill the Buddhists anyways. It is important to note that Diệm was overthrown by a bloody coup that resulted Diệm's death. It is arguable that had it not been for the coup, Diệm would never have been overthrown, especially since he had American backing.

These are two very specific examples, however, the history of non-violent movements have proven to be ineffective. To me, the non-violent movements in the Civil Rights Era were failures and only resulted in excessive physical violence towards blacks and did nothing but get ineffectual legislation passed. As Malcolm X said, "Nothing has changed". Police brutality of blacks hasn't stopped. Rodney King was far after the Civil Rights movement. Professor Gates and the incident with the racist pigs was just a few months ago. Having a half-black president doesn't mean shit.

Especially in contemporary left-wing organizations, the non-violence movement is dominated by people with privilege. It is easy to advocate non-violence when you have the luxury of being able to wait for liberation and especially for whites because they are less likely to be brutalized by the oppressor than people of color. It is easy to advocate for non-violence when your community is not being physically attacked. It is absurd to advocate non-violence when the only thing the oppressor has ever been is violent.

I believe that movements based on self-defense are the only ones who have actually achieved the overthrow of an oppressive regime. History tells us that this is the most effective tactic. From the Bolshevik Revolution, to the Vietnamese Revolution - these are all examples of an oppressed mass organizing to defend themselves against an oppressive regime and ultimately overthrowing the regime. Even failed attempts such as the Black Panther Party have shown us the effectiveness of self-defense in empowering a community to control their own destiny and not ask for hand outs from the powers that be. Self defense is key in self-realization that people can stand on their own two feet and liberate themselves without being reliant on the oppressor.

It is important to understand that the oppressor's attacks on the community are not always physical, but are largely psychological. When society teaches you to hate yourself and have a distorted standard of beauty, that is an attack on the community, and is far more effective at destroying unity than any bomb ever can.

Once we understand that we're under attack in our every day lives, we can begin to understand that the problem is deep rooted in the system itself and that revolution is the only way to liberation. We must uproot evil, not just chop it off at the stem.

The goal of self-defense isn't to make the world blind, but rather, the goal is that if the oppressor threatens to smack your cheek, you chop of the hand so that it can no longer threaten not just your welfare, but the welfare of the entire community.