 |
 |
|
|
|
Revolutionary ViolenceAnother hard question is the use of violence to overthrow an oppressive government--for instance, the former apartheid government of South Africa, which for many years was involved in a war against African nationalist guerrillas.1 There's a good chance that you're against the policy of apartheid , or strict separation of the races. And you probably can understand why the opposition resorted to violence. But there's a difference between understanding someone's use of violence and supporting it. You can support the end which a person is seeking, while disagreeing with the means he or she is using to get it. At the same time, you can't say how you would react if you were a black South African. You've never been in that situation. All you can say is what you believe and how you react to the situation you face. And that's all you have to say. In Gillette v US , the Supreme Court quoted a case, Owen v US , which said that questions about what you would do in a future or hypothetical situation are irrelevant. They don't show what you're thinking now. It's the same for questions about what you would do if you were a different person. You simply can't know. This is a hard question for many people, not just for COs. Is violence okay when the government or the economic system is very oppressive? Is it all right to use violent means to change it? Some people say yes. Others say that violence may overthrow the government, but it doesn't really change things. The government was violent; the means used to overthrow it were violent; and violence only leads to more violence. It doesn't change people's hearts and minds. It's hard to know which is right. But history suggests that violence often does breed more violence. The French Revolution led to the Reign of Terror. The Russian Revolution led to the Red Terror and the rise of Stalin. Violence by the US and by guerrilla forces in Cambodia (Kampuchea) led to mass slaughters under the dictator Pol Pot. Does violence always corrupt the end it is seeking? You'll have to decide for yourself.
1. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the South African Defense Force (SADF) fought an extended counter-insurgency war against guerrillas from the Southwest African People's Organization (SWAPO) for control of what is now Namibia. The African National Congress for many years maintained an active military arm which relied on guerrilla tactics. The ANC's military arm is now inactive. The term "guerrilla" is here used to describe a particular type of warfare; use of it implies no judgment on the legitimacy of either SWAPO or the ANC.
|
Contents CO Regulations Acrobat Version
Ordering Information GI Rights Hotline CCCO
GI Rights Publications
girights@objector.org