liberty – Engaging Peace

Will memory serve us right?

Posted on September 9, 2016September 10, 2016 by kathiemm

9/11. It’s that time of year again. The amount of attention given to the events of 2001 is declining, but a few voices still exhort us: “Remember 9/11!”

There are some memorable questions here: WHAT should we remember? Or perhaps, better yet: What lessons should we have learned?

Regarding lessons to be learned, I vote for: Violence breeds violence.

The attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, did not come out of nowhere. Contrary to popular beliefs, fueled by the popular media, 9/11 followed a long history of United States government-sponsored military aggression in the Middle East; you can make a lot of enemies through violence–especially when you smugly preach liberty, justice and freedom for all while killing and maiming wives, children, and thousands of other innocent civilians.

For a not so brief summary of recent U.S. violence in the Middle East, read this . For a very readable essay on the cycle of violence in which the U.S. military-industrial complex has embedded the nation at great profit, read this .

There probably are always some people who gain something they want through the use of violence. Certainly the U.S. military-industrial complex and the U.S. corporate media have benefitted greatly from the violence perpetrated by the government in the name of freedom, democracy, and, Heaven forgive them, God. But perhaps they have not gained as much as right-wing extremist groups in the Middle East such as ISIS, whose ranks have swelled since 9/11. There are a lot of arguments concerning the US role in the evolution of the Islamic State—for a broad sample, see these articles in the New Yorker, The Atlantic , and Counterpunch .

The message in all these articles is that US government policies have contributed to the recent growth in terrorist groups. So, perhaps the things we should remember about 9/11 should NOT include belief in the claim that the US was the gentle giant good guy viciously attacked for no reason by utterly vicious and psychotic bad guys.

Perhaps, if we truly want to move ahead towards peace and security, we would benefit more by remembering that the US government should not create power vacuums in places where imperialism has left behind a lot of righteous anger and, more importantly, that it should not send Americans off to die in other lands so that it can increase its control of oil or terrify other people.

What I remember most about 9/11 is the compassion, the empathy, the bravery of the many American first responders and civilians who risked all to help the innocent civilians targeted in the 9/11 attacks. And what I want to remember each 9/11 in my future is: 1) Rewatch this video. 2) Learn everything I can about anyone who seems to be using 9/11 for political gain, and 3) Spend the next year speaking out against the ongoing US governmental aggression that continues to kill innocent children and others .

Self-evident or reserved for the power elite? Part 1.

Posted on July 4, 2016July 3, 2016 by kathiemm

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Yup, that is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the lofty document presumed to have legitimized and legalized the separation of 13 British colonies from Great Britain back in 1776.

So, we might well ask, as we celebrate the achievements heralded in that document, have subsequent generations of Americans honored and promulgated those principles?

Uh, oh. The answer seems to be: Not unless it suited the interests of the ruling powers within the nation to do so.

On July 5, 1852, 76 years after the Declaration of Independence, the great American Frederick Douglass gave a speech that rings all too true today. Here are some excerpts:

“The blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony….

Fellow citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions, whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are today rendered more intolerable by the jubilant shouts that reach them….

To forget them, to pass lightly over their wrongs and to chime in with the popular theme would be treason most scandalous and shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and the world….

Whether we turn to the declarations of the past, or to the professions of the present, the conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting. America is false to the past, false to the present, and solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this occasion, I will, in the name of humanity, which is outraged, in the name of liberty, which is fettered, in the name of the Constitution and the Bible, which are disregarded and trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce, with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to perpetuate slavery — the great sin and shame of America! ‘I will not equivocate – I will not excuse.’”

And what about us, 240 years since that historic 4^th of July? Will we excuse the racists, the elitists, and the deniers of liberty and democracy within our own country, or will we SPEAK OUT, will we ADVOCATE for ALTERNATIVES to HATRED and AUTHORITARIANISM (AHA!)?

The psychology of revolutions, Part I

Posted on July 15, 2013July 16, 2013 by kathiemm

By guest author, Dr. Majed Ashy

There are at least two models for national development: evolution and revolution.

The Centennial of Independence by Henri Rousseau, 1892 — Le centenaire de l’independance by Henri Rousseau, 1892. In public domain.

Evolution involves the gradual development of a nation over considerable time. It requires progress by both the government and the people in ways that address socioeconomic and cultural realities. It takes into account:

Principles of justice
Inclusion of society’s diverse members and groups
An understanding by both the people and the government regarding the basic concepts of human rights
Recognition of the importance of civilian governments standing at equal distances from all groups in society.

By contrast, revolutions happen when the government is rigid and biased towards certain groups in society. Revolutions are most likely when people feel stagnated socioeconomically and culturally in ways that reflect unfairness and corruption in the ruling parties.

Revolutions represent hope for radical changes in the system and society that will allow for rapid development and counter the times lost in stagnation. They tend to be motivated by popular hopes for justice, equality, and dignity. However, these hopes might conflict with the realities in society of some people motivated by personal greed, power, or revenge.

Among today’s Western European democracies, we can identify governments that were largely achieved through revolution as well as governments that emerged through a more evolutionary process. For example, the French government grew out of revolutionary activity that involved about 200 years of bloodshed, fighting between the partners in the revolution, wars with other countries, and counter-revolutions.

At the same time, England’s democratic system evolved gradually, without major internal revolutions, after the 1215 signing of the Magna Carta (The Great Charter of the Liberties of England), which imposed limits on the power of the king.

In recent years, the Middle East has seen several revolutions. There are two visions that joined hands in the Middle Eastern revolutions. The first vision pictures the Arab world as moving toward various versions of Islamic states; these states might be hybrid between some form of democracy and Sharia law. The second vision reflects a desire for a civilian secular government focused on respecting diversity, liberty, human rights, and socioeconomic development. These visions will be considered further in my next post.

For further reading, please see The Psychology of Revolution, by Gustave Le Bon.

Dr. Majed Ashy is an assistant professor of psychology at Merrimack College and a research fellow in psychiatry at McLean Hospital/Harvard Medical School.

Blind justice–or blind to justice?

Posted on September 24, 2012September 24, 2012 by kathiemm

Americans are expected to pledge allegiance to a flag that symbolizes “liberty and justice for all.” But, as one of our readers asked recently, “What is justice?”

One common distinction is between retributive justice and restorative justice:

Retributive justice:

Focuses on punishment for perceived transgressions
Is imposed unilaterally on a weaker party by a stronger party
Argues that the severity of the punishment should be proportional to the severity of the offense—e.g., an eye for an eye
Is viewed as having a strong basis in Western values, particularly those of men

Restorative justice:

Rejects the notion that punishment of an offender adequately restores justice
Views transgressions as bilateral or multilateral conflicts involving perpetrators, victims, and their communities
Recommends bringing together all parties to exchange stories and move toward apology and forgiveness.

Depending on our family and community values, we are exposed to varying levels of these forms of justice and develop ideas regarding which form is best. For example, in families:

Authoritarian parents expect their children to be obedient and to follow strict rules and punish them if they don’t—consistent with retributive justice beliefs
Authoritative parents are more democratic, more responsive to their children’s needs and questions, and favor understanding and forgiveness over punishment—consistent with restorative justice beliefs

And in nations:

The U.S. incarcerates the largest number of people, including the most women in the world
Under Nelson Mandela, South Africa created a Truth and Reconciliation Commission “to enable South Africans to come to terms with their past on a morally accepted basis and to advance the cause of reconciliation.”
The video above shows how the Rwandan government has approached the issue of justice in the aftermath of that country’s genocide

Which type of justice is embraced by each society? On what basis is one approach more just than the other? Which do you favor? Why?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology