murder – Page 2 – Engaging Peace

Nobel Peace Laureates and International Women’s Day

Posted on March 7, 2011July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

In honor of International Women’s Day, celebrated March 8 of this year, we dedicate this post to the five most recent female winners of the Nobel Peace Prize.

2004: Wangari Maathai from Kenya, the first African woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize, received the award for her achievements in sustainable development, the rights of women, democracy, environmental protections, and peace. (For more on Wangari Maathai, see this video.)

2003: Shirin Ebadi from Iran was awarded the Peace Prize for her work on behalf of democracy and human rights, particularly the rights of women and children. She was the first woman in Iran to become a federal judge, a position taken from her following the Islamic Revolution of 1975. Not until 1992 was she again allowed to practice law in her home country. Much of her work is risky, focusing on human rights cases. (For more on Shirin Ebadi, see this video.)

1997: The 1997 Peace Prize was shared by Jody Williams of Putney, Vermont, USA, and the organization she co-founded, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She has devoted her life to anti-war, anti-violence activities, and has helped to found the Nobel Women’s Initiative which works for peace with equality and justice. (For more on Jody Williams, see this article and video.)

1992: Rigoberta Menchú Tum from Guatemala grew up in an impoverished Mayan Indian family that founded the Committee for the Peasant Union, which fought for social reform and justice for native families. Following the torture and murder of her father and brother, she fled the country and dedicated her life to promoting human rights and reconciliation. (For more on Rigoberts Menchu Tum, see this video.)

1991: Aung San Suu Kyi, born in Burma (now Myanmar), has earned international recognition for her work on human rights. Despite being held under house arrest in Burma for most of the past few decades, she has been continuously outspoken on behalf of the Burmese people. (For more on Aung San Suu Kyi, see this video.)

These five women are all human beings who have devoted their lives to promoting human rights and peace. Read or listen to their stories. What characteristics do you share with them? What can you do to promote peace and human rights? Everyone can do something–you don’t have to be a Nobel Laureate to make a difference for peace.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

“Lone” gunman? Think again.

Posted on January 24, 2011April 18, 2021 by kathiemm

Jared Loughner "flag"--graphic with image plus words such as "violence means ends" and "speak kill propaganda listen" — “Jared Flag” by Eric Gulliver, 2011

Jared Loughner’s deadly attack on innocent civilians in Tucson, Arizona, was morally reprehensible. Maybe he is mentally ill, but he is also the product of a society with an enormous tolerance for violence.

He may be considered a “lone” gunman, but the social macrosystem in which he grew up undoubtedly contributed to his actions. To give just a few examples, the U.S. is a country in which:

An estimated 1,740 children died in 2008 as a result of abuse and/or neglect. Yet the financing of social programs to address such problems has been constantly under attack;
The annual murder rate was 29^thamong the 31 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The frequency of homicide in the U.S. is more similar to rates in Haiti and Albania than to other Western countries such as Canada, France, and Spain.

Also in 21^st century U.S.,

Pressure on lawmakers from pro-gun interests far outweighs advocacy for the right of some individuals to vote; and
Incitement to violence on the airwaves and Internet routinely trounces civility and dialogue.

Don’t believe the rhetoric that “words don’t kill, only weapons do.” Words are weapons that can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. Ask women in battered women’s shelters what was more destructive to them—vicious words or fists. Ask anyone who has gone through military training about the use of words to make them ready to murder and maim. Propaganda is very popular among unscrupulous leaders because it works.

Finally, remember that the U.S. is also home to millions who grew up to live the ethic of reciprocity, to choose a life of service, to love rather than hate, and to err, apologize, and forgive.

To read the words of a true war hero, see this essay by Ron Kovic, then ask yourself what do we need to do to encourage the likes of Ron Kovic rather than the likes of Jared Loughner.

And if you have never read Ron Kovic’s memoir, Born on the Fourth of July, or seen the movie based on it, please do. Ron may have lost the use of his legs in war, but he is freer than all the people who are bound up in hatred.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Attending to negative consequences (Moral engagement, part 7)

Posted on November 1, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

Marine sargeant comforts girlfriend before leaving for Arabian Gulf region. (U.S. Navy photo in public domain; from WikiMedia Commons

It’s not easy to exercise the form of moral engagement known as attending to negative consequences. People in power are reluctant to reveal the negative consequences of their acts of aggression.

Consider these examples:

Former President George Bush’s refusal to hold a public ceremony when bodies were returned to the United States from various war zones.
The civilian casualties inflicted by American servicemen and women and drones that are covered up by the government and mainstream media.
The reluctance of ordinary people to think about the murder, torture, dismembering, and terrorizing of men, women, and children in which Americans participate either directly or indirectly. What can be more horrifying than to think of oneself as collusive in such activities, even if only indirectly through doing nothing?

A first step towards moral engagement in response to cover-ups is obtaining the kind of information provided by Wikileaks, the progressive electronic media, and groups such as Psychologists for Social Responsibility.

The next step is to act:

Read and weigh the available information.
Insist on public transparency in regard to the effects of our government’s military policies.
Hold public officials responsible for their behavior.
Learn who among the nation’s politicians has the courage to speak out against the slaughter our country has caused in various parts of the world.
Exercise your right and responsibility to vote for pro-peace candidates.
Attend to the consequences of participation in armed aggression for our own service people and their families; think about the impact of the escalating numbers of cases of PTSD, suicide, homicide, drug and alcohol abuse, and family violence and disruption for the service people, their families, their communities and the health of the nation.

Finally, consider the devastating and long-lasting effects of war on the environment–to be discussed more in future posts. In tomorrow’s U.S. election, beware of political candidates who reap enormous profits from the “harvesting” and selling of fossil fuels and scoff at the overwhelming evidence not just for global warming but other catastrophic environmental events.

See the documentary The 11th Hour and think twice about awarding your votes to profiteers who deny the consequences of their profiteering.

And remember to vote.

Vote for peace.

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Remembering September 11, 2001

Posted on September 9, 2010July 6, 2011 by kathiemm

World Trade Center towers collapsing on 9/11/01 — World Trade Center on 9/11 shortly after the second tower had collapsed. (Photo by Wally Gobetz. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. From WikiMedia Commons)

September 11 is a day that needs to be remembered and reflected on for many reasons:

The tragic loss of life to several thousand innocent people.
The reminder that violent assault on any one individual reverberates through a family, a community, and a nation.
The recognition that for the first time in over 100 years, Americans were attacked on their own soil, challenging their assumption that security can be achieved through armed strength alone.
The killing of innocent people can lead to rage, a desire to retaliate, and calls for revenge.
Validation of the maxim that every time an invader takes one innocent life, 10 new people join the opposition.

The intent of Terry Jones, pastor of a small evangelical church in Florida, to burn more than 200 Qur’ans on the anniversary of 9/11 can be seen as a powerful example of rage, the desire to retaliate, and an act of revenge—the kinds of behaviors that perpetuate cycles of violence, hatred, and misunderstanding.

The loss of innocent American lives on 9/11/2001 was a travesty, as is Jones’s plan to burn the holy book of millions of peace-loving Muslims around the world.

Perhaps burning the holy book of millions is not as deadly as killing an innocent person, but as General Petraeus has pointed out, it certainly provides fuel for the small militant element within Islam aiming to harm American forces in the Middle East and elsewhere.

What does Mr. Jones know of the Qur’an? Has he considered Chapter 5, Verse 32: “[I]f anyone slew a person—unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land—it would be as if he slew the whole people. And if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”

Does he understand that the message of the Qur’an, which overlaps significantly with the Bible, emphasizes peace and brotherhood?

Is he also aware that, like the Bible, the Qur’an contains passages that can be distorted by seekers of power within each religion to advance their own agenda?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology