BlackMan Time

Archive for September, 2006

It makes me laugh whenever pacifists, faint-hearted or so-called liberal minded people, say things like “violence is not the way to solve problems.” Reality and history actually disagree with such sentiments.

If violence did not solve matters why is it that war is the first line of offence adopted by countries (particularly America, Russia and Britain) when they have a dispute with another country? For instance:-

• America would not have achieved independence from Britain without violence.
• Violence was used against the Native Americans to prise them away from their land.
• Violence was used to enslave Africans.
• In London the grievances of Black people in Brixton would not have been heard, had they not rose up and set fire to their city and fought pitch battles with the police over 20 years ago.
• Pakistan’s president Pervez Musharraf is currently in the news revealing that the United States threatened to bomb his country “back to the Stone Age” after the 9/11 attacks if he did not help America’s war on terror.
• An organisation like the ANC, once labelled terrorist, is actually now the party in power in South Africa, as a result of pressure behind a violence when necessary tactic. Other political groups such as the IRA and Hezbollah have proven that violence is a legitimate part of making your political process, however strange it may sound to some people.

There are many more examples I could draw on…

A key thing to consider is that the subject of violence is enshrouded in hypocrisy as it usually depends on who is perceived to be the wrongdoer, as to whether the violent act itself is justified or not. If it is “justified” then those committing the violence is given leeway to unleash as much violence as is necessary to solve whatever “problem” violence is needed to solve.

If it is not “justified” those committing the violence is criminalised and labelled as troublemakers at best or terrorists at worse. They are given little or no leeway at all to commit violence and society, encouraged through adverse media reports, are encouraged to slant their bias away from the trouble makers.

Obviously the current hysteria around terrorism is a good example of this. British and American-led authorities/forces have been given much leeway to criminalise their own citizens and anyone whom they perceive to be terrorists. In some cases these states encodify their acts into law making it illegal for citizens to disobey.

This is the case in America where the Patriot Act have people there under control. To a lesser extent Britain has taken a similar road although its focus seem to be centred around demonising Muslims, Blacks and other minority groups.

Essentially, and this is the ironic thing, targetted violence is a key strategic weapon and those who find themselves in a fight must know when to deploy it. This fact is acknowledge by Malcom X when he said: “It doesn’t mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time, I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don’t call it violence when it’s self-defense, I call it intelligence.”

Question is how many faint-hearted, liberal minded, pacifists are intelligent enough to understand this?

It’s amazing that whenever governments decide to move on an issue they usually do so in such a hamfisted way that they tend to do more harm than good.

This seems to be the case in the UK with educaiton authorities implementation of healthier food within schools.

After years of serving up stodgy, unhealthy and environmentally unsound food to children, they suddenly announced they were going to go into the opposite direction and serve only healthy, organic food in school.

The measure, although a good one, has backfired. Some children have rebelled and are missing their stodgy fish and chips with chips and even more chips which may not be healthy but this is what they have become used to eating.

Aiding them in their rebellion are some parents who have been bringing the food these children want to school gates and smuggling them through schoolground barriers to their children!

Parents dislike the fact that this new regime is being foistered onto them and in some cases their children are not being given enough time or choice for their meals.

The government and many school heads said they aim to provide good quality food that will not only help pupils to concentrate much better in the afternoons, but is also healthy.

Both have a point, of course and perhaps what the government may have underestimated was the transition period between ending one regime to starting the new one. It is perhaps unrealistic to believe that many years of unhealthy tradition can disappear overnight with the introduction of a new, healthier one, even if it is for the greater good.

Is this too much to ask or expect?