Peace Studies Class Update, Part I

Hi all,


Some have asked about the peace studies class I took online through Transcend Peace University this spring, and I thought I'd share the first and final "papers" (really brief overviews--Professor Galtung doesn't appreciate longwindedness).  The other papers were group efforts, so I don't wan to post those,but the first and last were papers where we were asked to (in the first paper) describe a specific conflict and diagnosis it using the vocabulary and terminology used by Professor Galtung and (in the second paper) to offer a solution based on the concepts we read about and worked with during the class. 

Here's the book we used in the course, in case you're interested:

I chose the conflict over the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" (which is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque--discuss).  Below is the first paper.  I'll post my "solution" tomorrow.  BTW, I'm hoping to get into a summer course that starts in a couple of weeks with Professor Galtung on "Galtungism."  I'll keep you posted.

Peace.

Diagnosis:

Actor: Supporters of the Park 51 center	Shallow Attitude: We have the right to build this center where we would like it. Deep Attitude: We want to feel acceptance and dignity as both Muslims and New Yorkers	Shallow Behavior: Denying any sympathy with radical Islam; asserting legal rights to property. Deep Behavior: assertion of non-Otherness; assertion of the dignity of Islam and its right to be respected	Conflict: Shallow Conflict: the building cannot be both built and not built on that spot. Deep Conflict: Contrary narratives about the relationship of Islam and Muslims to American/Western values
Actor: Opponents of the Park 51 center	Shallow Attitude: Ground Zero is sacred space, and building a mosque near it defiles it, since the attackers on 9/11 professed to act in the name of Islam. Deep Attitude: Islam is foreign and dangerous and must be treated with suspicion	Shallow Behavior: Public demonstrations and pronouncements linking Islam to 9/11 and invoking the memories of the dead. Deep Behavior: Assertion of Manichean narrative of 9/11 in which Islam declared war on America/the West/freedom	Shallow Conflict: the building cannot be both built and not built on that spot. Deep Conflict: Contrary narratives about the relationship of Islam and Muslims to American/Western values

Prognosis:

In the absence of therapy, the following are the likely results:

Primary Consequences: The center is built as planned, infuriating those who are against it, which likely leads to interpersonal violence (harassment of those going and coming from the center), violence against property (vandalism), judicial violence (lawsuits aimed at closing or thwarting the center’s mission), and rhetorical violence (politicians/activists decrying the existence of the center for their political gain).  OR, the center is not built, frustrating those who wanted it built, leading to judicial violence (lawsuits aimed at reinstating the right of the center to be built over the objections of opponents) and rhetorical violence (condemnation of opponents by supporters of the center).  Violence against people and property, while somewhat less likely because of the lack of obvious targets, remains a possibility. 

Secondary Consequences: Whether the center is built or not, the lack of therapy would likely lead to a combination of resentment, hostility, and polarization.  The community to be served by the center would feel disenfranchised and unwelcome, and would not be immune to the implications that they were tainted by guilt for the 9/11 attacks.  They would certainly feel scapegoated by the wider community.  Opponents of the center would feel growing hostility toward the Muslim community and be more likely to engage in further hostility toward Muslims whether the center was built (“*They* have defiled our sacred space!”) or not (“We’ve beat back this invasion!  Let’s press on to further victories!”).  Such feelings would ripple from Ground Zero throughout the United States and perhaps even the world, with the local antagonisms in Manhattan acting as a synecdoche for relationships between America/the West and Islam, engendering parallel feelings of alienation, hostility, and a sense of being under siege (with both sides feeling that the other was doing the besieging).

Therapy:

Therapy would involve an opening of dialog among the parties involved with a particular focus on locating shared and/or compatible goals (e.g., eliminating fundamentalism, stopping violence, celebrating religious tolerance).  This might begin with a mediator talking with each group separately, asking them to articulate their specific fears and hopes, then using this as a beginning step in demonstrating to both sides that there are interesting parallels among the parties (fear of violence by the other; desire to live in a secure world; sense of indignation at being perceived demonization by the other side).

Kurlansky's Third Lesson Redux: Look in the Mirror NYC

 

There are still plenty of lessons from Mark Kurlansky's book on nonviolence, but the recent spate of histrionics about the "Ground Zero Mosque" (which, to channel Mike Myers' character Linda Richmond, is neither at Ground Zero nor a mosque—discuss), I couldn't help but think of the previous lesson I blogged about: in war, one begins to resemble the enemy.

Of course, that presupposes that what's going on is a "war," and, in terms of what's going on in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, it just ain't. But for our purposes, what's more important is that the situation is being framed rhetorically as a war, and a lot of people have accepted that frame.

And those people who have accepted that frame are, just as Kurlansky posits, looking exactly like the people they claim to be fighting. More than that, they are taking on exactly those aspects of the "enemy" they claim to despise.

I couldn't help but think of this when seeing the footage of the louts protesting the "mosque" and accosting the African American man they assumed was Muslim ("He musta voted for Obama!").

Hadn't I seen such scenes before? Hadn't all of us?

Sure! In places like Iran and Pakistan where Islamic radicals were protesting the evils of America.

But that's only a superficial comparison. I wondered if there were examples of Muslim crowds protesting the building of Christian churches. Off to the Google machine!

It took me all of 30 seconds to find what I was looking for.

In February of this year, a crowd of 150 radical Muslims in Indonesia protested the building of a Protestant church. Just as in the mosque case in New York, the civil authorities had okayed the building. And just as in the mosque case (and similar cases that have cropping up across the U.S.), hateful bigots were looking for legal loopholes such as zoning regulations to find ways of stopping the perfectly lawful building of an "infidel" place of worship.

The more you look at conflicts like this, the more you realize that the apparent opposing sides are not the true opposing sides. The galoots making idiots of themselves in New York are the same galoots in Indonesia. They just speak with different accents.

These folks are on the same team. They want the same things. They believe in the same things. The delicious irony is that pointing this out to people on either "side" infuriates them both.

If you needed any further proof of Kurlansky's third rule, look no further than NYC and Indonesia.

Peace.

Obama's Peaceable (and Sensible) Ground Zero Mosque Rhetoric

A bunch of folks, including the sometime/part-time governor of Alaska, have accused President Obama of being either A) wrong in his remarks about the “Ground Zero” mosque, or B) unclear or contradictory in his remarks. Neither of these accusations is true. In fact, Obama’s statements on this issue have been entirely correct morally and factually and also entirely consistent. I’d add that I think they are a great example of what “peaceful” rhetoric can be.



Obama said on Friday that Muslims, like anybody else in America, are completely free to practice religion in any way they see fit, as long as they do so within the context of the law. On Saturday, he pointed out that he had *not* said anything one way or the other about the “wisdom” of building this particular mosque, but simply that it was absolutely within the law to do so.


Would we want a president to say anything other than this? The entire purpose of having freedom of religion enshrined in the Bill of Rights is precisely to point out that it doesn’t make a bit of difference what anyone-- you, I, or even the president—thinks about someone else’s right to practice their religion. It’s not a matter of opinion or majority rule. You get to worship God (or not) the way you want to, particularly on your own property. No one, and I mean no one, can possibly offer an argument that says the government could or should interfere with the building of this mosque. At least, no one can offer an argument that would be consistent with well over two centuries of Constitutional law as well as the most basic tenets of the American form of government.

Nonviolence: Lesson #3

Have you heard about the Centennial Park church?

You might remember that in 1996, a terrorist bomb exploded in Centennial Park during the Olympics, killing two people and injuring more than a hundred. Eventually, authorities arrested Eric Robert Rudolph, a sometime-follower of a right-wing Christian identity movement, after he had been found to have bombed several other buildings.

Now, the city of Atlanta is actually allowing a Christian church to be built two blocks away from the site of this terrorist attack by a religious zealot.

Why can't the builders of this church recognize the pain they are causing? Building a church so close to the site of a terrorist attack done in the name of Christianity disrespects the families of those who were killed and injured in that attack. The city government needs to do something to stop this, even if the church is being built on private property.