Honour

Baba Ras Marcus asks a very good question and there is much wisdom in the response of Jahreal. I myself would not say I have a definitive answer to the question asked because, while violence is never to be recommended, what is to be said to ones defending themselves and the weaker ones of thier society from predators?

Is it not true that by standing by and allowing the bully to have his way we become collaborators in his dirty deeds?

For a while now, when it comes to resolving differences, violence has been the first and last resort. More times, the only reason people do not use it straight away is because they suspect that they may come off worse in the encounter. So, we find that when assured of supremacy, violence (or the threat of violence) is the preferred tool of negotiation. Violence offers the most cost effective way of getting what you want. You knock the other person down and you take what you want (without compromising any part of your appetite).

This is why violence is attractive not only to the thief, but also to the house-holder. The strong house-holder will have no need of paying ransoms, also, the mounted heads of unsuccessful thieves will serve as deterrent to those thinking of raids in future. This means your family can live in peace.

If looked on like that, if violence can provide a space within which one can live one's life without interference from covetous outsiders, if it has been proven that selective violence is an effective tool, then how can anyone preach total non-violence?

No, the best that one can reccommend, in the real world, at this time, is justifiable violence. Violence in self-defence.

Which then returns us to the question, under what circumstance can a society be justified in it's use of violence? Should it only resort to arms when attacked? Let us look at this question from a personal perspective : How about if your children are starving and the only way left for you to feed them is by taking (i.e. stealing) from ones weaker than yourself? This is a likely scenario if one is located in a place where poverty is all-encompassing and there is no prospect of depending on the charity of the prosperous.

It is justifiable to commit commit crimes in order to survive or is it more righteous to starve? Is is morally righteous to watch ones who nature has placed in your care die slowly and in suffering while ignoring the solution that can be obtained by commiting a crime?

Only ones who have ACTUALLY been in such a position can truly answer those questions, for the rest, these are only intellectual matters.

But, there are problems associated with speaking on these matters as words lost thier meanings a long time ago. If this were not so, why would a body dedicated to bringing death and destruction to all corners of the Earth be called a 'ministry of defence'? Defence against what?

The disease is calling itself the benefactor of the body it laid low.

When the word "Justice" is spat out of certain mouths, we know it means nothing, so, when we hear those same mouths speaking on 'international law', we know it is nothing but another way of them saying saying "do it our way".

What we as Africans have lost was not taken from us peacefully. What we continue to lose is not accomplished through peaceful means, violence or the threat of violence is always present. We are told however that 'loving' our enemies will bring us peace (a thing described in many ways). But, this 'peace' sounds as bogus and complex in meaning as the 'freedom' amerikkkans are happily killing people abroad for (in order that it may be preserved in the home/father land).

What I have come to realise is that peace can only be spoken of between people of peace. When dealing with scavengers, vampires and other assorted demons, the mind has to be steadfast in the realisation of the nature of what is being confronted. Applicable and relevant strategies/tactics can then be decided upon.

Wisdom and Strength.