In response to my last column (before the shutdown), I received inquiries about my definition and use of the term “warrior mindset” and my notion of “violence.” The main questions posed: Is not the prison-industrial complex a form of institutional violence? What about the political, social and economic forms of violence imposed upon a community? And without some kind of a warrior mindset, how are people supposed to protect themselves, especially people who have historically been victims of violence?
On the heels of the death of Nelson Mandela and the 46th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., this discussion of “warrior mindset” and “violence” is timely. As we reflect upon peace, we must ask ourselves, what was King’s understanding and practice of nonviolence? What forces led Mandela on the path to reconciliation and forgiveness? In what ways do they both have relevance for us today?
King was profound because he was able to inspire a social movement based on a Gandhian-inspired philosophy of nonviolence that sought to challenge and change a violent culture. In so doing, King was able to strengthen himself and others against culture’s corrupting influence. He moved closer to becoming the kind of person who is truly free, not further away—as many do when they engage violence for “good causes.” King addressed violence by modeling transformative nonviolence. His non-violent strategy exposed the violence and ugliness of the oppressor. Both in his principle and practice, King emphasized “creative tension” and argued that non-violent struggle was a process that transforms both the oppressor and the oppressed.
The approach of King and Gandhi to oppression was not to deny its existence but to confront it head-on in a non-violent manner. Non-pacifists might view this approach as naïve, but it was quite the opposite. Boycotts, marches, sit-ins, demonstrations and other non-violent actions proved highly effective.
Moreover, the attempts at nonviolent resistance, even if they fail in the direct encounter, still succeed morally. Even the “failed” encounters of King’s marches, where fire hoses and dogs ended up being used, succeeded in inspiring the whole world to begin to understand the injustice. Of course, that does not work the same way when it is a war. Then one side may have the more righteous reason for fighting, but the killing itself is equally immoral.
So in my rejection of violence and warrior mindset, I realize that it is also necessary to articulate an alternate vision for confronting violence and injustice, as King did. Otherwise, it appears that the “victim” should offer no resistance and is left with no defense against violent oppression. Nonviolence does not negate uncompromising resistance to social forces and structures that deny or limit human freedom.
King contended that it is immoral and cowardly to collaborate in one’s oppression, and that passivity counts as collaboration: “To accept passively an unjust system is to cooperate with that system.” Moreover, in so doing, “the oppressed becomes as evil as the oppressor.” This kind of non-resistance to social evil says to the oppressor that his actions are “morally right.” Thus, King concludes, acquiescence to oppression is not only morally wrong and corruptive, “it is the way of a coward.”
Mandela recalled, “Over and over again, we had used all the nonviolent weapons in our arsenal—speeches, deputations, threats, marches, strikes, stay-ways, voluntary imprisonment—all to no avail, for whatever we did was met by an iron hand.”
Eventually, peaceful resistance proved ineffective in South Africa, igniting a defiant fire in the hearts and minds of the young people. After exhausting all their nonviolent options, Mandela concluded, “At the end of the day violence was the only weapon that would destroy apartheid.”
However, what makes Mandela such a great leader is not that he led or approved of armed struggle, but that he led out into forgiveness and the desire to consider how to make room for everyone. Moreover, his greatness lies in his humanity, his personal sacrifice and his unwavering commitment to freedom, justice and equality.
Given the similarity and degree of human oppression suffered under the discriminatory laws of apartheid and America’s Jim Crow, I believe if King and Mandela had met and collaborated with each other they would have had much knowledge to exchange.
King would have emphasized and encouraged Mandela to never lose sight of the moral imperative of his struggle. He would want Mandela to understand and appreciate that violence should never be viewed as a means to an end. It can never ensure a peaceful and sustainable victory. Violence will only consume the human spirit and undermine the very purpose it is intended for. King’s dialogue with Mandela would most certainly have centered on peace, forgiveness and the righteousness and victory of struggle. The fundamental question King would be preoccupied with is how we, in the process of struggle, can be compassionate, forgiving and inclusive of others. How can we create a new and more empathetic human relationship?
Mandela would certainly have agreed with King on many of the moral issues. Mandela’s greatest challenge and legacy is his courage, foresight and vision to see beyond the violence. He would offer his assessment of the rebellious anger of youth who become distrustful and disillusioned over nonviolent responses to violent assaults. He would have explained that these encounters create and prepare the next generation with warrior mindsets, which is exactly what we are facing in the U.S.
There were several historical parallels between the freedom struggle in the United States and that of the movement in South Africa.
Nelson Mandela’s path to reconciliation and forgiveness came at the end of a long, bitter and bloody struggle for freedom. As with the Civil Rights movement against Jim Crow in the United States, the freedom struggle in South Africa began with a series of non-violent challenges against the brutal forces of apartheid.
Mandela argued that the oppressors not only determined the level of violence; they also ensured the method and degree of resistance. When peaceful measures prove ineffective and rendered impossible, violent means become inevitable. This is by no means an argument for indiscriminate violence. It is a critical acknowledgement of a heightened repression under apartheid, which produced a violent form of political resistance: armed struggle.
The important similarity with Mandela and King is that they did not see some human lives as more valuable than others. Both men exemplified a paradox of being both humble and fiercely principled. When principles are tempered with love for humanity, or when love for humanity has disciplined principles, you find that rare paradox of a person who is humble in their interactions yet unshakable in their convictions. When unexpected love and forgiveness are wielded fiercely and proactively, they have real power to heal.