Talk:Peace movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Peace movement, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] First steps
I had a pretty comprehensive article on the modern global peace movement that was cut back to one line by someone, presumably for NPOV problems or something (pardon me for preferring peace to being blown up or anthraxed).
Now there is a comprehensive article about something that happened 35 years ago in the USA, ignoring everything that has happened since or elsewhere...Relevance please.
- The relevance is that this is valid historical information. Your "pretty comprehensive" article was three paragraphs, short on facts and long on advocacy. Wikipedia articles should take a neutral point of view, even--or especially--when they're about something you feel strongly about.
Also, remember the note at the bottom of every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't hit submit."
[edit] Controversy
Unfortunately, removing an article about current controversy to replace it with a "safe" article about an issue settled 30 years ago in one country is itself revealing a lack of NPOV.
I realize you're in Manhattan and you probably lost friends on 9/11 or something, but doesn't that make you the right person to write about the current peace movement?
I didn't remove anything. What happened to version before "Thursday, March 21, 2002 Peace movement (3); 11:07" ???
When I saw it, it was one line, and I recalled that when I was a lad the peace movement had only one meaning. I supplied that meaning, but surely there is much more to it than Vietnam.
Vicki, did your words get lost in the shuffle when we went to the new software? User:Ed Poor
- I wrote only from "the relevance is..." to "'don't hit submit'" on this talk page, and nothing in the previous article. I was responding to an anonymous complainant. Who, for the record, is jumping to a conclusion that I am happy to say is incorrect: I have two friends who worked in the Trade Center, and both are alive and well (though one of them lost several coworkers).
- Also for the record, there is probably as broad a range of views about, well, everything, including current US foreign policy, in Manhattan than among any other group of two million people from many different backgrounds. Vicki Rosenzweig
[edit] Who is in the peace movment
Thankfully, my two friends who worked there survived too. Sorry to hear about their coworkers.
However, the description as written is still hawkish, US-centric, and simply not representative of the diversity of the modern peace movement. It's at least as diverse as the anti-globalization movement.
Think about it this way: Bush has something like 85% support for the war in Afghanistan. That suggests that something like 10-15% of Americans are probably in the peace movement. And in other countries, it's a lot higher.
The right question is "who *isn't*?"
I think what differentiates the peace *movement*, though, is willingness to get physically in the way of the process of war with your own living body - definitely the Gandhi reference is relevant.
So are the Dutch activists who invade NATO bases to nab documents relating to nuclear weapons handling, the Greenpeace campaigners who got arrested while protesting Star Wars, etc.
Then there are the professional groups like Science for Peace, Physicians for Peace, etc.
I think it's a pretty focused, disciplined, well-defined, and global movement.
- Good, put most of the above in the article! User:Ed Poor
-
- most of this is now there but without naming specific groups inline. also it's not clear it is all that coherent unless yo pick one group to define it like Greenpeace or SIPRI. also national focus matters, groups have very different histories.
[edit] Removal
I've removed the following from the article because it seems to be more of an essay about how a non-traditional "peace" can be achieved and a critique of those active in it, rather than about the peace movement:
- Though the horror of war drives some to join anti-war groups, much of the momentum of social movements in industrialized nations of the 20th Century has been inspired by the desire for a placid, emotionally secure life that grew among those who enjoyed the benefits of a consumer economy. Much of the wealth that funded anti-war activities and related social justice causes came from heirs of industrial fortunes.
I removed the references to Japan, France and Russia because they were blank for so long, and I think such calls should be put here in the Talk page. The one for Russia included a plea for information on the Yabloko party. A quick look there shows that they're opposed to the war in Chechnya but it didn't say enough that it could be called a peace movement. I also removed the cleanup marker. It's not yet perfect, so I left the attention one. -- Randy 01:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following:
- Anti-war activists take part in many very public actions to bring needed attention to their cause. One example is the "2000 Too Many" candlelight vigils to be held across America when U.S. service personnel fatalities in the war on Iraq reach 2000. For more details visit www.unitedforpeace.org
It had been placed at the top of the article, and it looks more like an advertisement for an upcoming event than an article on the movement itself. It would really belong in the Protests against the invasion of Iraq article after it actually begins. --- Randy2063 21:26, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] questions on peace
Should other views of peace go under peace or peacemaking?
Should national movements go under each country?
[edit] Other views of peace
- As noted above, there are views of peace that require being ready for war. Other views advocate personal, economic and political liberty as a path to peace. Some see war as a necessary interruption in a human endeavor for peace.
- The term peace movement is itself a rhetorical construction, in part because of the loose nature of the collaborations involved, but also because no modern theory of ethics holds that war is in any way desirable, but is rather a "necessary evil" that prevents worse abuses, e.g. ongoing organized crime, endless torture or genocide of an entire people. What is usually called the peace movement are those who oppose such doctrines as peace through strength.
[edit] Peace through strength
- Proponents of the design, acquisition and deployment of arms tend to believe, in the words of George Washington's 1790 State of the Union Address, that :"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
- Peace through strength is based on the idea that in the presence of violent enemies, the best and final deterrent against invasion is the existence of a feared military. They argue that fear is very frequently the only way to deter certain enemies, with whom no amount of negotiation or appeasement will prevent an invasion.
- Jane Jacobs observed that shows of strength are often thought to be required to maintain control. There is the argument that state power and the monopoly on violence are simply essential.
- However, while the above observations might be valid, counting the people who hold such views among "The Peace Movement" would likely empty the term of all meaning and lead to virtually all political factions in a country and also the generals commanding its armed forces and actively conducting war on its behalf as all belonging to that country's "peace movement".
- === Human security ===
- In the human security perspective, nations prepare militarily only for the sake of interventions to make or keep peace, supervise elections or nation-building, disarm dictators, prevent genocide, or end ongoing terrorism.
- Lester B. Pearson, founder of the UN Peacekeeping force, first advanced the human security agenda in Canada. Pearson was also an early and decisive advocate of the formation of the State of Israel in the early days of the UN.
- This view was widely influential and even decisive prior to the Iraq crisis . The peace movement had only muted criticisms of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia or the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. While the war in Iraq drew massive protests, supporters of the invasion continued to state that the war was advancing a Human Security agenda by removing Hussein, who was widely believed to have engaged in genocide and other related crimes.
- It remains to be seen if it is in fact possible to employ a human security-based strategy, while retaining the support of nation-states and multilateral bodies. Under threats such as new weapons of mass destruction, and nuclear proliferation, policymakers may feel forced to take action more rapidly than diplomacy and peacemaking can offer. The United States president announced a strategy that called for proactive attacks against potentially hostile nations.
[edit] Peace through freedom
- R. J. Rummel presents what he considers to be definitive evidence that in recent centuries government-sponsored murder has killed more people than warfare and that increasing liberty decreases conflict. For that reason, some peace advocates say to increase liberty and democracy would be serve the cause of peace.
- This tends to be the view of most Republican and Democratic Party power figures in the U.S. In other words, the pursuit of freedom is likely to be seen among political leaders as justification for war.
BCorr|Брайен 02:40, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Cairo Anti war conference
I have made this page Cairo Anti-war conference. I am planning to do some resursh on the egyption Anti-war movment generally at some point soon. It would be good if anyone could come and have a look at it.--JK the unwise 10:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And given that the Ciaro conference page is about and anti-war movment in a non-democratic country I don't agree with this statement form the article Peace movements in non-democracies are difficult to separate from propaganda efforts of specific regimes. Thus they are not covered in this article. Sure it might be difficult, life is difficult but hay lets give it are best shot... no?--JK the unwise 20:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] did some fixing
I corrected a few minor spelling errors and fixed some of the wiki links. --Kross 23:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Iraq War section is POV
The Iraq War section is hopelessly POV and one-sided. For example: "Risking imprisonment and character assassination in a bitterly repressive political environment, today's peace and justice activists stand courageously against a corporate state dominated by a military-industrial machine which has largely escaped regulatory and constitutional controls." -LtNOWIS 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What if an accusation is true?
taking the above statement for example, how is it character assassination to call members of the Revolutionary Communist party Communists? If fact most of the antiwar groups still running are in fact owned and opperated by Communist groups. Like ANSWER, which is owned by The Worker's World party and "NOt in our Name" which is owned and operated by the RCP?
[edit] Manifesto
There should be included an external link to the international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a list of all signatories between 1993 and 2007), official website: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm. Chrbartolf 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf
[edit] missing, the peace momvement in the 1930's
much of what the groups said then is word for word what is said now. it was a large part of the isolationist movement in the us that prevented intervention at an earlier time, it was also strong in england and lead to the appeasement of hitler.
[edit] Massive chunk of totally unedited text
I have just removed the following. I think editors will see why. If anyone thinks any of it should be in, then pick out the more coherent bits.
==== The Peace Movement in Politics ==== The Peace Movement has made steady progress in American culture since World War 2. This progress is best measure by the slow steady growth of congressional legislation to create the United States Department of Peace and Nonviolence, and the number of legislators becoming cosponsors. Dr. Benjamin Rush, a Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence, along with George Washington's peer, Benjamin Banneker, envisioned a Department of Peace to balance the Department of War; 1792 Benjamin Banneker, noted American scientist, surveyor, and editor and Benjamin RUSH, doctor, educator and signer of the Declaration of Independence suggested the blue print for an Office of Peace. • 1935, 1937, and 1939, Senator Matthew Neely of West Virginia introduced bills calling for a Department of Peace. • 1943 Senator Alexander Wiley of Wisconsin spoke on the Senate floor calling for the United States of America to be the first government on the world to have a Secretary of Peace. • 1945 Representative Louis Ludlow of Indiana introduced a bill that would establish a Department of Peace. • 1946 Representative Randolf Jennings introduced legislation to establish a Department of Peace with the goal of strengthening America's capacity to resolve and manage international conflicts by both military and nonmilitary means. In the 1970s and 1980s he joined Senators Mark Hatfield and Spark Matsunaga and Congressman Dan Glickman in efforts to create a national institution dedicated to peace. After he had announced his retirement from Congress in 1984, Randolph played a key role in the passage and enactment of the United States Institute of Peace Act. To guarantee its passage and funding, the legislation was attached to the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1985. Approval of the legislation was in part a tribute to Randolph's long career in public service. The Jennings Randolph Program, which awards fellowships to enable outstanding scholars, policymakers, journalists, and other professionals from around the world to conduct research at the U.S. Institute of Peace, has been named in his honor. • 1947 Representative Everett Dirkson of Illinois introduced a bill for “A Peace Division in the State Department”. • 1955-1968 Eighty-five bills calling for a Department of Peace were introduced in the House or the Senate. • 1969 Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana and Representative Seymour Halpern of New York introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace in the House of Representatives and the Senate. • 2001 and 2003 Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace. • September 2005 Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence in the House of Representatives and the Senate. President Dwight Eisenhower named Harold Stassen to be his Cabinet Level Advisor for Peace & Disarmament in March, 1953. Over 100 bills have been introduced into Congress since the end of WWII to create a Department of Peace in the federal government; As with all great social movements, federal sponsorship and endorsement is a huge milestone. The peace movement hopes to gain federal sponsorship and join the ranks of other government programs such as: Pollution awareness - “Give a Hoot don’t pollute”, and The surgeon generals warning, “Smoking MAY be hazardous to your health.” If successful, the United States Department of Peace and Nonviolence may be as significant a social change as the Emancipation proclamation {Freeing the slaves} and the Women Suffrage movement {Granting women the right to vote) Of course, even once government sponsorship is achieved every movement still has dissenters. Many Ameircans still smoke, prefer to litter, desire slaves, wish women did not vote, and enjoy a good war. Citing sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Banneker http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance76.html no quotes taken though plenty of info!! http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1972&st=&st1= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_Randolph http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query H.R.2459 Title: To establish a Department of Peace. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 7/11/2001) Cosponsors (44) Latest Major Action: 9/28/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness. H.R.1673 Title: To establish a Department of Peace. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 4/8/2003) Cosponsors (52) Latest Major Action: 5/13/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization. H.R.3760 Title: To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 9/14/2005) Cosponsors (74) Related Bills: S.1756 Latest Major Action: 11/7/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform. Supporting Reference: January 2007, Lucy Buchanan of the UK TV show "Shipwrecked" says she's "for slavery". View the clip http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=607 Dear Wikipedia Editor, This section needs to be cleaned up to match formating above. Several places need line breaks, etc..
BobFromBrockley 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] History section
I propose that a certain amount of work needs to be done on the History section.
- The extremely long section in Israel needs to be merged into Israeli peace camp and the specfic Gush Shalom article, with merely a summary here, and a pointer to Israeli peace camp as the main article.
- The US section needs to be moved into its own main article, something like the Peace movement in the United States or United States peace movement, with just a short summary here.
- There should be short paragraphs about other countries' peace movements too.
What do others think? BobFromBrockley 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
