Talk:List of nonviolence scholars and leaders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information, please - are these three proponents of nonviolence?

'Nonviolence' is a term which has a dual meaning, one more specific than the other. While the term is commonly used to connote a simple absence of violence, the more specific definition - which you will find that the article on nonviolence favours - concerns the use of specific techniques for bringing about social change, such as civil disobedience, strikes, physical intervention, boycotts, demonstrations and others.

My primary interest in Wikipedia is documenting the history of movements which have used these techniques to bring about social change. While some proponents of nonviolence may work within a religious framework, and many certainly advocate peace of one form or another, if we were to include all religious leaders who advocate world peace, the list would be very long indeed.

While I am not an expert on Sun Myung Moon or the Unification Church and associated organisations, I have been unable to find any evidence that Moon has made any signicant contribution to the body of political thought on nonviolence as a technique for social change, in the same way that, say, Mohandas Gandhi or Gene Sharp have.

Nor could I find any reference to nonviolence in the FFWPU mission statement.

Finally, while a google search for the FFWPA produces around 2,500 results - a search for the FFWPA + nonviolence produces only eleven results, none of which suggest a strong affiliation or identification with nonviolence as a technique for social struggle.

Thanks for reading this long post - if you feel I am mistaken, please let me know via this page. I also hope you won't regard my removing the Moon reference as an indication of bias against the Unification Church - I merely feel the connection with the topic of the article is a little tenuous. User:Dirtbiscuit

Seems there is sufficient evidence to cast real doubt on the status of Rev. Moon as a “nonviolent leader or thinker”, and to therefore justify the removal of his name from this article:

The Unification Church (UC) openly acknowledges its support for the war in Vietnam, as well as UC affiliate organisations’ support for US military expansion.
A 1978 investigation by a US House of Representatives committee concluded that a UC business was an “important defense contractor in South Korea,”and involved in the production of M-16s, anti-aircraft guns and other weapons. The committee also concluded that “Moon Organisation” representatives attempted to negotiate permission to export M-16s manufactured by an American company in Korea.
An extensively footnoted article in the Interhemispheric Resource Centre’s “Groupwatch” database claims that the UC affiliated and funded anti-communist organisation CAUSA has:
  • assisted the Angolan UNITA rebels
  • run training seminars for the Bolivian military
  • supported the establishment of a three-million strong army “to resolve the Central American Crisis”
  • provided “cash and other aid” to the Nicaraguan Contras
  • established civilian vigilante groups in the Phillippines
The article also alleges that a South Korean business owned by the UC, Tong Il Co. Ltd, was involved in weapons manufacture.
The Reverend Moon’s son, Jin "Justin" Moon, is both a member of the Unification Church (UC) and CEO of and chief designer for Kahr Arms, which manufactures hand pistols and automatic weapons. A review of Kahr weapons in The Handgunner, quoted in full on the official Kahr Arms website, states that “from the beginning, Kahr was a division of the Saeilo Group”. According to the article, the Saeilo Group was founded by the Rev. Moon in 1983, though Moon is apparantly no longer involved with the company.
When Justin Moon’s role as an arms manufacturer was exposed by the media in 1999, the UC’s American director of public affairs stated that “it is not a violation of religious principles to invest in legitimate arms industries."

Hello Dirtbiscuit, I added Sathya Sai Baba See New York Times article I think this person is a fraud but I have to admit that he made some contributions to thinking about non-violence and that it is quite a prominent feature of his teachings. Andries 08:43, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ta, Andries - seems like this list is attracting a few controversial figures! As you no doubt know more about Sai Baba than me, do you know where one might find some on-line writings or speeches where he discusses nonviolence? It seems that most leaders of "emerging religions" (along with most of the old ones, too, I'd say) make some claim to nonviolence as part of their spirituality, but to my mind this is not quite the same as leading a nonviolent movement for social change or making a significant contribution to the study of nonviolence.
Perhaps the topic of this article is far too general for the specific purpose I had in starting it. What do you think? Dirtbiscuit
Yes, Dirtbiscuit, I think some cult-leaders support non-violence for propagandistic reasons. But in the case of Sathya Sai Baba and the organisation of the followers that he misled, I still think, that is was not mere words. He also inspired people to do community service and founded hospitals, which, he said, would lead to the brother hood of men, through personal transformation and taking away the differences between rich and poor. I can understand very well that you are not happy with these additions. I need some time to find the quotations Andries 09:23, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No worries - not necessarily 'unhappy', maybe just slightly protective of my pet project ;-) I did just take the potentially controversial step of removing the Reverend Moon for the second time, however! Dirtbiscuit
Dirtbiscuit, I think a good way to confine the list, if you want, is to write that only leaders of either big movements or thinkers or leaders that have affected the rest of society as well can be included. By writing down that condition you could ensure that obscure, uninfluential (cult-)leaders are not included. But in the case of SSB that won't work to exclude him because the current prime minister of India is a follower of him. Andries 10:15, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Man, this article has an ugly name. RickK | Talk 08:57, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tell me about it - I'm struggling to find a name with less than seven words that won't mean everyone in the world who has ever said they want world peace ends up on it (see above). Problem is there is no single word in English which describes people who advocate nonviolent social change blah blah. Gandhi would have called them Satyaghrahi, and even he had to invent that word himself! Dirtbiscuit 09:34, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Meaning of nonviolence

I've removed the following as there is no evidence of these individuals having lead movements for nonviolent social change or making any significant contribution to the body of thought on nonviolence:

  • Edward Gierek
  • Jacek Kuron
  • Adam Michnik
  • Sun Myung Moon

Before adding new names, try reading the article on nonviolence. User:Dirtbiscuit

Ed - I think we have different understandings concerning the intention of this article.

No, the article liats "people who have led nonviolent movements for social change" as one of two alternative criteria. Rev. Moon is the leader of a movement; it is non-violent; it seeks social changes. Please apply the criteria consistently.
The House investigation was biased and repudiated its own conclusion (ALL businesses in South Korea in the 1970s and 1980s were required to contribute to defense, even pharmaceutical companies such as Tong-Il. They government forced them to manufacture rifle parts; it never "produced M-16s, anti-aircraft guns or other weapons".
I don't know about all 5 of the bullet popunts following that, but I do know CAUSA; its training seminars are not military (as implied) but philosophical: they critique militant Communist thought fromthe peace-seeking, non-volient Unificationist point of view (I've seen their manuals, both in English and in Spanish; I showed the Spanish training manual to a Colmbian army officer, but he said it "wasn't relevant to his work" and he refused to read it).
Basically, I think you've got the wrong slant on Rev. Moon; he is a genuine man of peace. (Telling political leaders not to surrender to tyranny doesn't negate that.) --Uncle Ed 18:54, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ed, only the Rev. Moon knows whether he is a "genuine man of peace". What I'm interested in is whether he has made a significant contribution to the study of nonviolence (by which I mean nonviolent resistance, not simply 'not-violence') as a political technique, or lead a movement which has used strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience etc as a way of waging conflict.
Regardless of our disagreement on the purpose of the article (and you do have a very different understanding of the word nonviolence to me - not everyone who is 'nonviolent' uses the methods of nonviolent resistance), there is one simple fact that immediately distinguises the Rev. Moon from the others on the list - the UC 'supports the right to defend oneself' In 1999, Chris Corcoran, the US Director of Public Affairs for the Unification Church said:
"Unification doctrine teaches non-aggression while supporting the right to defend one's self and defend others against evil. In this sense, we hold in common with other faiths that it is not a violation of religious principles to invest in legitimate arms industries."
Virtually all social movements which have used nonviolence have recognised that giving up the right to self-defence is necessary for the movement to succeed. If we are to include the Rev. Moon and the Unification Church in this list, then the Black Panthers (who were also 'not-violent', apart from asserting their right to carry firearms for self-defence) belong there as well, and I'm sure that would have Stokely Carmichael turning in his grave.
In addition to the UC's stance on self-defence, an article on one of its own websites proudly trumpets its support, through front groups, for the American military intervention in Vietnam, and for a generalised expansion of US military capability. What other nonviolent movement leaders support war?
I understand that as a member of the Unification Church, any classification or non-classification of the Rev. Moon is likely to be a sensitive topic for you. However, I feel it is important that there is a place on Wikipedia that documents those who have contributed to the second, more specific form of nonviolence that I have tried to outline, rather than a list of the many thousands of political and religious leaders who have declared themself to be in favour of 'world peace' at one time or another.
My proposal, to resolve this issue, is to change the wording of the topic and description for this particular list, to make the definition as clear as it can reasonably be. I would suggest that if it is important to you that the Rev. Moon's stated stance on peace is recognised, that you start a list of religious leaders committed to world peace -- or try putting him in List of pacifists and see what happens.

I thought a lot about what you wrote this weekend, D. Biscuit, and we seem to have both independently reached the same conclusion: "non-violence" means "non-violent resistance". As such, the Unification movement is not really a "resistance movement". We don't try to force change by strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, etc. Ours is more a "reform movement".

We probably ought to:

  • change the name of the article from List of nonviolence scholars and leaders to something like Pioneers of nonviolent resistance or the longer List of scholars and leaders of nonviolent resistance movements or List of nonviolent resistance leaders and scholars. (Got to put "resistance" in the title.
  • take Jesus and Buddha off the list. Jesus preached AGAINST resistance, and Buddhists are generally pacifists.

I appreciate your willingness to dialogue with me about this and your kindness in considering my sensitivities. I'm trying to stand back and take an objective look at a church I've been in for the last 60% of my life. I can't be both a passionate advocate for Unificationism and a leader at Wikipedia, unless I try extra hard to adhere to the NPOV policy. Thanks for your thoughtful input. --Uncle Ed 13:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ed - my thanks to you also for investing your time into reading and thinking about this one. I'm impressed with your willingness to listen to others and compromise on a question that is clearly close to your heart (it strikes me as a very Gandhian attitude, actually!) I think your edits are a good compromise for now (although I'll have to think further about the question concerning Jesus & Buddha ... the Sermon on the Mount has been regarded as a pivotal text for many of the other figures on the list, and the Buddhist/Hindu notion of ahimsa also underpins much of Gandhian thought. Still, I look forward to further collaboration. Cheerio, Dirtbiscuit Dirtbiscuit 14:09, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC) (hmmm ... anyone else hear an echo everytime they say their username?)
Speaking of "rolling in their graves", what about Eldridge Cleaver? [1]
LOL! Nope - I don't think he'd qualify at all ;-) but I'm sure his biography would be a fascinating read - reminds me a little of the story of Lyndon LaRouche. (But the debate around him is probably about whether the word 'fascist' can be applied to him or not, and I'm not going to get involved with THAT one.)
And then there's these guys. Dirtbiscuit 09:32, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)