On Supporting the Troops
Published March 13, 2003
This will be no surprise to loyal readers of my weblog All Facts & Opinions and to folks who know me personally — I am an absolutist on this point: Violence is immoral. I understand that others have differing opinions and values and that those people are worthy of respect and basic human kindness. And it is possible for people with varying views to get along despite the differences. Neither my mother nor my spouse support war or the policies of George W. Bush, but my mother approves of state-sanctioned killing in some cases, and both have no problem with violence perpetrated in self-defense. (I believe in turning the other cheek.) Doesn't matter — I love and respect them both dearly and they feel the same toward me. But far too many of those who oppose my beliefs, however, are anything but respectful. And if you believe in and practice nonviolence and the teachings of Mohandas Gandhi, and if you have the stones to espouse your views, then you likely know from personal experience that this is true.
As the world prepares for war, the debate over military combat seems to rise everywhere and with increasing frequency — and I hate it. When I discuss the issue of large-scale state-sanctioned killing with a pro-war person, almost inevitably, that hawk will insist that I should be grateful for those who fought wars "for your freedom." My reaction to that is always the same: Puh-leeze.
Number one, I asked no one to take up arms for my freedom. Don't do me a "favor" without ascertaining whether I want you to do it and then expect thanks — to do so is thoroughly arrogant and rude. Those who kill or commit violence don't do anything good for me or for the human race.
Secondly, being queer in America means I am in a class of humans that is not fully equal or fully free under civil law, which renders the favor-doer's point meaningless. Until gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are fully equal under law, we are second-class citizens. In fact, I won't call myself a US citizen for exactly that reason. So why in heck would I violate my ethics and principles for a manmade construct that does not accept or include me? If that makes me ungrateful, so be it.
- On Supporting the Troops
- Published: March 13, 2003
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Natalie Davis
- Natalie Davis's BC Writer page
- Natalie Davis's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
You most certainly are a socialist.
Practicing nonviolent civil disobedience against people so committed to catastrophic violence that they're willing to die in order to perpetrate it. I wonder what the end result of that would be. Hmmm . . . .
>Secondly, being queer in America means I am in a class of humans that is not fully equal or fully free under civil law, which renders the favor-doer's point meaningless.<
The above is either unclear or you are stating that you aren't a fully equal person, when in fact we are all equal, what is unequal is the laws to your orientation - you - yourself are most certainly equal.
At least in most humans eyes.
It's equally marginalizing to those people who believe a greater good can be gained by engaging in force, as you feel marginalized as a lesbian.
I think more importantly than advocating non-violence in the face of all adversity - we advocate a great tolerence to those who think differently from us.
Tolerence and moderation is the key to harmony.


Natalie Davis is an award-winning journalist, progressive- and GLBT-issues activist, musician and broadcaster. Davis' 


Thanks Natalie, very well written and powerful even if I disagree with many elements, you are consistent and deeply humane.