New at Reason

David Weigel | September 29, 2006

Katherine Mangu-Ward reviews a new history of nonviolence by the Dalai Lama and the author of Cod and Salt, and finds that a pinch of either would have made the book more exciting.

Comments

|9.29.06 @ 4:45PM|#

...that "the Crusades were about power, not religion"...

For whom? Quite clearly there was a significant religious component to the Crusades for many of the Christians who fought in them. Such a claim reminds me of the old saw that the French "Wars of Religion" had nothing to do with religion, when in fact religious belief as part of a community compact was one of the main forces behind those wars.

|9.29.06 @ 4:59PM|#

Ugh. Salt was so boring.

Bob|9.29.06 @ 5:14PM|#

Non-violence certainly served the Tibetans well!

Garth|9.29.06 @ 5:17PM|#

I enjoyed Salt immensely. The only part of it I found tedious was the approx 25% of the book he cribbed from his other book �Cod� � or at least from the notes for it.

My question now is whether or not there is a chapter or two dedicated to Richard Gere and whether that means a bio on that particular actor will follow. (That�s something I won�t be reading.)

|9.29.06 @ 5:33PM|#

"He introduces us to the Cathar monks of southern France. They refused to pay taxes to the medieval church, and rejected the right of the state to kill, in war or in capital punishment. In fact, they refused to participate in any form of government, considering the whole enterprise tainted by violence. Something alerts the reader, though, that all is bound to end badly for these adorable anarchist monks. The Catholic Church is peeved, of course, so they pin the name 'Cathar' on the sect (the sobriquet alludes to persistent rumors that the renegade monks shared an unwholesome attraction to cats). Then the Church starts killing. The monks quickly realize that nonviolence only works if no one is attacking you in earnest, and betray their principles by fighting back, half-assedly. It takes 100 years, but the Church eventually manages to wipe out every last Cathar. Similar tales about the sad fate of other dissident Christians and Jews abound in the pages of the book."

I don't know about the cat thing, but the Cathars were neither pacifists nor role-models for libertarians. Cathar believers were divided into laypeople, who could live normal lives (including being soldiers) and "perfeci" (the so-called "monks") who were basically the clergy of the sect. The "perfecti" didn't contaminate themselves with the material world which, according to Cathar theology, was inherently evil and unredeemable. To avoid contamination by the material world, the perfecti not only avoided war, they avoided meat and dairy products -- associated with animals, which are of course material.

The Cathar wars were set off when someone -- either a Cathar or a Cathar sympathizer -- assassinated a papal emissary. So let's not get too excited about Cathar nonviolence.

|9.29.06 @ 5:47PM|#

the Tibetans did indeed fight back against the Chinese invasion, but they had inferior weaponry because they were a poor country. They didn't lose because they didn't choose to fight...

Mike Laursen|9.29.06 @ 5:53PM|#

I had absorbed only the popular version of Tibetan history, so I was surprised a while ago to hear that Tibet had a pretty cruel, violent feudal society well into the 20th Century.

Paul|9.29.06 @ 7:36PM|#

while ago to hear that Tibet had a pretty cruel, violent feudal society well into the

Too lazy to research it now, but my understanding of the whole modern Tibet thing is that the Chinese have historically been called into Tibet to quell violence there. After a while, the Chinese finally threw up their hands and said "If you kids can't take care of yourselves, we're going to do it for you", promptly invaded and occupied.

Basically, my limited understanding is that it may be more complicated than ham-fisted Chinese imperialism.

|9.29.06 @ 9:23PM|#

...a new history of nonviolence...

shows, once again, that "nonviolence" a) was a stupid idea at inception and b) it has not become a smart idea even after 5,000 years of recorded history -- though some have wished it wasn't so.

Precisely why so many people have admired Ghandi, I have never understood.

|9.29.06 @ 9:28PM|#

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Cathar

is the traditional understanding, as in catharsis

|9.29.06 @ 11:05PM|#

'Too lazy to research it now, but my understanding of the whole modern Tibet thing is that the Chinese have historically been called into Tibet to quell violence there. After a while, the Chinese finally threw up their hands and said "If you kids can't take care of yourselves, we're going to do it for you", promptly invaded and occupied.'

That sounds like it was gleaned from the PRC. At the time the PRC invaded, they had been constantly fighting for a few decades already - either with the Nationalists, the Americans and South Koreans in Korea, or with their own people, in the form of various purges and campaigns. Remember Mao was in charge when the Chinese invaded and his regime was probably the cruelest regime on the history of the planet. So the idea that the cruelest regime in history, one constantly at war with others or on its own people, was needed to break up violence or any sort of disorder in a regime that was relatively much less cruel or chaotic than its own, is the height of irony.

This is not to say that Tibet was....um...Shangri La (sorry). My guess is that it *was* an authoritarian state but small potatoes compared to the PRC, who have done a good job of slipping such propaganda into the West.

From the article: "Did you know that Kong Fuzi was the real name of Confucious"?

Confucious say: yes, Kong Fuzi is my real name (or rather that's how it would be written in your alphabet). "Confucious" is the anglicized version of my name - doesn't the word "Confucious" look suspiciously like it comes from Indo-European roots to you? Anything about that name at all that offers something of a clue there? Sorry, but my eyes rolled almost all the way into the back of my head when I read that that was supposed to be one of the author's brilliant observations. More like along the lines of, "Did you know, if you dig really far into the earth, Chinese people *won't* pour out and offer you rides in rickshaws???"

|9.30.06 @ 12:53AM|#

what i have always wondered when ever i watch a show about the dali lama and how great tebet could be and nipal is is where are all the women? seriously i mean i admit i really at first wanted to just look at hot budist women while natiojnal geograpohic or PBS banter on about nonviolance and how bad china is...then the lack of women really started to creep me out.

|9.30.06 @ 2:29AM|#

Tibetan Buddhist women....I think I have one of those videos....

Man, the rules for spelling and mechanics in English just hurt my brain. Josh, is your alternative system easier to follow?

|9.30.06 @ 11:32AM|#

The ineffectualness of non-violent resistance to assault or oppression is the main reason I can't accept the idea of "Natural Rights". You have absolutely no rights at all until you are ready, willing and able to defend those rights with force and/or violence. Pin a copy of the Bill of Rights to your chest and see if it will stop a bullet. Don't forget the blindfold and cigarette.

|9.30.06 @ 6:16PM|#

The ineffectualness of non-violent resistance to assault or oppression is the main reason I can't accept the idea of "Natural Rights".

Then you haven't understood the concept of Individual Rights. [semantics maybe, but I don't call it "natural" because most arguments along those lines rely on God to pull your ass out of a philosophical sand trap that should never have been fallen into]

You have absolutely no rights at all until you are ready, willing and able to defend those rights with force and/or violence.

Both, not and/or. And yes, that's how it is. The Europeans have a problem with it because their alter ego today is Dalai Lama. So where are you having a problem with it?

The first thing you have to come to grips with -- and Europe (and sadly, too much of the US) is unable to grasp anymore -- is the fact that individual rights are a distinctly Western way of looking at life. Dalai Lama's bullshit is unequivocally not Western.

The two cannot be reconciled, try though the various collectivist philosophers might. You cannot have your rights, and eat your pacifism too. If you don't believe it, take a close look at the ideology coming out of our Democratic party today.

Take your pick or choose not to choose. But those are your options.

Mike Laursen|9.30.06 @ 8:55PM|#

Genghis, I didn't follow your last comment. You say that Ratboy doesn't understand rights, but everything you write after that seems to be agreeing with him.

|10.1.06 @ 3:09AM|#

I'm telling him he needs to rethink the problem. Because if he wants his individual rights (classical American sense) then he'll need to be ready to fight for them. If he isn't ready to fight for them, then he shouldn't expect to have them.

|10.1.06 @ 3:16AM|#

To be clear -- ratboy doesn't have to accept the idea of rights if he would rather be a pacifist. All I'm telling him is, the choice is precisely as he has framed it.

But curiously enough, the "principled" pacifists tend to be in the first ranks of those who bitch about it when they actually do loose their rights. Pacifists want to have their cake and eat it, too.

|10.1.06 @ 10:08AM|#

"The Catholic Church is peeved, of course, so they pin the name 'Cathar' on the sect (the sobriquet alludes to persistent rumors that the renegade monks shared an unwholesome attraction to cats)."

The Name Cathar cames from the greek* καθαρός ("Pure") it was the name they used for themselves and it had any relation with cats. The Catholic Church called them Albigenses taking the name from the City of Albi in Southern France.

*The origins of the group were in the Bizantine Empire.

Mike Laursen|10.1.06 @ 12:17PM|#

Genghis, I'm still totally lost. Please re-read "Comment by: Ratboy at September 30, 2006 11:32 AM". He agrees with you.

|10.1.06 @ 2:16PM|#

Ratboy says:

The ineffectualness of non-violent resistance to assault or oppression is the main reason I can't accept the idea of "Natural Rights".

I reworded it "individual rights". I, however, accept the idea. He has said that he doesn't.

What is it that you aren't understanding?

Mike Laursen|10.1.06 @ 4:49PM|#

If I read what he wrote correctly, he never said he doesn't believe there should be individual rights. He simply said that he thinks there's nothing natural about those rights. They have to be wrested by force from potential oppressors. You have essentially said the same thing. I see it the same way, too.

Yet you are making a subtle distinction that I'm still not understanding. By the way, I'm just trying to draw out the conversation on this thread for the fun of it.

Mike Laursen|10.1.06 @ 5:02PM|#

Genghis,
Let's try a different tack. Do you agree that the following two statements are different?:
a) Each individual has rights.
b) Ideally, each individual should have rights.
Is your concept of individual rights more along the lines of (a) or (b)?

|10.1.06 @ 6:14PM|#

Ah, okay. Maybe now I'm getting your drift. And -- maybe, though I'm not sure yet -- I misunderstood Ratboy.

I agree the two statements are different, and my concept is much more nearly along the lines of b).

The notion of "should" is the end result of an idea or system of ideas, and I would not contend that the "should" of individual rights is metaphysical, i.e. hard-wired into the nature of the universe.

So if Ratboy is railing against the bible thumpers and such who contend that individual rights exist because God made the world that way, then I'd have to say I agree with him.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I missed that little subtlety.

|10.1.06 @ 6:19PM|#

Mike, again to try and be clear, by "hardwired" I mean this.

People should live according to their nature as human beings. But they don't have to and often haven't.

Mike Laursen|10.1.06 @ 7:48PM|#

Got it!

|10.2.06 @ 10:16AM|#

Civil disobedience, whether violent or not, is resistance. If a large mass of people are refusing to do anything, is the government going to try to slaughter everyone who won't work? Or even just imprison them all? Yeah, maybe a determined government would do it anyway, but I think it could bring down even an authoritarian regime to go that route. Of course, the Gandhi wannabes have to be willing to die in large numbers for their cause. Which is one reason most rebellions involve shooting and killing, rather than passive dying.