"negligible" poems - Hello Poetry

Two fine films: The Lost City and Blood Diamond. I joined Blood Diamond during a village massacre and said to my wife A gun in every home. Those devils would think twice before razing the village and seizing the boys. A well-regulated militia. The local militia the most interesting moment in a strong film with motive (economic, emotional), action (chases, fights) and a **** sexless love story. Use of violence by the local militia for a limited purpose: protect the community, the young from the janjaweed. The crop from the **** Limited scope and defensive posture but armed and coordinated, cooperative, the men (and the women) side by side. Warriors at the gate, you will not run, you will not bargain. Just violence = limited scope, defensive posture. Great music. Cuba, Africa. The Lost City, when the communists tell the club owner under threat of violence No saxophones in the band. The saxophone! Invented by a Belgian--Look what the Belgians are doing in the Congo! When the state's violence is turned against the citizenry for non-violent acts. This quiet neighborhood, July, undergirded by violence, force. That's a given-- any farmer, custodian, EMT will tell you that. Without just violence Gandhi's scope, and King's, might be vanishingly limited, negligible (but not non-existent)? Regarding King the matter is simple -- he was non-violent but dependent upon federal force to counter the South's violence. No doubt without the larger force, the non-violent would be overwhelmed by southern violence. Here, non-violence was a tactic, not an ethic. Gandhi, however, had no violent partner to protect him from the British. Or did he? 1. There was the potential violence of the population, which Gandhi restrained but could release which the British feared, and 2. It was the restrained (limited scope) violence of the British that allowed Gandhi to exist rather than be extinguished--this restraint was a (British) cultural imperative (limited scope) as well as emanating from Britain's view of India as a protectorate and valued citizen of the United Kingdom (defensive posture). What about violence or threat of violence to compel compliance with community as in mortgage foreclosure, driving without license, drug possession. Perhaps it is necessary violence to maintain orderly commerce, the common space, and preempt bad behaviors associated with otherwise neutral, private acts. The defensive posture is the common good; the limited scope is forgoing deadly force. But the citizen, too, must maintain a disciplined, armed non-violence, in case the state (the janjaweed) engages in an unjust, autoimmune violence. Hence, a gun in every home.

0

Aug 11, 2015

Aug 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM UTC

robert-ronnow

A Gun in Every Home

Two fine films: The Lost City and Blood Diamond. I joined Blood Diamond during a village massacre and said to my wife A gun in every home. Those devils would think twice before razing the village and seizing the boys. A well-regulated militia. The local militia the most interesting moment in a strong film with motive (economic, emotional), action (chases, fights) and a **** sexless love story. Use of violence by the local militia for a limited purpose: protect the community, the young from the janjaweed. The crop from the **** Limited scope and defensive posture but armed and coordinated, cooperative, the men (and the women) side by side. Warriors at the gate, you will not run, you will not bargain. Just violence = limited scope, defensive posture. Great music. Cuba, Africa. The Lost City, when the communists tell the club owner under threat of violence No saxophones in the band. The saxophone! Invented by a Belgian--Look what the Belgians are doing in the Congo! When the state's violence is turned against the citizenry for non-violent acts. This quiet neighborhood, July, undergirded by violence, force. That's a given-- any farmer, custodian, EMT will tell you that. Without just violence Gandhi's scope, and King's, might be vanishingly limited, negligible (but not non-existent)? Regarding King the matter is simple -- he was non-violent but dependent upon federal force to counter the South's violence. No doubt without the larger force, the non-violent would be overwhelmed by southern violence. Here, non-violence was a tactic, not an ethic. Gandhi, however, had no violent partner to protect him from the British. Or did he? 1. There was the potential violence of the population, which Gandhi restrained but could release which the British feared, and 2. It was the restrained (limited scope) violence of the British that allowed Gandhi to exist rather than be extinguished--this restraint was a (British) cultural imperative (limited scope) as well as emanating from Britain's view of India as a protectorate and valued citizen of the United Kingdom (defensive posture). What about violence or threat of violence to compel compliance with community as in mortgage foreclosure, driving without license, drug possession. Perhaps it is necessary violence to maintain orderly commerce, the common space, and preempt bad behaviors associated with otherwise neutral, private acts. The defensive posture is the common good; the limited scope is forgoing deadly force. But the citizen, too, must maintain a disciplined, armed non-violence, in case the state (the janjaweed) engages in an unjust, autoimmune violence. Hence, a gun in every home.