Why Violence? Part II

October 23, 1966
Plainfield

Why Violence? Part II

“They had learned to deal with hatred and violence without spilling a single drop of blood.” This was the ritual of the Winter People in the novel to which I referred in the first section of “Why Violence,” the theme stimulated by conversation with and the typed comments of the late Ed R. Powell. In the fantasy novel, THE WINTER PEOPLE learned to express their hate and aggression without violence to other human beings. The first section of this two-part sermon concluded with these words:

“It is of considerable significance to me that we are now in conflict with nations with whom we have not established a ritual violence that is bloodless. Certain historical events are significant. I have been thinking of the U.N. this way: Khrushchev pounding with his shoe; Stevenson launching his cutting replies; the Cuban delegate attacking us verbally. Ceremonial walkouts and unabashed invective have been patterns which have been deplored, but rather than deploring such acts we should have rejoiced that aggression found a bloodless expression. At present we have no way for a ritual violence with China, North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front. The issues for which so many thousands are dying or suffering are exceedingly difficult; but if we and the opponents had ways of expressive, aggressive gestures which killed no villagers or airmen or soldiers or marines, the whole course of events might turn to a different tack. We might be able to walk unharmed back to our villages after ritual violence and symbolic aggression had satisfied those built-in emotional demands which are still part of the emotional responsive structure of the human creature. Then perhaps we could talk together, plan together, hope together.”

There can be many causes of violence. It may be that the conclusions of Konrad Lorenz (ON AGGRESSION) to which I referred have validity. It may be that there is insight in the view expressed by Ardrey in his new book, THE TERRITORIAL IMPERATIVE, wherein he attributes the fact of male aggression to the defense of territory against male invaders – protecting one’s turf, a modern city-gang would call it.

In his book, THE PATTERN OF HUMAN CONCERNS, Hadley Cantril, Chairman of the Board and Senior Counselor of the Institute for International Social Research in Princeton makes not only a similar assertion but also connects the trait to the problems of the nations in a world like ours (p. 316):

“The story of evolution tells that members of every species stake out some territory for themselves within which they can provide for their needs and carry on their living. The extent of this territory depends on what is required for the survival of the species and it is extended if it will contribute to such survival. In the present era the territories human beings stake out for themselves are largely bounded by the nation-state, a territorial unit rapidly replacing narrower geographical and psychological identifications but doing so just at the time when it is becoming more and more apparent that the concept of nation itself limits and threatens man’s development in an age of increasing interdependence and highly developed weapons.”

Some of Ed Powell’s points may have been more culturally related than instinctive, but who among us would say that his generalizations are without foundation? I would not discount any of the programs he suggests. Today, because this is United Nations Sunday, I would attempt to remind you not only of Ed’s emphasis on world law and common language but also I suggest we think in the image of Bridges of Understanding with which the memory of Horace Vanderbeeck has been marked fittingly.

We now have more military persons in Vietnam than the South Vietnamese army. Secretary McNamara announced when he returned from Vietnam last week that things were going satisfactorily, militarily, but that 100,000 more U.S. troops would have to be sent to that devastated land within a year. One can hardly help reflecting on the general approval and enthusiasm with which the majority of the American people accept the contradictory foreign policy of words of peace and acts of escalating war. Puzzling. One of Woodrow Wilson’s biographers quoted that president, who read the Declaration of War (I) to the accompaniment of great applause and cheers. The President observed privately, “My message today was a message of death for our young men. How strange it seems to applaud it.” (WHEN THE CHEERING STOPPED, Gene Smith, p. 34)

The United Nations was born in San Francisco twenty-two years ago because leaders from nations from all continents were appalled by the ghastly human cost of wars in the 20th century. They knew that unless united action was taken, future wars would bring absolute catastrophe.

Will you cross a bridge of understanding with me by recentering attention to the magnificence of the Preamble to the Charter of the UN:

“We the peoples of the United Nations
Determined to save succeeding generations from the
scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought
untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the
dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights
of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for
the obligation arising from treaties and other sources of
international law can be maintained, and to promote social
progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS to practice tolerance and live together in
peace with one another as good neighbors
and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace
and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the
institution of methods, that armed forces shall not be used,
save in the common interest, and to employ international
machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement
of all peoples, HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.”

What happened? The giants of the U.N., the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. simply believed they need obey the charter and Constitution of the U.N. when their own self-interests are served, not necessarily otherwise.

The session just convened affords us a good opportunity to see ourselves as others see us, if we will. A bridge of understanding does not exist about our official foreign policy in Vietnam. Ambassador Goldberg made a speech which, because it was praised by much of our press the reality failed to come through to us that the reaction of the U.N. delegates was that nothing new was being said. This was confirmed by President Johnson in his comment on our U.N. Ambassador’s remarks. Furthermore, it does not seem to be generally realized here that the whole atmosphere at the U.N. is one of thwarted depression because the war in Vietnam is no nearer a solution. Listening to a discussion between two correspondents from other nations, one from India, one from Latin America, I was made aware of the discouragement many nations feel about the Vietnam war.

We will move on a bridge of understanding if we become aware that Ambassador Goldberg’s speech made points in the United States but not generally in the world. Furthermore, we will be wise to perceive that increasing despair develops because no longer can a number of smaller nations apply political pressure to the giants, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. Forty, even thirty years ago, the smaller nations could apply pressures. But today the quantitative and capital necessities of development, technology, and production have concentrated destructive power in the hands of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. We and they now have entirely disproportionate killing potential enabling each and both to ignore either requests or threats from any other combination of nations, at least until more nations have an abundance of nuclear war-heads when it may then be too late to hope for a peaceful world order.

Josiah Wood Krutch (THE AMERICAN SCHOLAR, Spring, 66) once compared atomic fission and the forces it unleashed to the “bottle imp in an oriental story. The all-powerful imp will obey all commands except one. He will not get back into the bottle no matter how sternly he is commanded. And we cannot get rid of the powers we have acquired.”

When the U.N. speech was accompanied by an announcement from Washington that U.S. air strike resources in S.E. Asia were to be escalated, there was immediate negative reaction in many delegations. Important as is Ed Powell’s recognition of the need for a common language, more necessary is a consistency between language and act. We will take steps on the bridge of understanding when we recognize more fully that fellow U.S. members expect consistency and rightfully so. Otherwise, dedication to the words of the Preamble is a hollow, even deceitful gesture.

108 speeches have been made at this 1966 session of the U.N. on a subject not officially on the agenda – Vietnam. Most of these speeches severely criticized the United States or expressed serious concern about our policy of escalation. We should have more interest in finding out why, rather than speaking more ominously as we reckon up our statistics of potential overkill.

Yes, we need a bridge of universal language. But we need a temporary bridge which will help cross to areas of common understanding. For example, in positing the circumstances which might lead to negotiation in Vietnam, our U.S. policy has been to ignore the existence of the N.L.F. as a government. Our most advanced position is that we would permit their representatives to be present as part of the Hanoi delegation at a possible negotiation. On the other hand, the Hanoi government refuses to recognize the Saigon government because it is held to be a figurehead for the U.S. and not the chosen government of the people. Many of the nations not directly involved see both sides making the same case – each refusing to recognize the other’s alleged puppet government.

We can attempt to cross a bridge which is a path to recognizing there is a rationality in seeing both sides of an argument. There is clamor and tub-thumping as enthusiasm is stirred for what has been called an “Asian Summit meeting.” Yet is that an accurate title when India will not be there, nor China, nor Indonesia, nor Japan, nor Cambodia, nor Laos. In naming it an Asian Summit, we also conveniently overlook the geographical fact that Soviet territory in Asia has an area larger than the U.S.

Because the item was buried in an inside page in the NYT, and as far as I know, not carried locally, not everyone may be aware that, choosing U.N. Week as an appropriate time, the six co-chairmen of the Inter-Religious Conference on Peace sent a statement to both the Secretary-General, U Thant, and our Ambassador Arthur Goldberg calling upon the U.S. to act in conscience upon U. Thant’s initial proposals for peace – stop of the bombing of North Vietnam and an agreement that the U.S. and its allies agree, explicitly, to enter into negotiations with all parties engaged in the war, with all parties scaling down military operations to create a climate for negotiations.” I hope you know that Dana McLean Greeley, President of the Unitarian Universalist Association, is one of the six co-chairmen of the Inter-Religious Conference on Peace. The others are Rabbi Maurice Eisendrath, President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, Archbishop Iakovos, head of the Greek Orthodox Church of North and South America, Bishop John Wesley Lord of the Washington area of the Methodist Church, Bishop John J. Wright of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh and Bishop William Crittenden, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Erie, Pennsylvania.

Dana Greeley does not speak for you; this I know. I do not speak for you, this I know. But you speak for yourself, even when you remain silent and acquiescent in the face of the predominant influence of military policies in political decisions. As Tristam Coffin reminded us in his little book, THE ARMED SOCIETY (p. 39), “Washington was not picked to head the Continental Army because of his military talents. Instead the Congress thought he was least likely to set up a military dictatorship. He was himself a member of Congress. He had spoken out many times against militarism.” It was only a few years ago that President Eisenhower solemnly warned the American people of the growing power of the Pentagon-Big Business combine. This power has grown considerably since his warning.

So in this year of 1966, when a discouraged U.N. experiences fading hope that international violence can be diverted from its upward spiral, one can build a bridge of understanding by speaking for himself. Elections are upon us soon. I know that pulpit endorsements of particular candidates comfort those who agree, solidify the determined opposition of those who disagree, probably changing few if any voting intentions. Rather than that, let me put before you the proposition that if you believe that our representatives and senators in Congress should be more than rubber stamps for the miserable entanglements of deepening war, find out where the candidates stand. Beyond generalizations, do they stand for such peace initiatives as suggested by U. Thant, the Inter-Religious Conference for Peace and many other serious organizations and concerned thoughtful individuals? An end to bombing, de-escalation and negotiation among all parties? If you discover candidates are Tweedledee and Tweedledum, other considerations will prevail. But if you discover that one candidate is forthright and specific rather than vaguely sensing the changing political breeze, why not pull the lever for peace in that privileged sanctuary, the voting booth? You can find out by inquiring and by attention to what the candidates are saying and what they are not saying.

Do you know of any more central, pressing obligation than to find a moral equivalent to war? William James addressed himself to this in a notable essay more than a half-century ago. The moral equivalent and the outlet for non-violent aggression exist in the United Nations. It remains for the nations to make membership universal, including China. It remains for the two greatest powers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., to place greater trust in the peaceful procedures of the U.N. - debate, legislation, assistance, the rule of law, and hopefully soon, adequate sanction and support for peacekeeping power.

[marginal note, handwritten by CJW: One hundred years ago or so, John G. Adams, one of our ministers who had been an ardent abolitionist found that his fight against slavery had implications wider than the struggle to free slaves here. Said John Greenleaf Adams, “If a man is too good to be enslaved by his fellow man, he is too good to be destroyed by him.”]

One of the more important connecting bridges of understanding we can construct is to build greater awareness [of] this parliament of the world to our own self-interest. Do you know any one whose true self interest is served by war? Not the men in Vietnam, not the 100,000 who will go in the next year, not the unknown hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, who will go if we continue this inexplicably foolish policy of increasing land war in Asia. If the Chinese hate us with the fanaticism attributed to them by some observers, how gleeful they must be at our enthusiastic march into a trap which has an option of one of two logical outlets: either defeat by overwhelming numbers on a vast continent of Asia or the end of it all in World War 3 accompanied by all the devilish adornments of nuclear-missile-chemical-biological slaughter.

There is a fascinating precedent written about by Earl Wilbur in his HISTORY OF UNITARIANISM (p. 78). He writes that the Reformation took early root in Venice and spread in that city. This tolerance occurred in spite of a Venetian law coded in 1249 legislating that anyone found guilty of heresy should be burned at the stake. As the Reformation grew in the 16th century, the law against heretics was simply not enforced because there was active trade between the Catholic merchants of Venice and the German merchants who became Protestants. “If heretics were burned, it would tend to interfere seriously with trade.”

It is in our self-interest, it is in the interest of persons everywhere in our world, to put an end to war, this Vietnam war in particular and wars between nations in general. The United Nations is the most truly designed and strongest bridge of understanding yet constructed in the world. If we would end violence between nations and begin a reign of law, internationally sanctioned and supported, we have a prime responsibility to place greater confidence in the U.N. and trust it more. Pascal once remarked that if justice has no power then force will replace justice.

A couple of years ago, our family watched a program of American Indian dancing at the famous castle, Casa Loma in Toronto. The most thrilling dance to watch was the fire dance. [The ritual derives from] the fire dancer who holds an hereditary office which descends from father to son and his task was essential to the life of the village. In the cold northern areas [of] upper Ontario, the Hudson Bay region and so on, the tribe was dependent on the fire dancer. He was charged with keeping the flame even when all the fires were out. Dancing, tepee to tepee, he carried skillfully the precious lighted torch which brought light and warmth to the whole world – for the limits of the tribe was their whole world. The fire dancer had to move swiftly and possess extraordinary skill at handling flame.

Our world is much larger than a tribal boundary. But our world needs a fire dancer who can bring light and warmth for all while handling safely the beneficial but dangerous flames of all our scientific potential for either human blessing or human curse. Until the men and women of the world can create a better forum for non-violent aggression, can elect a better parliament for the exchange of views, build a better service instrument to help persons in their needs and create a more just court of law for mankind’s quarrels, then we do well to turn to the U.N. for light, warmth and skill in handling flaming situations. Do you recall those lines by Mark Van Doren,

“Wherever earth is home for men,
Beyond what mountains, by what seas,
Let honor and pride live; but now
Let there be law, transcending these....”

[Editor’s note: In this sermon, Rev. Westman makes reference to “the typed comments of the late Ed R. Powell.” These typed comments are reproduced below; it appears that Rev. Westman typed them himself.]

From Ed Powell’s notes 10/6/65

.....
V Our history: it is inevitable that history be taught in terms of war. Success in battle has determined who shall prevail. Less understood is that technology has been the builder of structures over which the war lords ride roughshod. But for the U.S. especially, our prestige has mounted with every war we fought up to Korea. Is there not an indication here that the world has turned and while violence has been the key to the past, it may not be for the future?

Our expenditures: Does anyone think that we can pour 50 billion into our economy (in the ensuing year it has become much more) for armament and not affect our thinking? Even a layman can quote “that where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.” With such an outlay, we almost have to have a war to make our money seem to be reasonably spent. But, alas, the silos of Omaha are designed to deter mainly the Russians and the best hope for order in the world is some sort of agreement with them. Once we have a war, the slaughter of any number of civilians can be shrugged off as a military necessity with a clear conscience. And do we always care if it is necessary?

If a measure of our violence-minded nature is needed, it can be found in the total apathy with which the non-violent programs are greeted by the large majority. These are the programs which will be needed if we ever have a peace by good-will, comfort and decency. There may be a peace by force and fear but it will never be stable!

A) Birth control. Anyone who is not allergic to arithmetic will know that our conduct of the war in Vietnam, gruesome and barbaric as it is, is small change as a source of human misery compared to hunger and starvation. The W.H.O. tells us that about two-thirds of humanity lacks proper nourishment. Others say that the number actually dying from malnutrition is about ten million a year. But only about two dozen out of sixty thousand in this area will do anything about it.

B) World law. This idea is pure poison politically, but is there any peace on any level in society where there is no law? The replacement of the six-shooter by the courts in the wild west was always the signal for decent living.

C) Common language. Does no one know, beside the psychologists of language, how potent a factor this language barrier can be in keeping people forever at swords’ points? Take Greece and Turkey and Israel and Jordan; will there ever be an understanding among them? But this is a really neglected field. I have met about three people in my life who support either Interlingua or Esperanto. If we had the common language everyone would be willing to learn one in addition to his won to be able to communicate with everyone. Incidentally, it could be a far simplification. But we do not have it; we have instead the babel of tongues with the professional linguists in control....