Mother's Day - A Day for PEACE and PEACE activism

The mother of Mother's Day was Julia Ward Howe, who declared the first Mother's Day in the United States in 1870 with the "Mother's Day Proclamation"in order to promote peace and protest the carnage of war.


This holiday (later approved as a national holiday by Woodrow Wilson in 1914) was initially a day to celebrate the role of mothers as peacemakers.  Howe, the author of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (written as anti-slavery song), had seen one too many sons and husbands killed in the American Civil War and in the Franco-Prussian War.  "This proclamation was tied to Howe's feminist belief that women had a responsibility to shape their societies at the political level" Wikipedia article.


 "In the1870s, during the Franco-Prussian war, Julia felt "the cruel and unnecessary character of the contest. . . . a return to barbarism, the issue having been one which might easily have been settled without bloodshed." She began a one-woman peace crusade that began with an impassioned "appeal to womanhood" to rise against war. She translated her proclamation into several languages and distributed it widely. In 1872 she went to London to promote an international Woman's Peace Congress but was not able to bring it off. Back in Boston, she initiated a Mothers' Peace Day observance on the second Sunday in June and held the meeting for a number of years. Her idea spread but was later replaced by the Mothers' Day holiday now celebrated in May." Biography of Julia Ward Howe (click here)


In the true spirit of the holiday, I wish all the mothers of the world peace this day.  Let us remember the words of Julia Ward Howe and celebrate the powerful message of this MOTHER'S DAY PROCLAMATION.

Arise, then, women of this day!

Arise, all women who have hearts,
Whether our baptism be of water or of tears!

Say firmly:
"We will not have great questions decided by irrelevant agencies, Our husbands will not come to us, reeking with carnage, for caresses and applause.
Our sons shall not be taken from us to unlearn
All that we have been able to teach them of charity, mercy and patience.
We, the women of one country, will be too tender of those of another country
To allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs."

From the bosom of the devastated Earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says: "Disarm! Disarm! 

The sword of murder is not the balance of justice."

Blood does not wipe out dishonor, nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plough and the anvil at the summons of war,
Let women now leave all that may be left of home for a great and earnest day of counsel.

Let them meet first, as women, to bewail and commemorate the dead.
Let them solemnly take counsel with each other as to the means
Whereby the great human family can live in peace,
Each bearing after his own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
But of God.

In the name of womanhood and humanity, I earnestly ask
That a general congress of women without limit of nationality
May be appointed and held at someplace deemed most convenient
And at the earliest period consistent with its objects,
To promote the alliance of the different nationalities,
The amicable settlement of international questions,
The great and general interests of peace.

Julia Ward Howe, mother of six, American abolitionist, 
social activist, poet  and  peace  maker
(1819-1910)

Was Bin Laden's Killing a Reason to Celebrate? by Dr. Ray Perkins

Was Bin Laden’s Killing a Reason to Celebrate?

by Dr. Raymond Perkins

May 6, 2011

There are a number of points to consider here which strongly suggest that it was not. 

I’ll get to those in a minute, but let’s look at the main arguments in favor. There seem to be two: 

1. The killing of bin Laden, the monstrous mass murderer of 9/11, is justice done on behalf of those  thousands of victims and their relatives who now feel better for the closure it brings.

I don’t doubt there’s some truth here. Many do feel better. And that is a good thing. But  it’s hard to see that this feeling is anything more than a satisfying feeling of revenge which, though sweet, may be illusory, both because it may not last and because it may not be true justice. Bin Laden’s death can not undue the suffering and loss that his actions unleashed, and as some have already said, can’t bring any meaningful closure to the losses felt so intensely by so many.

2. A vicious mass murderer is dead and will not be able to murder again, thus making the world safer.

It’s true that bin Laden won’t be around to do any evil.  But he is now, in the eyes of many, a martyr, and that may not be conducive to a safer world. Surely history has taught us that revenge and violence breed more revenge and violence. And a nuclear device detonated in Manhattan on behalf of bin Laden, although unthinkable for rational folk, might be a determined goal for some practitioners of revenge.

This unpleasant possibility—not new, but perhaps with probability recently raised—is, as I see it, still the most pressing problem of our time. I’m talking, of course, about the threat of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons—a threat to all of us, and even to the continued existence of our species.  

The way out of this nuclear predicament, if there is one, is surely going to require a kinder gentler world where human rights are respected and protected and where conflict, especially conflict between nations, can be resolved without resort to war. Such a world would be one in which nuclear weapons would be abolished, and general disarmament as required in Art VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970) and outlined in the McCloy-Zorin Agreement of 1961. But of course, as Albert Einstein and Bertrand  Russell made clear in their 1955 Manifesto, disarmament will not be enough. Small wars can expand, and forbidden weapons can be rebuilt as  potential losers scramble to avoid defeat. War itself must be abolished both in the sense of being illegal and in the sense of being unthinkable and unnecessary as a means of conflict resolution between human groups and nations.

This is an awesome challenge which will require that the majors powers, and especially the US, lead in the direction of some sort of world governance, i.e. a coherent supranational network of democratic institutions to make, adjudicate and enforce international law.

In recent years the seriousness of our situation has been seen and movement initiated by numerous world statesman, including some former US coldwarriors such as Secretaries of State/ Defense Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, Paul Nitze, Colin Powell, and George Shultz. They have not been talking explicitly about world governance, but they have been talking about the need for, and the feasibility of, global nuclear disarmament. President Obama has endorsed the concept and publically advocated it. This is very encouraging stuff even if the promise has lain nearly lifeless since the ratification of the NNPT (1970).

 

And this brings us back to bin Laden’s recent killing. All the facts are not yet in. But it smacks of yet more international vigilantism. It was, like the ferocious assaults on Afghanistan and Iraq , a prima facie illegal use of force with little regard for due process and international law. (Is not Pakistan a sovereign nation? Are not suspected criminals entitled to trial?). By what authority—other than our own unilateral sense of national interest—was bin Laden deemed guilty of crimes and shot dead? Even if no US laws had been broken, and they almost certainly were, can such unilateral use of national force be taken as a model for all nations? I think not. Indeed, it’s a formula for precisely the sort of national behavior that makes the abolition of war near impossible and makes a travesty of our hopes for averting what Einstein once called the “unparalleled catastrophe.” And that’s nothing to celebrate. 

Give Peace a Chance: How to Fight Terrorism in the Post-Bin Laden Era

Give Peace a Chance: How to Fight Terrorism in the Post Bin Laden Era

by Terry Keleher

Wednesday, May 4 2011

(re-posted from www.colorlines.com)

With Osama bin Laden now removed from center stage of the so-called global war on terror, there’s an opportunity to rethink our national security strategy. The pursuit of Bin Laden provided the pretext, in large part, for two U.S. wars, one of which is the longest in U.S. history. And the question we must ask now is, what have we achieved? And is there a more effective way to establish long-term security for not only the United States but the whole world.

On Sunday night, when President Obama announced that Bin Laden had been killed by U.S. special forces, a post on the BBC’s news blog caught my attention:

Indrajit in Kolkata, India writes: “People like bin Laden are not born, they are made. By poverty, inequality, discrimination. As long as these are prevalent in the world, I fear killing one Bin Laden won’t really solve anything.”

It reminded me of how our zeal to “capture and kill” the terrorists has lead us so far astray from addressing any of the real causes and conditions that give rise to terrorism.

Sure, the killing of Bin Laden and his inner circle at his compound may eradicate some key Al Qaeda leadership and infrastructure. And it certainly brings some relief and resolution to those who’ve suffered unimaginable losses from his brutal deeds. But it doesn’t eliminate the ideology behind him. Indeed, it may even strengthen it. A monster in the eyes of many is now a martyr in the eyes of some. Righteousness deepens, along with the desire for revenge and the resolve to prevail.

How did we get to this approach and how can we forward the prospects for peace?

In the days following the 9/11 attacks, former President George W. Bush said, “this crusade, this war on terror, is going to take awhile.” A week later, Congress and Bush enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists, which set the stage for the beginning of our war in Afghanistan. “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there,” Bush said in elaborating the strategy to a joint session of Congress months later. “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

He prepared the nation well for a new kind of war, one with potentially innumerable targets and no clear end. The “war on terror” framework, along with the broader Bush doctrine of unilateral and preemptive military action, was a dream come true for the defense industry.

Bush’s flawed but clever conflation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks with efforts to remove Saddam Hussein later helped provide a pretext for the U.S. war in Iraq. In his prime-time press conference in the weeks leading up to the war, he repeatedly mentioned September 11, often in the virtually same breath that he invoked Hussein—enough for 45 percent of Americans to believe that Hussein was “personally involved” in 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll conducted a week prior to our invasion of Iraq.

The combined wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, conducted largely under the “war on terror” banner, have resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, countless numbers of people injured and dislocated from their homes, and billions of dollars of military expenditures. And yet, no one has won this war on terror. That’s because it is an un-winnable war rooted in untenable ideas about our role in the world.

Though the Obama administration has discarded the Bush-era “war on terror” label, the foundational terror-fighting approach remains intact. Obama continued and escalated our troop presence in Afghanistan, now at its highest level since the war began with some 90,000 troops stationed there. And even though Obama is drawing down our military operations and troop levels in Iraq, some 50,000 troops remain.

During 10 years of wartime, we’ve been unwilling to provide for our security needs at home—in the form of health care, housing and food for millions who are struggling. While military spending climbed to record heights, the safety net steadily frayed as vital social service were slashed, the foreclosure crisis continued, and unemployment ranks swelled.

With the largest military might in world history, it’s much too easy for us to declare war on any target or tactic we choose. And if the race and religion of the target is deemed to be outside the mainstream understanding of our national identity, the task is made even easier.

When we lead with our might, rather than with what’s right, it comes back to bite us. To regain a moral footing and righteous reputation in the eyes of the world, we must take a different tact.

So if there’s any victory to be had in this moment, it will come from creating a mandate to end our “war(s) on terror” and courageously confront the root causes of conflict.

To do this, we must understand and embrace each others’ humanity, address inequities, and institute domestic and global policies that truly foster peace, justice and unity. We must begin to build a “global security net” through foreign policy that rejects inequality and wealth stratification and supports shared and sustainable prosperity. Our true power will come from leading with and modeling the values of equity and inclusion that are embodied in the ideal of “liberty and justice for all.”

It’s time to replace the global war on terror approach to security with one rooted in peace through global justice and human rights. There can be no peace without justice.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” reminds us that, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” If we are truly committed to peace and being peacemakers, if the losses and sacrifices of the last 10 years are not to be in vain, we must be willing to heed these prophetic words.

Peace Action offers a good starting point for those ready to take action by visiting their webpage: It’s Time to Make The Call—End the War!

Some Thoughts on the Death of Osama Bin Laden

People gather in peace in remembrance of the victims of 9/11.  

Photo credit: www.colorlines.com "Give Peace A Chance"

Some Thoughts on the Death of Osama Bin Laden (R.I.P.)

by Dr. Whitney Howarth

Thursday, May 5, 2011

"Ten years and over 6000 US soldiers killed. Trillions of dollars wasted. Hundreds of thousands of civilians killed. Tens of thousands imprisoned. Torture as part of foreign policy. And we are supposed to celebrate the murder of one person? I am not excited. I am not happy. I remain profoundly sad." -- Matt Dalosio, from Witness Against Torture. Full article here at Truthout.org

In the last few days I've been struck by the diversity of opinions and emotions on Facebook and in the media responding to the execution of Public Enemy #1: Osama Bin Laden.

While groups of Americans rushed to chant "USA! USA!" at ground zero in NYC and some gathered in front of the White House to sing patriotic songs in joyous celebration of our 'triumph', I found myself feeling sad.  Sad because I felt that this euphoric celebration of the death of one man (even a horribly sinister and dangerous man) did not represent what or WHO I thought we were as a nation.  I posted this quote from a Chris Hedges article on my Facebook page:

"The death of Osama bin Laden gives us an opportunity to ask ourselves: What kind of nation and what kind of species do we want to be? Do we want to become a species that honors life? Do we want to become a species that embodies peace? If that is what we want, then we need to start now to examine our own hearts and actions, and begin to consciously evolve in that direction. We could start by not celebrating the killing of another."

                                                        -- https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/02-2

I also asked people, friends on FB who were supporting the frenzy of elation, what they thought the rest of the world might think of us for these celebrations -- we, who have killed so many, and destroyed the lives of so many, in an effort to bring 'justice' to the families of 9/11?  To me, we reveal the darkest and most depraved aspects of our selves (and our nation-state) when we dance on the graves of our enemies.  Reveling in bloodshed makes us look like monsters.  It is nationalism at its darkest.  And this quote from Salon.com,summarized that best, so I posted that on my FB page, too:

"This is bin Laden’s lamentable victory -- he has changed America’s psyche from one that saw violence as a regrettable-if-sometimes-necessary act into one that finds orgasmic euphoria in news of bloodshed. In other words, he’s helped drag us down into his sick nihilism by making us like too many other bellicose societies in history -- the ones that aggressively cheer on killing, as long as it is the Bad Guy that is being killed." 

David Sirota, Osama and Chants from salon.com

Friends argued that they had the right to celebrate because "justice" had been done -- and "closure" had been given to the victims of Osama's terror.  I questioned if any of that was true.

According to many political analysts, 2011 Osama was irrelevant.  His death doesn't end the war on terror.  It doesn't bring back those people who died in the Twin Towers and it certainly doesn't erase the fact that we killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq in a war that was not sanctioned by the international community -- a war based on lies and deceit and hidden agendas. 

Al Qaeda lives on, it is stronger than ever -- certainly stronger than it was 10 years ago. We (Americans) are more vulnerable today than we were 10 years ago.  We are also more reviled and more misunderstood.

"The jubilation of Americans and Western leaders at the death of Osama bin Laden, though understandable, misses the point. In many ways, the figure gunned down in Pakistan was already irrelevant -- more a symbol of past dangers than a real threat for the future."  

-- Barry Lando, Huffington Post article

But perhaps the biggest issue, unresolved by those patriotic mobs cheering in the streets and waving American flags in front of the media cameras is this: WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO NEXT?  Is this an opportunity for peace and reconciliation or are we just going to bang the war drum harder?

One student in my class told me, yesterday, that we need to send more drones 'over there' and take out the Pakistani leaders who are not being loyal to us.  I was stunned.  Is this the answer now when we disagree with those who oppose us?  Those who betray our expectations?  Those who do not align their interests with our own?: "TAKE THEM OUT"??

Thank god not all my students feel this way.  Many were discomforted by the celebratory displays of American patriotism -- many said that they thought a sombre sense of relief and a quiet gratitude were the appropriate responses to the news.  They recognized this for what it is: a complex issue.  Many admitted they just didn't know what to think of all of this, and I appreciated that honesty.  They were, after all, only 8 years old when the towers fell.

Perhaps the most inspiring and powerful writing on the topic that I've read in the last few days came from a friend and former student, Seth Diemond, who wrote these words for facebook:

"I 100 percent agree that we should be incredibly proud. Ecstatic. Thrilled. Rejoicing. But I do not agree that muscle flexing (singing "we are the champions" and "gooodbyyye") is a show of pride- it is a show of insecurity. Pride is displayed by honoring your heroes, not by dancing on the body of your enemies. Pride is displayed by exporting your values, your ideals, your vision, not by taunting those with different values, different ideals, different visions. A more humbled approach to showing our pride in America would have gone a lot further in providing America with lost credibility both in the western world and the muslim world. Obama did this- during his speech announcing osama's death, he showed no elation, no taunting, no "we are the champion" mentality. He reminded us that Osama was not a leader of muslims, he was a mass murderer of muslims and he reminded us that this was a victory for the world, not just for the united states. I think much of the ridicule that the US has endured over the past decade (and going back decades longer) is a result of this "USA USA USA" mentality. Speaking just of the last decade, two unilateral wars (when the world's sympathy was with us), a "mission accomplished" declaration in Iraq, and the anti-muslim sentiment left after 911, have certainly created the brunt of that ridicule... 


... I completely agree with your criticism of the media- for one I think their filming of those celebrations will probably be used as al qaeda and the Taliban's next propaganda video against us. Fact, yes we got him and yes we are happy. Not fact- did those partying in front of the white house react appropriately? Fact- the media is responsible for turning it into a divisive issue and a potentially harmful one to our national security. Fact- because of these actions by the media, it is the duty of us to show the world that our intentions were not to taunt, but only out of pride and relief. However, what made me upset the night of obama;s announcement before the media really delved into this area was that the people celebrating were a)younger than you and i (for the most part) which would have put them in elementary school on 9/11. They were college kids looking for a party- they would have celebrated anything that had momentum behind it and that they felt strongly about. They did not consider the implications of their celebration."

Thank you Seth for your honest and careful analysis of this complicated issue.  And for reminding me that we aren't all what we see on tv.  Most of us aren't cheering and singing victory songs, must of us aren't banging on the war drums.  The media sensationalizes us, our responses and our emotions -- just like they focus only on fundamentalists foaming at the mouth in distant lands.  They want to sell papers, they want to make their corporate commercial sponsors happy.

This is probably why Fox is so successful and so rich.  News and 'entertianment' news channels don't focus their cameras on those among us who heard the news and then sat quietly and mourned the memory of those we had lost.  The cameras didn't turn to us who breathed deeply and prayed softly when we heard the news of Osama's death.  Where's the glory and the juicy headline there?

But I want us to remember this day and how we responded, all of us in our diversity and our intensity and in our silence and in our aching confusion.  I want us to recognize that the emotional intensity of those of us who didn't take to the streets to sing, dance, and shout, was just as powerful and patriotic as the emotional intensity of those that did.

Making a media spectacle of oneself doesn't prove you are an American.  Defending people who choose to laugh at violent and degrading images of Osama, doesn't make you more patriotic.  Dancing on his grave and waving a flag doesn't make you somehow more happy he's gone than I am.

But let's ask ourselves "where to now?"  What will we do with this moment and how will we honor all those who have died - all those who died at Osama's hands -- those killed by our hands -- and those murdered at the hands of other terrorists who, like some of us, revel in the bloodshed and celebrate death?

I agree with Tom Hayden in the LA Times who wrote today:

"There is no excuse for not beginning to end [the Iraq and Afghan] wars one at a time, at vast savings in lives and billions in tax dollars. This is Obama's moment of opportunity. Let the hawks in the Pentagon and the Republican Party call for endless war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama can campaign on ending two quagmires, and on breaking the momentum of the long war on terrorism that some propose."                                                        LA Times article

Enough bloodshed and horror.  Let's find a way to build bridges of reconciliation and understanding.  YES -- some of our enemies do seek to be understood.  Reconciliation may be an option since we can't fire bomb and drone attack everyone on the planet who disagrees with us.  As much as we fear the enemy and despise them, we must remember the enemy is not without humanity -- the enemy is not without valid viewpoints -- the enemy is not without justifiable motivations and insecurities.  Only by reaching out a bit beyond our own self-righteousness and jingosim -- only by reaching towards the enemy -- can we hope to achieve a compromise.  

Remember when we didn't think compromise was a weakness?  Remember a place called the middle ground, where people met, talked, and resolved to build a better future tomorrow by conceding some and cooperating?

The time has come to bring the troops home.  The time has come to talk to our enemies and to listen, also.

Then and only then, can we have justice and closure and some semblance of peace.  Then we can cheer and dance.