Comments on: Who would Jesus shoot? http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/02/who-would-jesus-shoot/ People-Powered News and Analysis Wed, 23 May 2012 20:02:53 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: federico fioretto http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/02/who-would-jesus-shoot/comment-page-1/#comment-2456 federico fioretto Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:10:49 +0000 http://wagingnonviolence.org/?p=3530#comment-2456 Interesting your article. My friends in Neotopia and I think that it's almost due time that we use a different word than nonviolence; there's psychoilogical reasons (brain doesn't register negation and so we speak of "violence" altogether), semantic ones (ahimsa, the original term used by Gandhy, like Dharma is a complex concept which doesn't easily translate in another culture) and historical (Gandhi hammered out the word Satyagraha fot this very purpose: to better express the concept. In italian the first to suggest the writing nonviolece without the hyphen was philosopher Aldo Capitini and he did a deep point in explaining the profound reason of trying to overcome the limits of a translated concept written with a negation at the beginning. It's not only style, I think. But what is more important is that every way we find to spread the concept of proactiveness of nonviolence does some good. NV is a fight against injustice holding to truth. Therefore we should revert to the sacred word Satyagraha. And read Vinoba Bhave who taught hou to mean and live it in moden times. One more thing: A very good example of nonviolent resistance against the nazis is Denmark; don't forget that Hannah Arendt recommended Danish experience to be taught wherever there was a school. Peace and harmony to all. Federico Interesting your article. My friends in Neotopia and I think that it’s almost due time that we use a different word than nonviolence; there’s psychoilogical reasons (brain doesn’t register negation and so we speak of “violence” altogether), semantic ones (ahimsa, the original term used by Gandhy, like Dharma is a complex concept which doesn’t easily translate in another culture) and historical (Gandhi hammered out the word Satyagraha fot this very purpose: to better express the concept. In italian the first to suggest the writing nonviolece without the hyphen was philosopher Aldo Capitini and he did a deep point in explaining the profound reason of trying to overcome the limits of a translated concept written with a negation at the beginning. It’s not only style, I think. But what is more important is that every way we find to spread the concept of proactiveness of nonviolence does some good. NV is a fight against injustice holding to truth. Therefore we should revert to the sacred word Satyagraha. And read Vinoba Bhave who taught hou to mean and live it in moden times.
One more thing: A very good example of nonviolent resistance against the nazis is Denmark; don’t forget that Hannah Arendt recommended Danish experience to be taught wherever there was a school. Peace and harmony to all.
Federico

]]> By: Simon Moyle http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/02/who-would-jesus-shoot/comment-page-1/#comment-2453 Simon Moyle Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:44:13 +0000 http://wagingnonviolence.org/?p=3530#comment-2453 I agree with you that it's not really a hill to die on, it's more the way it exacerbates the misunderstandings described in point #1 (which is why they're connected). It's not so much the hyphen itself (though I'm a big fan of punctuation when used correctly, and a self-confessed pedant about these things) as the misunderstanding it represents. In my experience nonviolence practitioners don't hyphenate it, and this is at least partly because of an understanding of its active nature rather than simply a non-something. I guess I don't so much call people out for using the hyphen as use it as an opportunity to educate them. So in that sense it's worth the trouble. I agree with you that it’s not really a hill to die on, it’s more the way it exacerbates the misunderstandings described in point #1 (which is why they’re connected). It’s not so much the hyphen itself (though I’m a big fan of punctuation when used correctly, and a self-confessed pedant about these things) as the misunderstanding it represents. In my experience nonviolence practitioners don’t hyphenate it, and this is at least partly because of an understanding of its active nature rather than simply a non-something.

I guess I don’t so much call people out for using the hyphen as use it as an opportunity to educate them. So in that sense it’s worth the trouble.

]]> By: Nathan Schneider http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/02/who-would-jesus-shoot/comment-page-1/#comment-2448 Nathan Schneider Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:20:05 +0000 http://wagingnonviolence.org/?p=3530#comment-2448 Do you really think the difference between "nonviolence" and "non-violence" is anything but stylistic? After all, I have a book by Gandhi (edited and assembled by others, though) called <em>Non-violent Resistance</em>. I tend, like you, to favor "nonviolence" if only because it is one baby step closer to being a single, cohesive concept, rather than simply the negation of violence. But, that said, I don't think it's worth the trouble of calling people out for using the hyphen. Much better to focus on your all too true (and frustrating!) point #1. Do you really think the difference between “nonviolence” and “non-violence” is anything but stylistic? After all, I have a book by Gandhi (edited and assembled by others, though) called Non-violent Resistance. I tend, like you, to favor “nonviolence” if only because it is one baby step closer to being a single, cohesive concept, rather than simply the negation of violence. But, that said, I don’t think it’s worth the trouble of calling people out for using the hyphen. Much better to focus on your all too true (and frustrating!) point #1.

]]>