My Migraine Battle: On The Forefront

Non-violent Non-cooperation

Non-violent non-cooperation. An ideal first practiced by Ghandi, then the Dalai Lama, then Martin Luther King, jr. I've decided that this would be one of my approaches to my migraine. How? Well, I'm not going to just lay down and live with it. I'm going to continue seeking out help and relief, but at the same time, I'm not going to let them affect my emotions anymore in the way that they have been. I'm not going to cooperate with them and allow them to get me down to the point that I'm feeling sorry for myself. This is going to be my ideal. Now, I want to talk about non-violent non-cooperation in politics.

From what I've read in history, it seems to have only been truly effective when you can do it from within your country. Ghandi first began using this technique in South Africa, where he lived for quite awhile when he was a young lawyer. Then, when he returned to India, he used it again. It was finally effectual. It worked.

MLK, jr. used that technique in the United States. He lived here and worked from within the country to effect change. It worked and continues to work as we evolve as a country.

The difference I think between what those two men did and what the Dalai Lama is trying to accomplish is that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan refugees have to try to accomplish the reclamation of their country from without. They are using the same technique. Nonviolence takes a very long time. Much longer than a violent war. But, the effects last for much longer, too. However, I think that fighting from without the country is even more difficult. It's been 60 years and the united nations still does not recognise Tibet as a sovereign nation unto itself. Rather they consider Tibet as part of China. The US is only recently beginning to recognise Tibet's sovereignty and that's only because of some volatile Hollywood activists like Richard Gere.

When Tibet first requested our aid, in the early 1940's, we didn't help. Firstly, we had our own wars that we were fighting. But, mainly because there's nothing in Tibet that we want. They don't have oil, or trade with our country of other materials. They're a very small country far away. So, big brother said to little brother, "tough luck, little brother. I guess the bully that's beating you up will continue to beat you up unless you run away." And that's just what's happened.

We still don't know the half of the terror that is still inflicted on the Tibetans by the Chinese Communist Party. It's not reported. It's not news, because there's nothing that we want or need from the Tibetans. But, the fact is that the Chinese continue to torture and kill the monks and nuns. They make children kill their parents by putting a gun in their hands and holding them there while they pull the trigger. Tibetans continue to try to escape to crowded India. How can nonviolent noncooperation work when there may not be enough Tibetans inside the country to protest? They starve because China demands 3/4 of their crops. They can't complain about the Chinese invasion and their government. They are executed for worshipping the way they always have.

Why do we go to fight for Bosnia and Iraq, but not the terrorists who have infiltrated Tibet for the past 60 years? Why don't we care about them?

posted by Jessica @ 9:14 PM