Linda Petrusi holds a BA in International Studies, a Minor in Black Studies, a certificate in mediation and will shortly complete her Masters in Conflict Resolution. Feedback to: linda@caribbeannetnews.com

Peace takes a back seat to violence.  Resolving violence to create peace involves some form of violence by those who claim they do so in the name of peace.   The right to self determination really means the right to cause harm to those who have harmed us.  The essence and spirit of self determination becomes lost and is replaced by ongoing bloody violent civil wars.  There is no intervention by “outside actors” until the situation has reached a level of such violence that any “resolving” of conflict usually ends up becoming a negotiated truce which allows for some form of humanitarian aid to those who are “collaterally damaged”.  What noble individual came up with that phrase: “collaterally damaged?”

It is okay to be sexist but not racist.  It is okay to be racist but not sexist.  There are advantages and disadvantages to just about any issue.  For example:  “A key advantage of using principles to resolve moral dilemmas is that they hold each of us to the same moral standard.”  “A key disadvantage of using principles to resolve moral dilemmas is that they may not fit different cultural contexts and there may be dangerous consequences to certain principles.”  So the question becomes: How should one approach a moral dilemma?  See how crazy it gets? 

“The meek shall inherit the earth.”  What does that mean?  Does it mean that those with limited or no power should do nothing because their suffering on earth promises an afterlife of eternal happiness?  Is it OK to characterize women as meek?  What would happen if we characterize men as meek?   Men can not be meek otherwise they might be seen as suitable for marriage by women.  If called to “duty” to fight for your country would you prefer to have a meek man watching your back or a “strong” man who has no problem firing his gun point blank in the face of “the enemy?”  How can a “meek” man protect his wife and children?  What about women who are considered “strong?”  The craziness just keeps on going.

We study the politics of marriage, love, war, peace, food, justice, truth, sex, poverty, unemployment, elitism, movies, media, science, education, business, government, white privilege, male privilege, feminism, religion, racism, sexism, indigenous cultures, communal societies and individualistic societies to name a few, while forgetting or not knowing that there are currently forty documented highly evolved societies (albeit small) who choose peace.  Go ahead, try to name just one.  What characterizes these societies as peaceful and what methods they use to resolve conflict is for the most part unknown by the very societies who should know if they are trying to incorporate peace into their violent society.  How crazy is that?  As if peace and violence are somehow mutually compatible.  Diplomacy serves as an example by its “carrot and sticks” mentality for resolving conflict.

Many believe that conflict is necessary because it provides us with the opportunity to learn and understand each other better.  Others believe that conflict is inherent in all societies and follows the rule of nature as if we were born with some bizarre gene which makes us capable at the “ripe” moment to cause real suffering, real blood, real tears, and real misery in the absence of other alternatives.

Here is what I believe:  A meek character is not the same as a weak character.  To be meek does not mean to suffer for a promised afterlife of happiness.  It means that a meek character is capable to understand empathy, compassion, reason, logic, justice, truth, the essence and spirit of love and is able to integrate these abstract concepts into their lives in very real and practical ways which earns them the right to inherit the world.

Children understand justice better than adults.  Observe children playing and listen as they quickly point out, “That’s not fair.”  “You cheated.”

“All you need is love” is true.  Skeptics might argue that that phrase is nothing more than “abstract utopia” which does not exist and causes damage because of the possibility of romanticizing certain communal societies by Westerners.  This would mean that no conflict exits in these societies and therefore, vicious and brutal conflict would occur with no intervention by “outside actors.”  I think one way to find out if this is true is to ask a meek person.  But then again, what do I know?  I am crazy by virtue of studying craziness.