Seattle Press on Line - The Faulty Logic of Revenge

The Faulty Logic of Revenge

By Sandy Mitchell

Sep 27, 2001 -- I am writing this in the aftermath of the horrendously violent events of September 11, 2001. But the message I hope to convey is timeless, and is not specific to this event. My message is this: the ancient revenge-meme of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is one the human race needs to finally grow up enough to reject. This ancient meme is based on a logic that is the logic of childish immaturity, and is used by governments and peoples in countries all over the world, including ours. And it and has led to incalculable suffering everywhere on the planet.

At this time many of our fellow citizens are caught up in a frenzy of rage and a desire for retribution. According to (highly questionable) polls, some are even calling for massive retaliation that would clearly result in the death of thousands of innocents.

Feelings of anger, rage, pain, and even a desire for revenge, are all normal, natural reactions to such shocking violence and loss.

But we all know--when we're NOT under the influence of such powerfully negative feelings--that those who act while under the influence of shock, rage, and adrenaline, seeking an outlet for discharge, act as fools. [FOOL: 1: a person lacking in judgment or prudence 2: one lacking in common powers of understanding.]

Let's be clear: the innocent people who died in the WTC bombings were sacrificed for no other reason than that they were American (and many were actually citizens of other nations--it was the WORLD Trade Center, after all). Calling for the death of other innocents--who would die at our hands for no other reason than that they were NOT Americans, but happened to be unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of those we're targeting for our revenge--is to avenge the death of innocents through the death of other innocents. Is this the example we want our children to follow?

When children on a playground strike each other in their frustration, we seek to teach them how to tolerate their intensely uncomfortable feelings, and to channel their energies constructive into problem-solving without violence. When they learn self-control skills, they can master their frustration. Then their energies are freed for exploring creative alternatives to violence. But as every parent sooner or later realizes, children only do what you SAY if it matches what you DO.

In 1991 I was in Washington, D.C. during the Gulf War, when all but one of the voices in the national press seemed to be screaming for blood; all but one. That one was Colman McCarthy, the former Washington Post columnist, who had helped found a D.C.-area grade school based on teaching the principles of non-violence. He reported what teachers all over that metropolitan area told him happened when they broke up schoolyard fights among the children: prior to the bombing of Iraq, when teachers separated the children and urged, "Use your words, not your fists," the children listened, and learned one lesson. And after the bombing started? The children looked at their teachers in utter disbelief, and laughed at them. One child asked his teacher: "What planet are YOU from?" They'd already seen on TV what their county believed, and it was a far more powerful lesson than their teachers' words.

Unfortunately, some parents still teach their children to strike back even harder than they were struck, and so to value revenge for its own sake. But if revenge actually worked to rid the world of violence, that would have happened long ago.

If punishment and revenge really worked to bring about lasting positive change in human behavior, we'd be a nation of saints, because we have punishment and revenge DOWN. It sometimes seems like punishment is all we know how to do. As a nation, we waste a tremendous amount of energy always looking for a "bad guy" we can pour our hatred and revenge on and then feel morally superior to. We do this in our legal system (it only occasionally deserves being called a "justice" system), in our homes, and in our nation's foreign policy.

I'm convinced that the average American citizen would be horrified if they knew how many innocents have been killed around the world in the name of "National Security," "Stopping Godless Communism," and other tired ideologies. If they knew the extent of outright murder, and the number of democratically elected governments around the world that their tax dollars had helped overthrow in the name of those ideologies, they'd be sickened, and would work to end it. And the first step would be to start looking at what our government actually does, instead of being misled by what it SAYS it does.

In the history of the world, revenge has never resulted in the "eradication of evil," as is now being touted by those in power in the United States. Yes, it can stop temporarily the ability of those who hate us to punish us--but only temporarily. The Dalai Lama has often pointed out that the temptation of using violence to solve conflicts is that you always think you know just how far it will go. You always think you can predict just how much damage will be done, and to whom. But in truth you have no way of knowing in advance the full consequences of any act of violence you commit.

The one thing you can reliably predict is that the consequences of violence--and the damage done--will NOT stop where you think. Like trying to bowl in a shop full of precious crystal ware, sooner or later you're going to smash the crystal in your attempt to get a strike.

This is not to argue that we should ignore the acts of those who do violence to us. It is not a simplistic call to "turn the other cheek." But when I read of polls that claim that 90 percent of Americans favor violent military retaliation even when it would result in the deaths of thousands of innocents, I smelled a rat. And when I followed the smell I discovered that the question the pollsters used was: "Do you favor military retaliation, or should we do nothing and let them get away with it?"

Front-loading polls with questions designed to get specific results is not an honest reading of the public mood. It's just more of the official "manufacturing of consent" that Noam Chomsky has warned us of. We need to guard against the kinds of governmental lying that the history of the last fifty years has taught us is put into play whenever the power structure is threatened by events. The U.S. government is always insistent that other nations follow the "rule of law," and needs to be held to the same standard. That, not violent military revenge, would teach our children that we actually can walk our talk.

Sandy Mitchell
(can be contacted c/o The Seattle Press)

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!


Gary	Oct 10, 2002	Baton Rouge, Louisiana	SSI
Mr. or Ms. Mitchell, it's a year later now and the first time I read your piece. You most certainly are a good parent if you have kids and would be a valuable teacher to anyone who would listen. You are most certainly a brave spirited person for having the courage to raise an opposition voice in this climate. What a year this has been.