Ich bin zurückhaltend, hier auch englischsprachige Meldungen zu bringen - meistens wird solches auf einem deutschen Nachrichtenblog doch nicht gelesen. Jetzt mache ich aber eine Ausnahme. Am 20. April 2012 hat mir Wolfgang Hertle den folgenden Text zugeschickt, den ich für die augenblickliche Arbeit des AFSC überaus informativ halte, und in dem es auch um Deutschland geht. Der Verfasser, Silas Wanjala, lebt augenblicklich in Pendle Hill, einer internationalen Quäkergemeinschaft in Pendle Hill, die ich schon vier Mal besucht habe und wo ich den Verfasser auch einmal persönlich kennen lernen durfte.
Note: The below interview by Silas Wanjala is the first in a
series of interviews with Quaker activists.
I define activist in the broadest sense – those working to help to mend
and heal the world, to create justice and peace from many vantage points. In
order for peace to flourish, it’s my belief that we need many hands working in
disparate ways to unravel the net of injustice and weave a web of compassion
and love. - Lucy
by Silas Wanjala
George Lakey is a Quaker activist and expert in nonviolent
activism. George is a Visiting Professor and Research Fellow at Swarthmore
College and is active in the Earth Quaker Action Team. Over the course of his
career, Lakey has led 1,500 workshops on five continents. He has worked with
Cesar Chavez in leading strategy workshops for activists; in the Burmese jungle
he taught the theory of nonviolent struggle to pro-democracy students in a
guerrilla encampment; and preceding the 1994 elections in South Africa, he
co-led peacekeeping workshops with African National Congress members and others
in skills of nonviolent intervention.
He was first arrested for a civil rights
sit-in in 1963. In 1989, he served as an unarmed bodyguard in Sri Lanka for
human rights lawyers threatened with assassination. Lakey has founded and
co-founded numerous organizations, including A Quaker Action Group, Training
for Change, Movement for a New Society, and the Philadelphia Jobs with Peace
Campaign. In addition to his activism, he has authored eight books as well as
numerous articles. On April 30, 2012 he
will begin a two hundred mile Green Walk for Jobs and Justice from Philadelphia
to Pittsburgh to urge PNC Bank to stop funding mountaintop removal coal mining.
George is a member of Central Philadelphia Monthly Meeting
of Friends. He is a committed pacifist and activist who strongly believes in
nonviolence and social justice.
Silas Wanjala (for the Acting in Faith blog): Tell me a bit
about your background and interest in peace work.
George Lakey: My start (as a peace activist) was when I was
twelve years old. I was brought up in a church where they believed that
sometimes children are called by God to be ministers. The elders of my church
thought that maybe I was such a boy. I was twelve years old. So they said “let
us give him a try.”
They gave me pulpit to preach one morning. I had a couple of weeks to prepare, so I
prayed and prayed to be given the message that I was to speak about. The day
came and I preached a sermon on ‘Why God wants us to push for racial equality
between blacks and whites.’ This was in the year 1949 and the church was not
ready to hear that and so I was never asked to preach again. That was the end
of my career as a preacher; a one day preaching career.
Silas Wanjala. Where was your church and where did you grow
up?
GL: In Pennsylvania
in a small town. I grew up in a church that was something like ‘Methodist.’ I
thought a lot about that, what that means that they had thought I was ready to
be a leader, then I tried, and they said “No, thank you.”
I started looking at Jesus’ life and realized that there
were times that he was a hero, and there were times that he was not. He was not
liked by his people in Nazareth, and he was not liked at the end. I realized
that ministry from God is not a matter of popularity; it is about saying the
truth as you understand it and as you think God wants you to say it. Sometimes
you might be popular, sometimes not at all.
SW: Why did you want to speak about social equality?
GL: God told me to.
SW: How did this experience influence you?
GL: From that experience and my identification with Jesus I
realized that it is important to give voice to those who are oppressed. So I
raised the question with the elders of the church about ‘capital punishment.’
This was a church where the elders believed that the Bible
should be believed in every word. I loved the Sermon on the Mount. So I thought
how could you believe in the Sermon on the Mount and yet have the state kill
people, kill criminals? No, it doesn’t make any sense. So I started to raise
that point of view and the elders did not want to hear that.
I realized that I
might have to leave that church because that church did not want to think about
what the Sermon on the Mount speaks about, those larger issues. It only wanted
to think about the family and personal level and not on the larger level.
So then when I went to college and found Quakers, I felt a
great relief because then I met some people who believed that Jesus is relevant
on all levels, not only personal or family, but society as a whole. That meant
a big difference to me. But then I had difficulty with the pacifism of Quakers
because I had been brought up in a family that very much respected the
military. And even though I could see the problem with capital punishment, I
could not see a problem with war. But so many Quakers I met had a big problem
with war.
And I read the Sermon on the Mount again, looking for wisdom
and it seemed clear that it does not support war. That created a crisis of
conscience, and for one year I had an intense struggle; this was at age
nineteen.
SW: Did you attend a Quaker college?
GL: No, it was not a Quaker college. I attended a state
college but there was a Quaker meeting in that town. I went to that meeting
because I was curious. I wanted to know who the Quakers were and what they
believed. I liked the worship and that they believed that Jesus’ word is for
the whole society, not just for family and personal. But I did not like the
pacifism and the anti-war attitude. And
so that caused me to struggle internally very much. And I struggled for a year.
I read everything I could read against pacifism; if there was a book against
pacifism I would read it hoping, oh good, maybe I don’t have to be a pacifist.
I did not want to be a pacifist.
SW: Why didn’t you want to be a pacifist?
GL: Because it was against my family’s belief.
SW: So, did pacifism have anything to do with the intense
struggle you were having?
GL: Yes. And by the end of the year, I realized that
pacifism is the way.
SW: Let us talk about some of your work and the books you
have written. You write that pacifism and nonviolence are different. Can you
share about why you think pacifism and nonviolence is not one and the same
thing.
GL: I see pacifism as an ideology that has a lot of faith in
it; it is a kind of ethical stand. I see nonviolence action as a strategy. So
the emphasis that I see in pacifism is what to do when it is a question of
faith and when you don’t know what to do; and nonviolent action is what you can
figure out to do practically.
And so I am happy to
work with people who are not pacifist because I am happy to be practical, but I
am also happy to work with pacifists because I share the assumptions about the
nature of human beings and about God’s will for us as pacifists. But I see
those two as different approaches.
So, for example, someone using nonviolent action as a
practical technique may use it again and again and then come to a problem that
they cannot solve again that way, so they might say ‘ok, we can’t solve it
nonviolently and so we will use guns or we will use killing in order to get
this to happen, e.g. in order to save the Syrian people right now.’ But a pacifist might say ‘well we do not see
a practical way but we are going to keep looking for a practical way.’ There
are faith commitments that we will keep; we will never give-up looking for a
practical, peaceful way of saving the Syrians.’
SW: What are some of these practical ways that you are
talking about?
GL: Well, when I was nineteen, a big question for me was,
“what do you do with dictators?” You want to throw out a dictatorbut,
obviously, the practical way to do that is violence, with armed struggle. An
example is the way the American colonists threw-out King George III. So that is
one way to throw out dictators, practically speaking.
And yet my pacifism would say ‘there is a better way, what
is that better way?’ It was very puzzling when I was nineteen, but now it is
fairly obvious because we have in the database many, many cases of dictators
being overthrown nonviolently (Global Nonviolence database developed by
Swarthmore College). So there have been big changes in my lifetime. So (it is)
in taking a problem like a dictatorship, and then more and more learning how to
solve that problem nonviolently. That is how I feel about genocide, or what is
going on in Syria. That these can be problems which at one moment in history we
just can’t figure out, but if we have faith as pacifists, we will be motivated to
keep working to find ways that are nonviolent.
SW: Do we mix pacifism and nonviolence?
GL: The pacifism in me keeps me searching and inventing new
ways of being nonviolent. But I also respect the fact that some people are not
pacifists and they are not motivated the way I am and therefore they will work
with me nonviolently as long as it is clear, and when it is no longer clear how
to do it, they will use violence, but I will not.
SW: You write about ‘people power.’ Can you share about
this?
GL: From my point of view this also has to do with my being
an activist. So as an activist I always want to be looking for a way to be
powerful in any situation. If we are a room of activists, I want to find ways
we as activists have to be powerful.
Every time that something happens, someone says it is really
the media that decides, then that takes the power from us. Or if they say India
had a successful nonviolent struggle against Britain because the British are
nice (nice gentlemen), that takes the power from the Indians and gives the
power to the British. There are various ways that observers sometimes take away
our power and say that power belongs to the media, or that power belongs to the
opponent.
I have seen one explanation for Indian victory for
independence that it was as a result of World War II. That the war was so hard
on Britain or Germany, etc. So they were
weak at the end of World War II and that is why they could leave India. But
that is not true. Britain was still in
Kenya and many other countries in the 1950s; it did not walk out in 1946. It
stayed in Malaysia for a long time.
So there is this tendency to think, when looking at
nonviolent struggle, to keep emphasizing the power of something else: ‘Oh it is
the power of World War II, or the power of the British being a nice people, or
it is the power of the mass media.’ I believe that it is the power of human
beings willing to risk greatly in standing up for themselves that makes the
critical difference.
SW: What has been the role of schools when it comes to
teaching about war and peace?
GL: The schools are also victims of this old, old belief
that violence is more powerful than nonviolence. It is an old belief, probably
believed for thousands and thousands of years old. But I don’t think that it is
true. I was taught that in school. And
the mass media are full of that. I don’t believe it; I think nonviolence is
more powerful than violence. It is exactly upside down.
I see it just as another old belief like stating that the
earth is flat. Everybody thought so and they were wrong. I think that is the
way it is about violence.
The use of violence is a failure of imagination. Just like
when I was nineteen years old, everyone knew that the only way to get rid of a
dictator was violence, now we know that that is not the case. The nonviolence
database can tell us that that was a lie. There is this conflict then between
the old belief and the new reality. When people use their imaginations and are
very strategic, they are able to do things that were supposedly not possible to
be done.
The schools continue to teach the old belief that violence
is the most powerful, the mass media continue to teach this old belief, too. So
it is still a minority that believes in the new reality that states that
nonviolence is the most powerful, but it is a growing minority that know this
new reality and that is why there is more and more dictators being overthrown
nonviolently. That is why the Arab awakening; Tunisians, Egyptians and why most
people in Syria are still using nonviolence. The new understanding is gradually
coming.
SW: How can activists share and spread the message about
nonviolent action and people power?
GL: The easiest way is to go to the Swarthmore global
nonviolence database. There are almost six hundred cases showing people power
and the power of nonviolent action. If the activists in the field of human
rights, they can type ‘human rights’ and they will see many cases. Or, if they
are activists focused on the environment, or those interested in democracy,
they can just type it and find it. There is this easy way now, thanks to
students working and creating all these cases. It is now possible for people to
get inspiration and knowledge in areas they are interested in.
SW: Tell me a bit more about the Global Nonviolence
Database?
GL: It opens our minds to many possibilities. The database
shows 199 nonviolent methods. It opens
our minds to many possibilities. It doesn’t mean that we should be doing all
those things all the time, but it is like a recipe book, expanding our choices.
We can learn from other people’s mistakes. There are cases that failed and we
should read about that if we don’t want
to repeat the same mistakes. Then there
are so many cases of success which can inspire us and we can learn from the
successes of others.
SW: What are some examples of people power?
GL: One of the ways we show our power is through saying
“no.” It is non-cooperation with an evil system. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
taught a lot about that. If a system requires us to do something, the biggest
tool is for us to say ”no.”
Many of the ways of nonviolence are ways of saying no. I am
clear that power emanates from people; they can give or take the powers vested
on an individual or a specific office or organization. On the one hand, they
can choose to remain subservient, while on the other, people they can take back
the power they have given to a person or an organization if they want to.
People possess inert total power to do this. Some of the ways people power can
be invoked is by:
1) Saying no to the powers that be.
2) Noncooperation through such means as strikes and
boycotts.
3) Envision something better. Sometimes people give this power away by
leaving it to the experts. What is the
way that we envision? A particular problem that I find as an American in the
United States is a great reluctance to envision a better society. They don’t
work together to come up with ideas, they don’t write to each other about it.
4) We can draw inspirations from the ancestors. In the US, we have a problem about respecting
our ancestors. We don’t look back at our history for inspiration. This is
simply learning from history and earlier experiences.
SW: How can the inspiration of our elders be used to address
the challenges we are facing today?
GL: I hear people involved in the Occupy Movement
complaining about police brutality. This is nothing compared to the Civil
Rights Movement.
I do not like police
violence. However, if we look at what the Civil Rights Movement went through,
we might be a little embarrassed about ourselves. Actually, the violence today
is very light compared to what happened in those days. Our ancestors were going
through intense violence and I am sure they were not complaining, but were busy
organizing.
When I hear people in the Occupy Movement only complaining,
I say to myself, “if they only knew, if they can get perspective from what the
ancestors could give, then they would not waste their time complaining about
the police. They will be organizing more people. They need to organize the
99%.”
SW: What makes you think that the people involved with the
Occupy Movement are not getting inspiration from the ancestors?
GL: Because when I talk to them, they don’t know about the
civil rights movements. They don’t read about it, they have not watched the
documentaries about it, etc. When we talk about the Civil Rights Movement, they
say things that are so untrue and I was there. My first time being arrested was
in the Civil Rights Movement in 1963.
SW: What are some of the nonviolent actions that can be used
by the Occupy Movement?
GL: I believe that the single most powerful way to organize
and strategize for change is through campaigns. A campaign is a focused
mobilization of energy around a particular clear goal. And a campaign is not
something that has to be expected to last for five, ten, or fifteen years. It
is something that you can picture getting done in a few years, maybe three
years or four years at the most.
A nonviolent campaign uses direct nonviolence methods to
achieve that goal. One reason that is a good way to proceed is that then we can
learn so much faster about how to make change. There are a lot of mysteries
about how to bring a nonviolent revolution in the United States. We haven’t
done it and no one knows exactly how to do it. So we need to learn as rapidly
as possible about how to make change in this country.
A campaign is a great learning opportunity because if you
have, say a two-year campaign, then you win, or you lose, or you partly win.
Then you look at what you did and you say, “we did these things well and these
things we did not do well.” So you can
evaluate a campaign and then your next campaign can be far better because you
have learned from that campaign.
SW: Do you think the Occupy Movement should have a campaign
then?
GL: Yes. They can carry a number of campaigns, for example
stopping the foreclosures of mortgages, stopping people from being thrown out
of their homes, a campaign to force corporations that are not paying taxes to
do so, a campaign to reduce the cost of public transportation (e.g. for Septa
to charge less), a campaign about more money for public education, etc.
So there are many ways, using specific campaigns that
include several actions; some will win and some will lose but we can learn and
become ever more powerful in working.
Part of the secret of Gandhi’s success was because he had so
many different campaigns. Some won and some lost, but they were learning and
preparing about how they could take on the British Empire. The earlier
campaigns helped people to gain confidence and sharpen their skills.
Campaigns will help the Occupy Movement to learn as fast as
they can, so as to take the 1% because the 1% is not easy to work against. We
cannot take it on only one time. It is too big; it is too big a foe. The one
percent has clear, specific, and focused goals and energy. But the ninety nine
percent do not know what to do.
SW: The 99% cannot easily take on the 1%, why?
GL: The 99% don’t know how yet, they need to learn how to do
it. When the 99% learns how to do it, it will win. But most of the 99% don’t
know the art; they do not know the craft. In this country we do not have enough
experience on class struggle using the full power of nonviolent direct action.
Tens of thousands of people need to be doing campaigns to learn how to win
against the 1%. They have to practice and sharpen their skills.
SW: Do you think that the Occupy Movements are practicing
and sharpening their skills for campaigns?
GL: Yes, in some places they are.
SW: I was going through one of your books that I want to
mention here, “A Manual for Direct Action: A Guide for Organizations in
Changing Times.” You write “this book is for those ready to do something
substantial.” What are some of the substantial things you were writing about?
GL: The most important part of that book is the five-stage
framework. That you can do a stage, followed by a stage, then another stage.
For me, it is developmental.
I have been talking about that framework; I am getting a lot
of positive feedback about this book from the Occupy Movement people. They have
not had a bigger picture on how the movement can grow. And so there are a lot
of questions. They are fighting about this or that thing, but there is no big
picture to help them evaluate. So what the five-stage framework does is that it
offers steps on how movements can grow and become more and more powerful, and
then they can win. And that is the importance of that book. The reason I say it
is substantial is that those five stages are very demanding.
The first stage asks that we take a close look at ourselves.
I call this cultural preparation or consciousness-raising. That we do not only
develop a vision for ourselves but we also develop a vision for society
generally as truly powerful people who are children of God, just as 17th
century Quakers would say, ‘warriors in the lamb’s war.’
Stage two is learning new ways of organizing ourselves. This
is organization building or creating the embryonic structures of the
society. Occupy has been doing this
some.
Stage three is propaganda of the deed, or confrontation.
Stage four is mass economic and political non-cooperation,
or exerting coercive force.
And stage five is parallel institutions, or stabilizing the
new structures for basic functions. Each step is a bigger step and is more
challenging.
SW: How would you want Quakers to be engaged with the Occupy
Movement and other current issues/activities?
GL: North American Quakers should be clear about the role of
social class. They have to understand
that middle class Quakers are molded in our society to be managers for the
benefit of the owning class (1%) and many Quakers have not questioned that,
they just go on being managers on behalf of the 1% and doing the 1%’s work.
I believe if more Quakers get clear about that, they will
say, ”we should be on the side of the working class instead of the side of the
1%.” I will be leading a workshop in the
Central Philadelphia Monthly Meeting about social class, and I am getting more
and more requests around the country for me to do that among Quakers. So
Quakers are waking up to class struggle. I talk about it in the William Penn
lecture also.
Another thing that Quakers can do is to do even more than
what they have already done with Occupy. What I hear from Quakers across the
country was great support for Occupy and I think that is a very good for them
to do because it brings Quaker credibility to a movement that needs credibility
and needs to be taken seriously. It also teaches Quakers about how social
movements work and about how conflicts work. I think it is a very good thing
for Quakers because it is a win-win. It helps the social action and helps
Quakers themselves. AFSC has been on the frontline doing this.
------------------------------------
To learn more about the five-stage framework above, which
George calls "a strategy for a living revolution," take a look at
this video of him speaking at a series on Revolutionary Nonviolence at Friends
Center in Philadelphia co-sponsored by AFSC in March.
About the Interviewer: Silas Wanjala is the Friends
Relations intern at AFSC. He was born and raised in the western part of Kenya
in a small town called Kitale. After graduating from seminary in 2003, he
worked as a pastor in Elgon East Yearly Meeting. Silas has been involved in
community development and peace work. Silas was a member of the Friends Church
Peace Team. He just completed a Masters of Arts in Religion with a focus on
Peace and Justice Studies at the Earlham School of Religion. He is currently a
student at Pendle Hill, a Quaker retreat and training center.
http://www.afsc.org/friends/preaching-peace-and-justice-interview-george-lakey
