nonviolence

My head hurts after an intense week of learning. My heart is craving to change the world. My mind is wondering if it's really worth it, for one, and if I even have the dedication to reroute the direction of my comfy life.

We've had a team in from The Institute for The Study and Practice of Nonviolence in Providence, Rhode Island. Since Monday, they've been conducting a "Training of Trainors," teaching us how about the theories and practice of nonviolence and teaching us how to teach others the same. It's been great, but mentally exhausting. The prinicples and steps are based on Martin Luther King, Jr's teachings, so we learn about the Civil Rights Movement in the US and then about types of conflict, the principles of the theory and the steps in solving conflict through nonviolence. And then we present that information back individually, in small bits by small groups, and then an overview of everything in small groups. I am amazed at how creative we were able to be when it was required.

When I sat down to write this, I think I intended to outline what I've learned, but to be honest, I'd rather just zone out right now...and you probably aren't all that interested anyway...

But the one thing that has been interesting (convicting? uncomfortable? crappy?) to mull over is the definition of violence and nonviolence. I wonder if inaction can be considered violence? I think we would agree that child neglect (inaction, not caring for) is a form of violence. But if inaction is violent, then I am a perpetrator of violence in Darfur? Burma? Belfast? Washington DC? In not taking a stand, in not working toward confrontation, justice, equality, I am letting violence happen. And if I claim to attempt an honest, nonviolent lifestyle, I can't be content with that.

In other random sociological thinking, I got a letter from my sister, talking about rebuilding neighborhoods. She was referencing the rebuilding of New Orleans neighborhoods, wondering if the efforts are working toward getting community members back in their homes, or if they are heading toward gentrification. And so we wonder, how can you rebuild, or even just improve a community, for the people who actually live there. In our world where extravagence is often equal to developmenet, how can a neighborhood, an area, a country be developed FOR the people who live there? Does this even make sense? I was walking through the neighborhoods here in Belfast today and wondered, if this area were redeveloped, if that wasteland were cleaned up, could the people who live here now still maintain a life here, or would they have to move to another rundown place that they could afford?

Right, now my head hurts even more. But there have been exciting bits of the rest of the week. I went to a book club on Monday night. I was nervous about it because I had to ride buses on lines I wasn't familiar with, and I had no idea what kind of people would be hosting and attending. And, sure, it was a bit akward, but beyond that, it was so good. It's a group of girls and guys who are right around my age, who like to read (well most do) and just want to meet informally to chat. We read Vernon God Little this week (almost an updated Catcher in the Rye, don't read it if you're sensitive to cursing), and since most people didn't make it the whole way through, mostly focused on plot summary. However, there are some folks who sounds like lit majors and whether they are or not, it'll keep me on my toes! In the end, I think it'll be good craic.

On Wednesday night I went to the women's group at church. They are a sassy bunch. We did a take off of Ready, Steady, Cook (similar to Top Chef) and had to assemble our snacks for the evening. My team lost the challenge, but it was okay because I spent the evening chatting to two fabulous older ladies and two of the nicest highschool aged girls I have met in this city.