by David Swanson, Cotmeh 3, 2018.
Hilweşîna Şerê Şerê is the hopeful and predictive title of a 2007 book by John Jacob English, who’s actually Irish, and it may prove a valuable stepping stone for many trying to partially back their way out of support for endless war yet not prepared to acknowledge the more coherent and empirically substantiated wisdom of complete abolition. Whether any of the authors of the following books which I routinely recommend to people had read English’s book I do not know, but it also makes a nice lead-up chronologically and logically to them:
Xwendekaran Kuştî: Daxuyaniya Duyemîn: Dewleta DYA ya Amerîka ji aliyê Mumia Abu Jamal û Stephen Vittoria ve, 2018.
Rêberên ji bo Aştiyê: Hiroshima û Niştecîhên Nagasakî dibêjin ji hêla Melinda Clarke, 2018.
Şerê Parastina Pêşveçûn û Aşitiya Aştiyê: Pêşniyarên Rêvebiriya tendurustiyê ji aliyê William Wiist û Shelley White, 2017 ve hate guherandin.
Pîlana Bazirganiyê ya Pîşesaziyê: Pevçûnek Cîhanê Bêyî Şerê ji hêla Scilla Elworthy, 2017.
Şerê Ne Hê Jê Dibe David Swanson, 2016.
Pergala Ewlekariya Glover: An Alternatîfa Şerê by World Beyond War, 2015, 2016, 2017
Li dijî Şerê Hêzdar a Hêzdar: Em Dewleta Dîroka Dîroka DYA ya Navdar winda kir û çi (Emê) Em dikarin bikin ji Kathy Beckwith, 2015.
Şerê: Mirovan li dijî Mirovan Roberto Vivo, 2014.
Riyalîzma Cotolîk û Tevgera Şerê ji hêla David Carroll Cochran, 2014.
Pevçûn û Pişk: Tenduristiyek Ciddî ji hêla Laurie Calhoun, 2013.
Shift: Destpêka Şerê, Berxwedana Şerê ji aliyê Judith Hand, 2013 ve.
Şer Na Zêdetir: Pirsgirêka Pevçûnê David Swanson, 2013.
The End of War ji hêla John Horgan, 2012.
Transfer to Peace ji aliyê Russell Faure-Brac, 2012.
Ji Şerê Bi Aştiyê: Rêberdana Pêşdehiya Salan Bi Next ji Kent Shifferd, 2011.
Şerê Is A Lie David Swanson, 2010, 2016.
Şerê Beyond: Hêza Mirovan Ji bo Aştiyê ji hêla Douglas Fry, 2009.
Şerê Beyond Living ji aliyê Winslow Myers, 2009.
Hilweşîna Şerê Şerê focuses on the views of Leo Tolstoy, Bertrand Russell, Mohandas Gandhi, and Albert Einstein. Yikes! I can just imagine the gargantuan flak I’d take if I ever booked those four males, three presumably “white,” and all four decidedly dead, on a panel at a progressive conference. I’d do it, of course, because of the wisdom each had to share. But the weaknesses of this collection are not unrelated to the dead-white-male critique. The wisdom of non-Western societies that never made or make war is missing from any tale of the West finding its way to the discovery of how to construct peace — as if peace were a parliamentary structure or a computer network. When Einstein asked Freud if peace were possible, I’d have preferred him to have asked Jean-Paul Sartre or Bertrand Russell, people who didn’t always choose peace but who would have made the overwhelming case that it is possible. Better yet, he might have asked Margaret Mead. Better still, he might have looked to societies that had done it and were doing it, rather than trying to prove something possible in theory that merely worked in non-Western practice.
The four peace thinkers discussed are, however, fascinating and valuable, although clearly limited. Tolstoy is crystal clear and uncompromising, but bases everything on religious faith that is of no use to anyone unable to share it. Russell appears to be the secular Tolstoy who can universalize his wisdom, except that Russell only opposed “the bad wars” — though he does so extremely well. Gandhi takes us back to religious justifications for not supporting mass murder. But, despite what Gandhi himself said, his ideas are so blatantly creative rather than claiming to restate the true tradition of others that many adherents have found it easy to separate Gandhian actions from Gandhi’s religion. Einstein takes us out of the religious realm again, but back to partial war opposition. Einstein’s opposition to war was meriv.
So, all four of these examples seem lacking. In saying that, I mean to refer as much as possible to the usable lessons the four men taught, not to their lives as model human beings — though I do not claim the two things can be cleanly separated. As seen in the books listed above, knowledge and thought on war abolition has evolved. So have the behaviors we call “war.” So have popular attitudes toward war. But I suspect we would be in a worse place without the advances that these thinkers contributed to.
At the close of his book, English describes Tolstoy as debunking the mythologies of war, Russell the mythologies of war justifications, Gandhi the mythologies of violence, and Einstein the mythologies of security. These are certainly purposes these authors can serve for as long as such myths persist, which one hopes is not identical to the life expectancy of this human species.
