The Dark Heart of American Violence
In 2013, two studies
determined that the rate of gun homicides in the U.S. had dropped from 7 per 100K
to 3.6 per 100K population from 1993 to 2011 (NPR
via NRA). There were 18,253 homicides in 1993, and 11,101 in 2011 (Bureau
of Justice Statistics).
On the other
hand, Dan Diamond in Forbes online magazine (More
Young Americans Now Die From Guns Than Cars) this past August, cites statistics that suggest firearm violence is occurring
in the U.S. at a rate far above what other countries experience, and is commensurate
with per-capita gun ownership in America.
Figures lie … and … you know
the reciprocal truth. Beyond the stats, it seems to me the puzzlements and
pronouncements of pundits might gain some ground by considering a number of factors.
- 1. Firearm violence is endemic to U.S. history.
Christian people fled Europe
in the 15th century to launch a new kind of life in a land free of
the corruptions of religion and monarchy. The “new world” was created and
shaped by the violent “conquests” of the indigenous population. Firearms were
not the principle weapons of the early invasion, but metal blades ruthlessly
cut through the largely wooden weapons of the native fighters and killed
effectively. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (video talk) finds the evolution of the flintlock and revolving
rifles merely accelerated the extermination and subjugation of the people who
were already here.
Military expansion into the
rest of the planet’s populated lands to extract labor and resources during the
19th and 20th centuries has been accomplished through the
constant application of more powerful and accurate firearms.
The initiative violence of
our national history has, of course, been erased and muted in its telling and
teaching. Who wants to belong to a country that’s very existence is rooted in
violence? However, that history is finally being taught and exposed.
- 2. Given a terrifying world, humans will sometimes act
violently.
We know the “fight, flight
and freeze” responses to threat. We are the beneficiaries of rudimentary and
biologically rooted instincts that enable us to survive. Neurologists have located
these in the limbic, or mid-section of the human brain. Sociologists and
psychologists have studied how we can be manipulated within social structures
to become either immobilized or hyper-active depending on levels of stress. The
labels of “terror” and “terrorist” and “terrorism” contribute to the already
high level of stress most Americans are feeling due to economic, health and
other factors.
Under low stress, we can
manage threats by leaving the situation, or being very still. As stress rises,
the likelihood of violence rises, and the social response is often to repress violent
actors, rather than attend to the factors contributing to stress.
How high is the stress level among people living in this country these days?
- 3. Technology and industry depend on, and promote violence.
I know … this is a tough one
to swallow. Most Americans – myself included – are the beneficiaries of
technological advances. Our lives are profoundly interwoven with the mechanisms
we have invented to manipulate our environment for our comfort and convenience.
We (or some of us, at least) are only recently beginning to acknowledge that
our comforts and conveniences have been achieved through our treatment of the
environment as disposable or automatically self-renewing. Just as western
civilization has expanded by defining indigenous populations as “not people”,
so has industry and technology advanced by defining the earth as “not living”,
and thus justifying human violence against the land.
We are a powerful species by
virtue of our brains and other unique biological attributes. We are only now
awakening to the truth that although we can violently dominate or exterminate other lives, or living systems, our very
survival depends on evolving a respectful relationship with all these
relations.
- 4. Public sanctioning of violence by soldiers and law
enforcement officials does not exempt American citizens from responsibility for
national security.
Citizenship is a rich and
profound concept. It means I take part in the work of self-governance, and
assume responsibility for my country’s defense and security. Those principles began
evaporating during the second half of the 20th century, as we were
led to believe we could exercise our responsibility as citizens through our labor
and consumption of products. Citizenship became identical with contributing to a
growing economy. 2nd amendment and militia movements have grown out
of rising awareness that national security is every citizen’s responsibility,
and from personal experiences that working hard and buying stuff are no guarantee
of public safety or security.
We once expected every male citizen
to spend part of his young life in service to the country, largely in military
service. It was considered an honorable thing, a public demonstration of one’s
commitment to live as a citizen of the U.S. It was a risky thing. One could be
summoned to fight a war, to defend American ideals. That call to duty has been
betrayed by those who continue to use violence to advance empire. That betrayal
was exposed in my generation by the tragedy of the Vietnam adventure.
When I hear Americans at
campaign events calling us to “take back our country!”, I hear two voices. One
is the voice of frustration and desperation, a rebellious voice, impatient to
reclaim power, and promising violence if not listened to. The second is the
voice of encouragement, a cheering voice, committed to and inspired by a non-violent,
radical renewal of citizen participation in American democracy.
