Last post I talked about some thoughts related to an article I read the other day. I am just going to continue where I left off, so hopefully you read the last post.

3. Unfortunately, just because someone thinks they are doing good, does not mean that they are, in fact, doing good. This also particularly true in development work. Often people with good intentions end up causing a lot of damage. There are many examples of how this might happen, but here's one from the MCC manual on short term Work and Learn teams:

"Experience has also shown that when visitors work on a project without local participation the effects can be more harmful than helpful. Such projects can stroke the visitor's sense of superiority when they believe they have 'fixed' someone else's problem. It can also be degrading to the receiving group when they have had no input into solutions that they are then expected to own and maintain."

My point is that I am entirely convinced that the means is just as important (and in many cases more important) than the end. Being the Mennonite that I am (ok, I'm not actually a Mennonite, but I like to sound like I'm part of the group. . . they're very accepting, really), I believe that the use of violence falls into the "unacceptable means" category. There are some situations where it is hard for me to point the finger at people who take up arms to fight injustice, like Che Guevara. But then I look at paramilitary groups in Colombia inspired by the Cuban Revolution. They have been around for over 40 years, and to this day are still responsible for a large number of killings and kidnappings taking place in a war torn country. Hopefully I will get a chance to write a little more about my pacifist stance later, but for now I'll just say that I am not convinced that violence can bring about any positive, lasting social change.

4. As sort of a corollary to the last point, I want to mention the US government. First of all, I recognize that the government is not one person, but a large, complex and diverse group of people who discuss and debate and process things. Still, just like many corporations, the group tends to take on a larger "spirit" or "personality" (which is a particularly ironic word for corporations considering they have the legal status of "persons"). The US government, despite all it's complexity, tends to act in certain ways. I believe that it is full of good, well-meaning people. I also believe that some of its actions are undeniably bad. I love my country and I do think there are a lot of really good things about it. However, just like any institution, just because it states good intentions, does not mean that we do not need to think critically about its actions and means of accomplishing its goals.