Megan Mulls It Over

+JMJ

I am sure that many of you have heard the story of 10-year-old Aiden Vazquez, the boy who didn’t physically defend himself against bullies because that would not have been “the Jedi way.” Big disclaimer: I have not seen any of the Star Wars films and know next to nothing about the franchise overall. Therefore, I am going to try to say as little as possible about Jedi, and if what little I do say about them is inaccurate, please feel free to correct me in the Comments section here (or IRL if we know each other offline).

Despite my limited knowledge of Star Wars, I smelled a rat in Aiden’s statement from the beginning. I had my suspicions that light sabers weren’t just cool accessories. And those suspicions were confirmed by reading article comments written by Star Wars fans. My current understanding is that while Jedi do not start conflicts or fan the flames of existing ones, they will use physical force to defend themselves or others. So my conclusion about Aiden’s story as it relates to Jedi is pretty much this:

          -Lynch mobs = not the Jedi way

          -#CollateralMurder = not the Jedi way

          -Clocking somebody in the face right after they’ve clocked you in the face = 100% Jedi

Of course my biggest problem with this situation is not Aiden’s inaccurate understanding of Jedi philosophy. I am mostly concerned about the fact that no influential adult in his life is reassuring him that physical defense against an aggressor is not dishonorable or immoral. I would argue that it is not even violent. There are various definitions of “violent,” but I personally like the one found in the Dictionary on Google (emphasis is mine):

“using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something”

Physical defense at the moment of an attack or credible threat is not “intended to hurt, damage, or kill” the aggressor – it is intended to stop him or her. The fact that stopping them in this way will likely result in their injury or death does not make it immoral. If there were a way to get the same certainty of results from a non-physical defense option, I would not hesitate to admit that non-physical is the way to go. Nevertheless our present reality is one in which “dialogue” and “connection-building” only work before someone who isn’t interested in those things shows up in your face making trouble.

I understand that in most schools, a bullied child who hits back at a bully could end up in as much or more trouble than the bully himself. Therefore, I acknowledge the importance of teaching our children to use good judgment when deciding whether physical self-defense is warranted. (We should do that even if we were living in a world where physical self-defense at school were more socially acceptable.) At the same time, if children never hit back at bullies, the level of bullying in this country will only get worse.

Consider this: you understandably do not want your child to get “written up” or suspended from school. But if they are being bullied, particularly if the bullying is overtly physical and non-physical defense methods tried by the school have done nothing to stop it, I think you need to consider the alternatives to suspension or similar consequences. Do you want your child to end up killing himself or shooting up his school (or both)?

One factor that I believe has contributed to this unhealthy mentality toward physical self-defense is one that I am fully aware may sound crazy and/or offensive at first glance, so I hope that you will hear me out. It is:

Unqualified admiration in American society of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., by both the #GunFreeZone Left and the #StandYourGround Right

(By the way, I am using “unqualified” here to mean “without any disclaimers” rather than “incompetent.”) Both the Left and Right fight over Dr. King’s legacy every year when his birthday rolls around, each trying to claim him for their own. It makes me uncomfortable to see the Right give such praise to a man who believed that all forms of physical defense, even if they are used at the very moment of an attack, are morally unacceptable.

This is not the only aspect of Dr. King’s philosophy that I wish the Right would be more willing to call out. (By the way, none of these aspects prevents me from admiring his overall courage and effectiveness.)

If you want to know more about what these aspects are, I hope that the five people who regularly read this blog can handle a little suspense. Due to the length of my thoughts on this topic, I will share the rest of them in a four-part series of upcoming posts. I hope you will stay tuned.

Verso l’alto,
Megan