Coe and Page

This was an interesting piece to read, particularly when I considered my own work to try and define the difference between violence and Nonviolence. Coe's writing was particularly useful for me to consider as there were some similarities in thought, and also some divergence. First off, Coe and I agree that hunger strikes are acts of violence, even if though they are certainly of a different than what is typically considered "violence." Coe's reasoning is that Gandhi's hunger strikes are violent because he is acting violently on himself by denying himself food. Coe argues that the recipient of violent acts does not matter, be it ones' self, or another. I would agree with that, but I take it a bit farther. When thinking about these hunger strikes I also took fasting into consideration. Fasting is often used as a means for meditation and spiritual growth, certainly a commendable action, and one that is directed toward the self. hunger strikes however are directed toward another group. When striking you are making a statement to another group, you are committing the act of fasting, but directing your suffering at another party.I believe that by directing this action against another party helps to classify it as violence.

Coe also argues that "we can gain the ends of overt violence either by employing mechanical forces or by declining to employ them." I disagree. Coe is arguing that embargoes are violent acts. Perhaps this is true if it they are employed by one nation against eachother, as embargoes are usually precursors to war. However, I would argue that when employed by a citizen, or groups of citizens, against a company or product, that this is a form of nonviolent resistance. You cannot call this action violence because it is an action that can take place without any intent. I can choose not to purchase a product for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with making a statement. I will never by a Cadillac because I think their cars look utterly ridiculous, and because they are far too expensive. Because "embargoes" can be implemented against a company for perfectly mundane reasons it is not right to call them violent. In addition, in a capitalistic system your dollar is a vote. Every time you purchase a product you are voting for it. I buy organic produce over other kinds of produce because I wish to express my desire for organic farming to supersede corporate farming. This is the only way for citizens to have any say in the system, and I'll be damned if I'm not going to exercise it!