KC: Chapter 7
Chapter 7: Promoting Civilian Protection
Gardner’s seven factors that act as levers to encourage or block any mind-changing activity
I will include my own definitions for each of these words because I can and also it is helpful for me
- Reason: ability to think or understand; justification or cause
- Research: investigation and studying; the product of investigation or studying
- Resonance: somethin’ real deep or somethin’ that sticks with you, I guess
- Representational re-description: re-describing something (wow, Deborah, you are so smart and linguistically gifted) so that you can look at it differently
- Resources and rewards: I don’t even know why I felt the need to put anything here. Incentives, maybe?
- Real world events: These words are also unnecessary and yet here I am
- Resistance: Viva la revolución!
And also, reasons for protecting civilians! (As seen in Chapter 7)
- the preciousness of human life
- a fair fight
- innocence (um, I thought we talked about this?)
- civilian obligations
- recognizing ambiguity (isn’t this a way that people lose citizen-status?)
- tolerating civilians (how does this even make sense? I didn’t really read the rest of that section, tbh)
- resources and rewards (I hate that we need incentives to protect people)
- power points and tipping points
- levels and arenas
I will reiterate these ideas and opinions in my questions, but I’m a bit frustrated by the second section of this (reasons for protecting civilians) because,
a) it’s kind of contradictory to some of the other stuff in the paper (e.g. civilians aren’t actually a set population, some people can lose their status as civilians). Okay, so I’m looking back at my notes and maybe nothing is really contradictory but maybe conflicting. I just don’t know how to handle this information with all of the other information about who civilians actually are and how they have been and/or should be treated.
b) I don’t think we should need specific reasons for protecting people except that they’re people and don’t deserve to die. Here I am, with my leftist views and ideas but I truly believe that no one deserves to die. I think some people do some really fucked-up things and make shitty decisions and maybe don’t deserve the best in life but I don’t think we should need any other reason than “because they’re people” to protect someone from danger or anything else, really.
- Why should we, as people, need any other reason than “because they’re people” to protect people? Shouldn’t that be enough? Well, a better way to phrase that is: why can’t it be enough?
- What happens when we can’t change someone’s mind? (in reference to Gardner’s book)
- This is technically from the epilogue, but damn, oh well. I think I also already turned in questions so maybe this doesn’t even count and I can change it or trade it out later. “…the civilian ethic only needs to be abandoned by a few to make for a terrible war” (294). Why don’t people catch those abandoning the ethic before it becomes a terrible war? Why can’t we, as humans, act to prevent something horrible? This whole Bystander Effect is real, fam.