Violence... The story so far

Op Ed: Carol LaRock 2002

In the world today, the means does exist for a global dialogue, (e.g.. via the Internet). Though cliches are not generally acceptable modes of "intellectual" communication, one seems most apt in view of this current historical phenomenon. That is "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink". The key word being "make".

To communicate, truly, effectively, those participating must desire to indeed have an exchange. Exchange essentially meaning that something is not going to remain the same. There must, therefore, be a willingness on the part of each and every participant to potentially be moved from their own poised place of inertia. A threatening endeavor! For the question resting close to the heart and soul of each participant is, "If I am to be moved from my life invested stance to another, am I not a betrayer to all I have proclaimed and believed to have believed in???" In some, maybe many, this is, in fact, in deed, and in truth, a 'life and death' proposition.

So, to speak about a global dialogue sounds nice. And, of course, we all want to be nice. Right? But each one who may wish to indulge in the rhetoric of such niceties, must really do their own personal soul searching to ask of themselves, "Am I willing to be moved?"; "Am I willing to put my life on the line for what another may believe, for the sake of this 'peace' I can so easily speak of?" "Am I willing to 'shut up and listen' or do I only want to be heard?".

I have no doubt other questions can come to mind, as well as all sorts of reasons to disagree. That is GREAT. So should it be. But what it really all comes down to is, that this dialogue that is spoken of here is an "I" question, and not a "you" or "them". Just "me".