Bloodthirsty Liberal

A reader writes:

Are you in agreement with the monks or are you siding with the militaristic government. I feel you are asserting the monks were foolish in their approach to rebuking the government yet, I can not believe an American citizen would actually do that. I mean, you do understand that by staying out past curfew and crossing military-established boundaries they are demonstrating to their fullest abilities, and non-violently all the while.

I think you are siding with the goverment’s reaction to the demonstrations. Please tell me I am completely wrong.

You are, but you are not alone:

Note to this misguided person (I’m trying to be nice): The phrase “saffron robe” comes from a practice of the original order of monks. They were allowed only two possessions, a robe and a bowl. The robe had to be made from “pure cloth,” meaning cloth that no one else wanted. So they made their robes from cloth that had been used to wrap corpses. This cloth usually had an orange stain from the spices used to cover the odor of decomposition. Hence, “saffron robe.” As for the monks coming up with a better “game plan” — the same game plan worked pretty well for Gandhi. In the short run peaceful resistance looks ineffectual, but in the long run it often gets better results than insurgent warfare.

Thanks for the information; I’m always happy to learn. You will admit, I hope, that the origin of the name is not common knowledge (hence your concise and plausible explanation), certainly not mentioned in any media reports I’ve read.

Surely, Buddhists and those sympathetic to their cause (are any of us not?) are familiar with questions that have no obvious answers. Aren’t paradoxes at the heart of every Zen koan? If you’ve read my take on the happenings in Burma (at least one post a day for the past 11 days), you’d see that I’ve had many different reactions—some that would anger you even more than you already are, some, I believe, that would placate you.

And I don’t apologize. I don’t like seeing unarmed men and women slaughtered by a vicious pack of military thugs. Never have, never will. Especially when the thugs have a history of slaughter, and have announced their intention to repeat it. You can’t shame them if they have no shame; moral suasion requires morals on both sides.

The monks and their followers have caught the world’s attention, I’ll grant you that. (That and a subway token…) International pressure is probably the only hope right now, but see what good that’s done for Tibet or Darfur. Or against Iran. Or against the Taliban. I don’t need to continue.

Just this morning (Boston, MA time), CNN reports:

“Blogs helping expose Myanmar horrors”.

So what do I read from the AP?

Myanmar’s government appeared to have cut public Internet access and troops occupied key Buddhist monasteries on Friday, witnesses and diplomats said, in an effort to end demonstrations against the ruling junta.

These people don’t want to lose, and they’re prepared to fight a lot dirtier than the monks are.

But we already knew that.

As for Gandhi (and Martin Luther King), they knew that their opponents, bad as they were, had moral limits. The American government sent the military to enforce civil rights, not suppress them. If the protestors thought they were up against similar foes, they misjudged badly. The protests are gone, and people have died.

Isn’t it only decent to ask what for?

CNN updated just after I posted:

Shots were fired to clear crowds defying a brutal crackdown in Myanmar Friday witnesses said as graphic new video footage showed troops using deadly force on anti-government protesters.

…

The AFP news agency reported that police had launched baton charges against a crowd of 10,000 .

…

“We have heard shots in the last 15, 20 minutes,” British Ambassador Mark Canning told CNN.

The situation is fluid, as they say, but I fear most of the fluids are bodily ones.

Morning, Michelle.