Sunday, January 30, 2011
"Protesting through Self-Immolation"
The Jasmine Revolution erupted in Tunisia after Mohammed Bouazizi set himself on fire. Similar protests have engulfed Egypt this week. Read the Time article, "A Brief History of Self-Immolation" and watch the video below, "Buddhist Monks in War and Protest" to find out more about the history of self-immolation. It can be difficult to understand why someone might engage in self-immolation. What pieces of information in the article and video were most enlightening for you in understanding why this happens. Explain why. Be sure to cite one piece of evidence from each source.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Accordin the video, the buddhist monk said that if an action is motivated by love and compassion, then it can be considered a Buddhist action. In desperate situations, such as the Vietnam war, self-immolation can attract a lot of attention for your cause. One who participates in self-immolation with compassionate motives exhibits extreme passion, commitment and self-sacrifice to protest a particular issue. For example, Thich Quang Duc set himself of fire in 1963 to protest the actions of Ngo Dinh Diem and the discrimination of Buddhists during this time. Self-immolation such as setting oneself on fire is such a terrifying graphic sight that it is impossible to ignore. It is one that has proven to be effective in raising awareness. The buddhist monk in the video also explains that you must change the way people think in order to change the situation. An intense act such as self-immolation can shock people into looking at the world differently.
The interview with the buddhist monk was especially interesting because it was a first hand account about political activism and buddhism.
Within the article it stated how in the year of 1963,Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire which was because of the government under Ngo Dinh Diem when they were in favor of Catholics.They discriminated against Buddhist monks in which Duc was. It shows you that this happens because it is a way for individuals to express their beliefs and it could be for personal religous reasons like this demonstration was. People just get tired and it's a form of frustration. Many of the people that followed what Duc did later on were martyrs.This all ties into what the Buddhist Monk was explaining that your suffering from both inside and out has a connection with compassion in which leads you to take action.Also, that he has realized that political issues such as wars has created violence. After reading the article and watching the video, you have a different view on why this takes place and it makes you look at things a lot differently than you would have before.
The article focuses on self-immolation being an act of urgency to get a point a cross. Most of the cases mentioned in the article are people trying to make a point to the government. They are people who seem unable to find another way to prove their opinion. The article mentions Norman Morrison, a Quaker who lived in America during the Vietnamese War. He was tired of the violence, and set himself on fire while holding his child. He died, but luckily the child did not. He did this in hopes of drawing attention to his rejection of the war. The video explains taht many Buddhist actions are linked back to the idea that any action that is done in a loving or compassionate way is a Buddhist action. Many people who use self-immolation as a religious action believe it to be a very compassionate way of showing their religion. Thus, they believe that not only it is okay to do, but it is a good thing. To us this may seem weird, but when it is connected to being a good religious practice for Buddhists, it is easier to understand why some people might do it. Both the video and the article bring forward reasons that help me understand why this has occurred and why it is still happening today.
The Buddhist monk in the video explained that self-immolation is very different from what other protests have looked like. He explained that when these action are done out of compassion they are considered to be Buddhist actions. Self-immolation is shocking, and brings attention to issues that otherwise may have been ignored. Self-immolation is a statement of desperation against an issue. In North Africa, it is a statement against the authoritarian regimes in their countries. In the article, a journalist who was in Vietnam watching Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire said he was too confused and shocked to understand or cry. Using this shock and confusion, many begin to see the issues differently. Self-immolation has spread across the globe. It has been done to protest invasions, wars, and job quotas. It may seem extreme, but in some cases it may be the only way to get an issue across that was previously ignored.
The article focuses on how self-immolation is usually an act of urgency and helplessnes and to draw attention to the way they are being treated. Most of the people according to the article are trying to speak out against the government. They seem to have no other way to let people know. For exaple Thich Quang Duc set himself of fire in 1963 to protest Ngo Dinn Diem and his treatment to Buddhisht monks. David Halberstam wrote that he was too shocked to cry, and that the Vietanmese were sobbing and were gathering around, and his rule ended in 1963. Once people preform something like this they view the problem differently and has helped stop wars, and helped bring peace, even though it is an extrem act when you are in desperate times.
Thich Nhat Hanh said "if you do not change the thinking of the people, you can not change the situation." This is the reason people go through horrific acts of self-immolation for a bigger issue. There are some things that people so strongly believe in that they are willing to give up their lives to get their beliefs across. By self-imulating they effect the mindset of the people around them that are witnesses which can lead to a change in the situation. Sometimes situations get too severe that they feel this is the best way to show their devotion to their cause. The monks in Vietnam brought about the downfall of the Diem with the first major use of self-immulation, according to the Time article. This onset these becoming a way of non-violent, political protest. It can be related back to Ghandi's method the hunger strikes to protest the British rule in India. People do these things for the sole purpose of trying to send out a message that is bigger than themselves.
In the video clip, I found it rather amazing when Thich Nhat Hanh, a Vietnamese Monk, stated that Buddhist Monks are motivated by compassion, and the way they approach their actions are quite different from the way things are done in our society. Many felt self immolation was a way to show their disagreement with the Vietnam War. The Buddhist Monks strongly believe that if one does not change the thinking of the people, then they could not change their ways. Their approach to change is thinking things through logically and then making changes. The Buddhist Monks have offered their spiritual leadership in the past, even if it meant dying for it. American Monks practice more meditation in order to understand their compassion and then choose to take action. Thich Nhat Hanh believes "the war in Iraq created more anger, violence and terrorists". This seems to be true because al-Quada has not stopped attacking innocent people and sending suicide missions throughout the world. Since Buddha means "awake", it would appear if everyone wakes up, then you have a better chance in accomplishing the task at hand.
In the article, self immolation took place for various reasons, such as making statements of own desperation and frustration with their regimes in their countries. Others chose it as a political act -- act of protests for one thing or another. There never will be a time that everyone is happy with the decisions made; someone will always be disappointed with the outcome. This is when people tend to react to circumstances differently.
Regarding the origins, self-immolation dates back to the situation with Sati, when she married against her father's wishes and then burned herself to death after he insulted her husband. Why would you affiliate in burning yourself as a way of protesting? I can’t quite understand why one would take part in this action, however I do believe it’s linked with their religious beliefs. It seems as it’s their form of expressing their opinion in the non-violent methods of Gandhi. Norman Morrison burned himself to death while clinging onto his child as a mark of his rejection of the Vietnam War. His actions were too extreme and this is why I object to this practice. I don’t feel its right to bring the youth into this practice, once they see everyone around them participating, one will feel its right to take action. My last thought concerning this as a political act. Although I still don’t quite understand the overall meaning of self-immolation, I feel it’s an act of surrender in which they use as an outlet to escape from suffering.
The article states that up to eight people set themselves on fire in North Africa. These people burned themselves to express their own desperation and frustration with the authoritarian regimes in their countries. Self-immolation is a way for people to get their own point of view across, in an extreme sort of way. By burning themselves to death, these people give up their own life in order to hopefully change the views of several other people. Throughout the article I also read that self-immolation relates back to Sati, which is when a widow burns herself on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. I remembered learning about this in class and it helped me understand self-immolation a little bit more. In the video, Thich Nhat Hanh stated that "If an action is motivated by compassion and understanding, that is good enough to be called a Buddhist action". Self-immolation to many other people around the world can be difficult to understand but Buddhist monks express that as long as the person has good intentions with what they're doing, then it is not seen as a bad thing.
GO STEELERS!!
What stood out to me the most in the video was when the monk stated that the only way to see the change we want is to get the people’s attention, and as long as people act with compassion, then acts such as self-immolation are alright and supported by the Buddhist community. The article came from a less religious point of view, and stated that self-immolation was usually committed out of sheer desperation and frustration, and when people could not see any other way to get their point across. The most shocking instance of self-immolation for me that was mentioned in the article was the story of Norman Morrison, who set himself on fire while holding onto his child in protest of the Vietnam War. Even though the child was okay, this was very disturbing to me. I understand the reasons that people are committing self-immolation, and I support their need to express their political frustration, but it seems like there should be a less horrific and destructive way to get across their point.
The article focuses on how self-immolation is a form of protest against the goverment. The people feel that the only way that the goverment will listen to them is through sacrafice of oneself. I feel like the article made some refrences to religious actions behind the self-immolation; but otherwise it focused on the reasons why people committed the action. In the Video the monk talks about how "If you cannot change the thinking of the people you cannot change the people." i fell like thats really important, because the self-immolation won't stop until people try to stop it.
My understanding of this article and video is that self-immolation was a way to express a lot of your inner feelings on a certain idea or event that a person is opposed to. For example, in the article, the journalists writes about how during the year of 1963, Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire because the government's discrimination against Buddhist monks under Ngo Dinh Diem. This was an idea that he had opposed so he took action and in this case he felt that self-immolation was the right one. The big important idea from the video that I got from it was the idea that you must change the thoughts of people before you can actually change them. This stood out a lot because it made me think about how these events that Buddhists oppose would be without the self-immolation.
After reading both of these articles it really helped me look at self-immolation different. I have a better understanding of how to look at this from a Buddhist point of view.
In the article self-immolation seems to be portrayed as a cry for attention. Self-immolation is a self-sacrificing act, which to the world is a very serious thing. It shows the rest of society how passionate they are about their opinions and the protest at hand. It also shows how desperate for attention the rest of their society must be if they have to turn to self-immolation to get the attention that they need. At first I had the thought that self-immolation was purely religious, but reading in the article there were several instances mentioned that had nothing to do with religion. In the video the Buddhist monk talked about how the Buddhist community supports these acts of self-immolation, but only if the reason behind it is out of compassion. It helped me grasp the idea that the people who commit to such acts are so devoted in what the believe in, and what they stand up for, that they must turn to something so drastic for their voice to be heard. Listening to the monk is what truly enlightened my views on self-immolation; it is less of a protest, and more of an expression of self compassion, but in a very extreme manner.
From the Time article, one can see that self-immolation dates back centuries. I find it very interesting how people have been using this as a form of protest. For example, Thich Quang Duc's self-immolation in South Vietnam in 1963. He was protesting the fact that the Catholic minority was discriminating against the Buddhist monks. Although I don't agree with self-immolation, I feel as though it does grasp the attention of people. Mohamed Bouazizi's self-immolation sparked a whole revolution in Tunisia! I found it particularly interesting when the famous Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh said that if you can not change the thinking of people, then they will never change their ways. I found this very enlightening because it's indeed very true. This is a very basic concept that many people overlook.
The article talks about how self-immolation is a way to protest the government and other events happening. Many people commit this serious action when they feel frustration or desperation with the authoritarian regimes in their countries. Self-immolation can be religious, but isn't always. For example, Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire in South Vietnam while Ngo Dinh Diem was ruling in 1963. He set himself on fire because of the governments discrimination against Buddhist monks. Soon after the fall of Diem's regime in 1963, self-immolation became a political act. Resulting in American presence in Vietnam during the mid to late 1960's, more monks began the action of self-immolation. There were thirteen monks who committed this action in only one week. I thought it was interesting that in the movie Thich Nhat Hanh said that Budhhist monks are largely motivated by compassion. He said that self-immolation is okay to do as long as the person has thought about it and has a good reason to do it. I think it is amazing that people would do such a huge action to express how they feel.
In the article it said that 13 people participated in self-immolation to get their point across and express their views and hopefully bring change. and in the video the munk siad that if an act is out of love/compassion that it can be a buddhist action. It is a very horrific sight but because of that it makes people notice and brings awareness to their cause. Before i watched the video and read the article i thought self-immolation was ridiculous and a bit over the top but now when i realize that these people are so compassionate about their cause/idea that they will do anything to bring attention to it. They are doing it out of compassion and love, they are thinking about the bigger picture not just about themselves.
while watching this video and reading this article a few very interesting points were made and brought up. the monk mentioned compassion a lot, and I believe his point of view is correct. he said that, it is better to be compassion and understanding than violent, it will get you farther. if you do not change people's thinking, you will not change their actions. you need compassion to take action and that there are non-violent ways to express oneself. one way is to listen deeply with compassion. he was very insightful and enlightening, i wish the clip was longer.
when i read the article i was amazed by the self-immolation, I was not extremely aware of people doing this type of thing to themselves, and how strong of a message they are sending out to others. I was also surprised about how much it had happened before.. "Czechoslovaks did it to protest the Soviet invasion in 1968; five Indian students did it to protest job quotas in 1990; a Tibetan monk did it to protest the Indian police stopping an anti-Chinese hunger strike in 1998; Kurds did it to protest Turkey in 1999; outlawed Falun Gong practitioners did it in Tiananmen Square in 2009, at least according to authorities in Beijing."
it makes one realize how much of an impact you can make if you truly do believe it something important to you.
Watching the video and reading the article actually created more questions for me. I had never previously devoted much time to pondering self-immolation, but now that it has been called to my attention, my question is not what motivates those who protest in this manner, but rather why is it such a potent, catalytic demonstration of discontent. What about setting oneself on fire gives so many people the courage they had previously lacked to rise up against the transgressions of government? Is it compassion for the victim, as Tich Nat Han would be likely to believe? Is it historical effectiveness providing a precedent? Is it the shock and horror that anyone could feel so desperate? Self-immolation seems to have sparked several revolutions throughout history, including the most current examples in Tunisia and Egypt. One man's desperate frustration has catalyzed two revolutions and countless news stories. What is it about self-immolation that grabs hold of us so?
After reading the article, I had a different view about self immolation. This is the peoples last resort to get the government to listen to them and there problems. It is happening all over the world and the problem is bigger then we think. self immolations goes centuries back. But I still don't think its right. If people have to burn themselves alive to get the governments attention then there is a problem! People should never have to do this. A government is there to listen to what you have to say and keep you safe. If people have to kill themselves in hopes for change that defeats the purpose of a government all together. I had no idea that this was a problem and it is something that should be brought to peoples attention.
While watching this video and reading the article i became very interested in the points that were noted. I never was aware of self-immolation. I was very surprised by self-immolation. People doing things like that. Setting your self on fire was a huge sacrifice. In the Vietnam war self-immolation was used a lot and used in desperate situations. For an example: The man Thich Quang Duc set himself on fire in 1963 to protest. As said in the video Self-immolation WAS terrifying but DID raise awareness. Also it is explained that a lot of instances had nothing to do with religion. The buddhist monk mostly talking about how the community supports the actions that they make of self-immolation, because they have such good compassion. Overall listening to the monk speech about self- immolation got me thinking and showed myself how much self-immolation was more of a expression of someones passion than a protest.
The Buddhist Monk, Thich Nhat Hanh, explains that when an action is done with compassion and understanding, then it is a Buddhist action. This helped me to better understand the reason for people participating in self immolation because it made me realize that it is not simply an act of suicide. It is a deliberate action which has been thoroughly thought out and performed for the better of society.
I was extremely surprised to discover how globalized this practice has become. "Czechoslovaks did it to protest the Soviet invasion in 1968; five Indian students did it to protest job quotas in 1990; a Tibetan monk did it to protest the Indian police stopping an anti-Chinese hunger strike in 1998; Kurds did it to protest Turkey in 1999; outlawed Falun Gong practitioners did it in Tiananmen Square in 2009, at least according to authorities in Beijing." I suppose the reason it has occured in various events in history is because of the extremely powerful message it conveys to citizens and government officials around the world.
The Time article "A Brief History of Self-Immolation" was much more helpful to me in understanding self-immolation than the video, "Buddhist Monks in War and Protest" was. I understand that self-immolation is an act of extreme desperation, "urgency and helplessness", but I cannot see any reason for it. It almost seems like a way to cheat people into getting riled up about something. What I mean by this is that I feel that people should have to do something more than dying to receive attention. I understand that this is a really serious political act of "martyrdom", but to me it just seems that self-immolation is a means of giving up. I suppose it would seem different if you believe in reincarnation, and like the Buddhist monk said, it is an act of compassion. But it doesn't seem very compassionate to me, and I was really bothered by how many people have taken part in self-immolation. I guess I just don't agree with it.
I think that self immolation is a very selfless and sacrificial act. Although i would never agree to do it under any cause, I find it powerful that some people have chosen that as a route to what they think will make a difference. In the Time interview, the monk brought up the point of how important and changing he thinks non violent acts are and how they are what brings change. For someone to give up their life to a cause, shows how important it is to everyone else including them, thus showing how necessary the change must be. By non violent acts that cause no damage to other people, it shows how incredibly important the change is to those people. I find people who are able to to do that very brave and i believe they are the ones responsible for the best changes that have been made. I also believe they will be the ones responsible for upcoming changes in the conflicts of history that are to happen soon.
In the video, Hanh explains how there are compassionate ways to express oneself, such as the turning over of the rice bowls. In contrast, self immolation is not so compassionate and that can shock people and make them think differently about the situation to understand it better. In the article, David Halberstam, who witnessed a monk's self-immolation, said he was "too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think." This is an example of how such an action can create others to see the situation differently. I cannot think of a protest that shows a more powerful point than self-immolation.
The Time article "A Brief History of Self-Immolation" helped me understand that self-immolation is one of the ways for the Buddhist Monks to express their feeling to the government. To them this is the only way that they feel people will listen to them and hear them out. The things they did was very shocking to other for example in the article it said that David Haiberstam was very shocked with all this that he couldn't even cry or take notes or ask questions. I can say by reading this article and watching this video there was some brave souls for the people who stood up and took action for what they wanted and for some changes to be made.I think that people should pay more attention to the things thats going on and help make this world a better place foe all of us.
I think that self-immolation is the ultimate sign of devotion to one's community.It is self-sacrifice without the assurance of a positive outcome, yet many people mentioned in the article were brave enough to do it for their people anyway. I admire that kind of passion.I think these acts inspire passion in others as well, like in Tunisia the current political movement was inspired by Bouazizi after setting himself ablaze. The Buddhist monk in the video also recognizes the power in shaking a community. He describes the idea that unless we change the way people think we cannot expect to change the situation. self-immolation is one extreme way to get the public's attention. Taking action is a great way to inspire those around you
Self-immolation is when someone gives there life for something they believe in. It is the ultimate sacrifice, someone gives there life by burning themselves, it is devotion to what they believe in. They do not engage in the act for themselves they do it for the good of all. It is shocking to me in general the bravery and devotion the people have for the better good that they are willing to give there life up and in such a horrific way. It is shocking how recently when Mohamed Bouazizi gave his life for something he belived in sparked a chain of others doing the same. His ultimate sacrifice gave others courage and hope. I could not belive it when in the article it said how there are up to eight reports of self-immolations in north africa. That is quite a large number. Its also interesting how a protest used in asia is now being used in other parts of the world. From the video It was shocking when the monk mentioned how monks turned over there begging bowls. By my understanding the monks begging bowls are the only way the monks survive, by offerings of others. It is really powerful how they are willing to give up everything they have.
Watching this clip was very suprising for me, I had a very diffrent negative view on self-immolation when we have talked about it befor but when watching this it made me see that this act i something that is selfless and is done for God and its there choice. Although i could never be able to partake in something like self-immolation its still impressive that another humman could do that. Something that actualy supprised me was that there were so many people who actualy do end up giving there lifes for this, its shocking that someone can give the ultmit sacrafice and do something like that for what they believe in. its very impressive to me.
Self-immolation is a very selfless, and powerful action. Often done out of a sense of urgency, self-immolation is very different from suicide. It is not an escape, but rather a method of self-sacrifice for a cause or an injustice. In a sense, it could be considered martyrdom.
I found it enlightening when Thich Nhat Hanh mentioned that it was an act of compassion; I had never placed that word to the act of self-immolation. It really put the act into perspective as an act of love rather than purely protest or longing for justice.
I did like that the Time article mentioned the sense of helplessness and urgency out of which self-immolation emerges. Though I did not like how Norman Morrison (Time claims) brought his child to the site with him, where he performed self-immolation. I think that it takes many years to fully understand how someone can be in the mindset to perform such an act, and it would be horribly painful to that child to witness it. There are many people who may never fully understand why. I know I've never had experience with being in such a dark place.
self-immolation, setting yourself on fire, is a very selfless act and is a self-sacrifice for a greater cause or against injustice. one could consider the act a kind of martyrdom. Thich Nhat Hanh said in the video that it was an act of compassion. personally, i never would have viewed self-immolation in that way. i found that really enlightening when he said that, cause now i view this act much differently than i did when i first learned about it.
Both the article and the video were very enlightening to me and explained well the reasons why the act of self-immolation is so important to certain cultures. In the video, the Buddhist monk talks of being in tune with one's suffering, and in turn being compassionate about taking action invoked by said suffering. This could directly relate to self-immolation, as clearly one would be physically suffering, but for a cause that he/she is obviously very passionate about. The Times article elaborated upon the history of self-immolation to shed some light as to why people do it, and how long people have been doing it. The article cites an ancient story of Hinduism to further exemplify how long people have been committing to self-immolation as a way to honor someone or oneself, to make a very strong public or personal statement, used to protest, or as a political act, as most of them are done today.
It seems to me that self-immolation is kind of like teenagers cutting themselves, in that it's a cry for attention that doesn't usually work. When Thich Nhat Hanh said that self-immolation was usually motivated by compassion, I guess that makes sense to explain why people who immolate themselves are revered as heroes in some cultures. But it doesn't make sense to me. It doesn't seem like a very eloquent means of protest to me. Self-immolation appears to be an act of strong emotion, and I can sympathize with that, but it just doesn't seem like the most effective means of expressing that.
-Cat McKeown
in my opinion self- immolation is a radical form of protesting. Because nothing worth human life and health. And i would say it is a bit stupid to just put yourself in fire...not "for nothing" but still. But otherwise relatively peaceful protesting doesnt work. And if people are ready to put themselves on fire as a protest , society can't just deal with it.
I think one important thing said in the video to help enlighten the understanding of this action is when the monk said if an action is motivated by love and compassion, then it can be considered a Buddhist action. This helped me in supporting my reason for agreeing with such a demonstartion. If people are willing to go to such far mesurements for what they believe it puts emphasis on the impotance of the situation to a person. The article just furthers this notion by referring back to an old Hinduism story giving us an idea of how long people have being doing this. It helps me feel the emotion that is supposed to be evoked in this type of protest.
princess is Yachi Noel
Post a Comment