Jackals and Giraffes: The Weapon of Non-Violent Communication
The terms ‘violence’ and ‘non-violence’ exist as almost an artificial dichotomy that can be manipulated by playing one against the other. We’ve been conditioned to view both functions (linguistically) as separate and at this stage of American discourse, not equal. Since these are the ‘rules of the game’ (because in all honesty, it’s a well-blended, non-dialectic set of techniques that truly works and ultimately can’t be planned for), we’ll still use these two popular terms for discussion to make things simple.
Violence is defined as ‘aggressive physical action’ or force used to cause physical damage or injury.
Non-violence (which is incorrectly described by Wikipedia as a ‘Sanskrit’ word) is a form of perceivable ‘non-action’ (considered ‘harmless’) or mental manipulation that plays on the feelings and sympathies of others, in order to affect changes in line with the non-violent actor’s agenda.
Modern non-violent philosophy can be traced to such luminaries at Gene Sharp, who was often employed by the military (yes the military), to use non-violent methods to topple governments. [Ref]
[hat tip: Jan Irvin]