Resistance Through Flight: Mennonite Pacifism
Over eighty years ago, Mahatma Gandhi led his first large-scale demonstration against British rule in India. In 1930, he and ten thousand others marched to the sea to protest the salt monopoly which the British Empire used to keep the native population under control. As the clamor for freedom from British rule grew louder and Gandhi’s popularity swelled, the governors of India ceded to the Indians’ requests. Gandhi’s activism and civil disobedience made him famous the world over, and soon others adopted his nonviolent tactics.
The protests about which we hear are the ones that are the loudest. By ‘loudest,’ I don’t mean riots where people chant their desires and shout slurs at each other, or demonstrations that turn nasty and law enforcement comes in with guns blazing. I’m talking about protests that are, by the numbers, huge. They comprise many protesters and many supporters, often outnumbering the people against whom they are protesting. They resonate with people, even ten or twenty or fifty years later. They are protests which make the news, and when people look back on them they are surprised by the sheer number of people who stood up to those in power to say, “No.” They promote real change, and the ones that are held up as examples for how demonstrations should occur do not end in the burning of books and buildings but in tangible shifts in a society’s paradigms.
Sometimes, the little protests work too.
In Eastern Pennsylvania, there reside many communities of ‘plain folk.’ The most famous of these is the Amish, but another group, called the Mennonites, live there too. More tolerant of advancing technology than their buggy-driving cousins, Mennonites emerged in the Rhine region of Europe in the 16th century as part of the Anabaptist movement. Mennonites in particular preached pacifism, and along with other Anabaptists, split from the state-run churches in the Holy Roman Empire to form their own congregations. The Empire was worried about the schism; not only did they lose religious control over a portion of their people, but a section of their population exempted themselves from military service. To curb the conversion of new Anabaptists, the Holy Roman Empire killed them off.
Mennonites up and down the Rhine were stripped of their land, thrown in prison, tortured, and burned alive in the name of religious purity. Leaders of the movement were concerned about the fate of their little sect of Protestantism and argued with each other about what to do. Bolder Mennonites, less meticulous in adhering to the tenets of their denomination, advised that they stay in Europe and fight off their persecutors. Their schemes, promising liberation and vengeance, appealed to a great many Mennonites. Another group, more zealous in their faith, and worried about the staggering numbers of people who wanted to kill them, suggested that they escape Europe and emigrate to the New World. They would be penniless and friendless, but they would be able to freely practice their religion without violating their vow of peace. The difference in opinion split the Mennonites; some left for America, while others stayed behind in Europe.
The Mennonites who left the battle-ground could be viewed as cowards, as people who fled the scene of conflict rather than fought. It’s a little hard to envision a protester as someone who would rather go live somewhere else than change his or her own community. But it’s not the end of the Mennonite narrative: after settling in Pennsylvania, where their denomination was accepted by the governing body there, the peaceful Mennonites flourished, their numbers growing to three times the size of their original number, and took over the eastern portion of the colony. Their belligerent brethren, still in Europe and weaker than the Holy Roman Empire, were eventually eradicated by the military they had refused to join. Today, there are just a handful of the Anabaptist sect still living in Germany.
There will always be people who have a less-than-civil dislike for your opinions. They may want to shut you up, or harm your reputation or even your well-being. Large-scale, attention-grabbing demonstrations are extremely effective but they have their place. A group as big as Gandhi’s followers can peacefully and openly protest the injustice of a small and uncaring ruling elite. A scattering of Anabaptist churches demanding religious freedom from a large and uncaring bureaucracy will not fare so well using the same tactics. Similarly, if you found yourself surrounded by a group of people who differed in their beliefs, you would have to carefully consider your tactics. Of course, you want to defend yourself, but it does not have to result in hurt feelings or physical harm.
So just leave. Rather than shout at the people with whom you disagree, you can exit the conversation and continue with your own perspective and growth. Admittedly, backing down is a path of least resistance, but it will allow you to think freely. You won’t throw yourself in the way of people who want to cause you harm, and by retreating you can limit quite a few of the negative repercussions of joining an unfettered shout-down. If you are battling alone, you can be as easily crushed as the Mennonites who remained in Germany. Rather, use the opportunity to leave, or to listen to your opponent’s arguments before offering an opinion. It confuses them when you act civilly, as they are expecting resistance.
The brave thing to do, when faced with an injustice, may seem to actively but civilly disobey the governing power and demand change. It is, however, not always the bravest or even the wisest method of defiance against a power. Rather than pillorying yourself, you can shrug it off and find solace in likeminded people, and wait until you are strong enough to overcome your iniquities. When you are ready, fight as hard as you can.