I'm reminded of what Malcolm X said to the civil rights demonstrators:
Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, send him to the cemetery.
These are children and their judgement is not always the best. Do you really want to risk that your child kills another child by accident while following your advice?
Will your child know how far is far enough? Is there a chance he or she might over-react to a situation that is not truly threatening?
"Be peaceful, be courteous, obey the law, respect everyone; but if someone puts his hand on you, hurt him just enough so that he leaves you alone - but don't kill him."
I hope this is mainly internet posturing and bravado.
I'm not sure every child has the perspective to recognize hyperbole. There are times when violence may be necessary, but that doesn't make it any less horrible, whether justified or not.
One thing I actually disliked about the post is the way he has de-humanised bullies. When in reality the correct approach is to feel sorry for them - because they have all manner of deep seated issues. Not in a lovey-dovey way (which, he is right, is silly) but in an adult comprehending way.
The act of your violence is a potential learning experience for them too. Too much vitriol and anger and they may come away harbouring deep resentment, and later come back at you with escalating violence. But a short sharp shock could teach them some important truths.
For the most part, the really bad bullies I suffered at school are already failures in adult life. With the one exception of another bully who also got beaten up (not by me) late in the school system - he was dramatically changed after that and is currently one of the nicest and most successful adults I know (although there were other factors swinging in his favour).
So sympathy, but not hippy-love. Violence, but not retribution.
It is a tough balance.
It's unfortunate that violence is sometimes necessary in school, but it is because bullying isn't taken seriously by the administration. Bullies spend all their time making trouble, so they get good at doing psychological damage and flying under the radar of authority. But the damage they are doing is potentially severe. Bullies usually have severe problems at home, and I feel bad for them, but they mustn't be allowed to spread their self-loathing virally by means of systematic low-grade abuse to anyone who is an easy target (ie. the weird ones, the free thinkers, the people who don't conform, and thus are more likely to bring something new to the world when they grow up).
If administrators took this more seriously and started expelling these kids, then that would get the attention of their deadbeat parents, and violence would not be necessary. However in reality, school is like prison, and sometimes violence is the answer.
Bullying escalates. If you don't trust your kid to make a judgment at some point, it's basically a matter of time before they get seriously injured themselves.
I'd rather teach my kid to stick up for himself and have the mistakes happen at the level of "knocked out tooth/broken finger" than letting things escalate in the first place.
Bullying does escalate. Therefore, teaching your kid to escalate on their side as well just makes it happen faster. The solution to escalating warfare is to break the cycle.
That is not true. MAD worked in the cold war. The solution is to let the other side know you will not go gentle into that good night.
If your kid just gives the bully a few bruises but ultimately loses the fight then they've sent the message that they're not an easy target, and the bully has saved face.
Bullying is typified by a victim being picked-on mercilessly because he never fights back. Because the bullying tears him down. Because the bullied is a victim.
Bullying isn't a contest for the bully. They do it precisely because it isn't. They're not trying to 'win', they're trying to make someone else feel as bad as they feel. If they can't do that, because the victim refuses to be victimized, they find a new victim or find a new outlet.
The second one no, but the second one is mostly an exaggeration for "don't be the one who starts fights, but be the one who ends them". Cemetery is probably a bad idea as it'll breed revenge, but going at it until they are physically unable to fight back is probably a good idea.
If you don't want the other side to escalate, take it there first and do it fast. If you are truly worried about escalation, then by induction, all fights are fights to the death because beating the bully "just enough" will lead to the bully coming back with more firepower. Lather, rinse, repeat until firearms are involved.
So, you over-compensate. You do everything within your power to kill him and hope someone can stop you or they run away. If you don't take shit from anybody, people will stop trying to give it to you.
Malcolm X, the supremacist dude who had Nazis at his conventions, is a really bad role model for your children.
Edit: why the downvote? He was supremacist, and Nazi connection is well documented: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_supremacy#Alliances_with_...
From the Wikipedia article:
"In 1965, after breaking with the Nation of Islam and denouncing its separatist doctrine, Malcolm X told his followers that the Nation of Islam under Elijah Muhammad had made agreements with the American Nazi Party and the Ku Klux Klan that 'were not in the interest of Negros.'"
Now, notice the "after break-up" part. Have a look at this photo:
http://www.nationalgalleries.org/collection/online_az/4:322/...
She was doing an essay on Malcolm X, these fellas attended one of his conventions. The one in the middle threatened to make a lantern out of her (Arnold is Jewish).
In her later interviews she mentioned that many people get really upset when they see this photo, and exhibition curators often objected to its inclusion.
Um ...
She was doing an essay on Malcolm X, these fellas attended one of his conventions.
While remaining agnostic to your point, it's troubling that you keep citing references that don't support it. The caption on that photo makes no reference to these Nazis being in attendance at a Malcolm X rally.
But I now took an effort to find a reference for you:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features...
Grep the text for "Rockwell".
Rockwell was listening to a speech by Malcolm X – the Nazis and Black Muslims
had formed an alliance – and this was the real reason Arnold was there.