“No justice no peace” and the language of implied violence
“No justice no peace” and the language of implied violence
1. No justice no peace.
The meaning of "no justice, no peace" may change between conditional and conjunctive depending on the speaker.
In the conjunctive interpretation, one is stating that neither peace nor justice can exist without the other.
In the conditional interpretation, the slogan is taken as an "if-then" statement, which implies that peaceful action is impossible without justice, and which urges citizens to demonstrate against injustice (real or perceived) even if doing so results in violence.
2. If you are not with us, you are against us.
Another popular slogan is “if you are not with us, you are against us".
The implied consequence of not joining the activists is to be deemed an “enemy” and suffer the obvious consequences of your “enemy” status.
3. Quit India and Do or Die
Mahatma Gandhi is generally seen as an advocate of non-violence and peace. However, India’s movement of independence from Britain (“Quit India”) also contained a large violent element. There were large-scale demonstrations, riots and mutinies. As a result of this, Gandhi’s offer of peaceful resolution was implicitly associated with a violent alternative. There were of course additional factors like the decolonization agenda of the British Labour Party and pressure from the US administration. However, it may be argued that the British acted on the implicit threat of violence not on Gandhi’s “nonviolence”.
In any case, despite the prima facie appearances of “peacefulness” there seems to be an underlying (veiled) threat of violence. How “peaceful” are such slogans and should they be seen as incitement to violence?
1. No justice no peace.
The meaning of "no justice, no peace" may change between conditional and conjunctive depending on the speaker.
In the conjunctive interpretation, one is stating that neither peace nor justice can exist without the other.
In the conditional interpretation, the slogan is taken as an "if-then" statement, which implies that peaceful action is impossible without justice, and which urges citizens to demonstrate against injustice (real or perceived) even if doing so results in violence.
2. If you are not with us, you are against us.
Another popular slogan is “if you are not with us, you are against us".
The implied consequence of not joining the activists is to be deemed an “enemy” and suffer the obvious consequences of your “enemy” status.
3. Quit India and Do or Die
Mahatma Gandhi is generally seen as an advocate of non-violence and peace. However, India’s movement of independence from Britain (“Quit India”) also contained a large violent element. There were large-scale demonstrations, riots and mutinies. As a result of this, Gandhi’s offer of peaceful resolution was implicitly associated with a violent alternative. There were of course additional factors like the decolonization agenda of the British Labour Party and pressure from the US administration. However, it may be argued that the British acted on the implicit threat of violence not on Gandhi’s “nonviolence”.
In any case, despite the prima facie appearances of “peacefulness” there seems to be an underlying (veiled) threat of violence. How “peaceful” are such slogans and should they be seen as incitement to violence?
Comments (19)
One might well argue that without and underlying threat of a less peaceful alternative, a peaceful protest is not a protest at all. This does not necessarily mean that the protesters themselves might resort to violence in the narrow sense (bodily harm). It might also mean that whatever people the protest is aimed against are afraid that they will have to eventually resort to violence, which might then cause the situation to spiral out of control.
As with many things, drawing hard lines between "peaceful" and "violent" protest is fraught with peril. Apart from Gandhi, one of the most iconic "peaceful" protest movements was that in the Eastern Block (particularly the GDR) which ultimately dissolved the USSR. Is the well known chant "Wir sind das Volk" committed to peaceful resistance no matter what? Or does it contain a "veiled threat": that going against the protesters is going against "the people", and that "the people" may well react in kind? Without the backing of Russian tanks, which Gorbachev withheld, the GDR could not be certain of an eventual victory.
So to circle back to the other questions, "no justice, no peace" isn't an "incitement to violence" so much as a reminder that it's not an issue the protesters are willing to simply back away from without meaningful negotiation.
I see what you mean. However, the problem I have with that is that most genuinely peaceful demonstrations do not tend to use that slogan. It tends to be found more in demonstrations that have a clear potential of turning violent and are accompanied by heavier police presence, etc.
So, is this about protest movements in general or about specific protests? If the latter, I think it'd be helpful to know the context, as you see it, in more detail.
I'm talking about protest movements in which violence is more likely to take place and that use slogans of this type, for example BLM.
Instead of saying "no justice no peace" they could simply demand equal rights or whatever it is they are campaigning for.
Using language that amounts to threat of violence can not only result in actual violence, but tends to alienate those sections of the public that don't believe in political or racial violence, i.e. the vast majority.
Ah, so this whole spiel about Gandhi and whether or not truely "peaceful" protest is possible was just some cover for you soapboxing about how BLM is bad and not actually interested in equality. Gotcha.
Well there are enough threads about this already, so I'm not interested.
That's your deliberate misinterpretation of it. I'm talking about slogans that imply a threat of violence. In my view they tend to encourage violence. I don't care who is using them. And neither should you if you look at it objectively.
"You can go easy or you can go hard, but you're going."
That's the unintentional or intentional genius of something that can be read as conjunctive or conditional. The enemy is called upon to discern the intent or risk looking bad in killing a conjunctive person; creating a martyr.
There is a simple answer to this question: Ask it. It's usually asked like this "Are you threatening me?"
I agree. Sometimes the questions someone asks tell us more than the statements they make or the answers they give.
I tend to see it that way myself. But when you ask that question it means that you perceive a potential or veiled threat in the slogan. And that suggests that the threat is implied in the slogan.
Plus, your question may be misinterpreted as a challenge or opposition to the activists' cause (whatever that happens to be on that occasion) and may identify you, in their eyes, as "enemy". In which case you may not be able to carry on the dialogue for much longer.
And sometimes it's the other way round. The answers people give tell us much more than the questions asked.
But I forgot we aren't allowed to ask questions on this forum. Especially not in the Questions section. So, you're probably right.
Stop beating around the bush. If you want those nasty colored people to shut up and stop causing trouble, just say so.
Quoting Apollodorus
Wikipedia says this is from the Bible. That violent revolutionary Jesus said it.
That's why we have diplomats.
Of course you're allowed to ask questions. And of course I'm allowed to respond. I don't want you to stop commenting, I only want to hold you accountable for what you say.
It may well be from the Bible. I'm discussing it in the context of post-biblical activism
You mean accountable for asking a question? And what exactly did I ask in your opinion that makes it imperative for me "to be held accountable"?
I didn't say it was imperative, I said I wanted to. You asked provocative questions intended to raise a ruckus among us loony lefties. I'm just joining in the ruckus.
Good to see some honesty there for a change. So, asking questions is "provocative" around here, after all.
Asking provocative questions is provocative.
All questions are "provocative" if you want them to be and if your intention is to suppress debate. So, I am right after all.