Where is your CVC code?
Peace disgusts me.
Let me clarify.
We all want peace. Even in the prison system, where I often work with people who have committed serious acts of violence and who are very comfortable using violence — people want peace in their lives.
But calls for people to be “peaceful” in the face of the most recent police killing infuriate me. The calls for “peace” that act as a euphemism for “stop protesting” sickens me. When law enforcement and politicians tell people to protest “peacefully” as a way of saying “stop being so mad,” it repulses me. The gross and dangerous misunderstanding that people have of the concept of “peace” disgusts me.
In 1956, a young woman named Autherine Lucy became the first black student enrolled in the University of Alabama. From the first moment she stepped foot on campus, there was violence. People rioted. And in response, the school expelled her, blaming her for inciting the violence. The next day, with Autherine expelled from campus, the riots stopped. The local newspaper ran a headline that read, “Things are quiet in Tuscaloosa today. There is peace on the campus of the University of Alabama.”
And that peace disgusts me.
People too often associate “peace” with quiet, with calm, with candles and kumbaya. People too often understand “peace” simply as the absence of tension. And that is a problem.
In a sermon he gave in response to the incident, Marin Luther King Jr. described this peace as a “negative peace.” A false peace, the simple absence of violence that came at the expense of justice.
It is this understanding of peace that allows people to justify going to war to create peace. “If we just kill all the bad people, then we will have peace.” It is this understanding of peace that allows us to justify mass incarceration to create peace. “If we just lock up all the bad people, then we will have peace.” And it is this understanding of peace that allows people to demand “peace” from the Black Lives Matter movement. “If the protesters would just stop yelling, we would have peace.”
And it’s true, if all we want is the quiet, calm, polite “negative peace.” If all the protests stopped, Baltimore would be quieter and calmer than it has been recently. If we simply arrested all the protesters, Baltimore would be “peaceful.” But as King reminded us, “This is the type of peace that all men of goodwill hate. It is the type of peace that is obnoxious. It is the type of peace that stinks in the nostrils of the Almighty God.”
Yes, these protests are loud. Yes, there is tension in the streets. Yes, the marches are disruptive. And that’s the point.
Peace is a messy process. Justice is loud. If people think that building “peace” in a society as violent as the United States is a neat, calm and pretty process, they are in for a surprise.
Yes, there has been violence in the streets of Baltimore. And as a trainer and practitioner of Kingian Nonviolence, I don’t think breaking windows is the most effective tactic. However, it infuriates me each time I hear some talking head denouncing the violence and criminalizing the protesters who are in the streets.
Yes, windows have been broken and police cars have been smashed. But in Kingian Nonviolence, we teach that all conflict has history, and we typically only see the moment that the conflict erupts. We have a tendency to look only at the moment of eruption to try to understand what is happening. Sometimes, a conflict has days or weeks of history that we don’t see before it erupts. And sometimes, a conflict builds for 500 years before erupting. What is happening in Baltimore is the result of 500 years of systemic racism and violence. Much like Autherine Lucy being accused of inciting violence, accusing the protesters of violence is ignoring the much larger systems of violence that they are responding to.
The actions that the protesters have been engaged in are a response to that violence. The violence of police brutality. The violence of poverty. The violence of structural racism. People are fed up, and their actions are not violent as much as they are actually a cry for peace — the positive peace that only comes about through justice. It is the deep yearning and desire for peace and justice that is moving people into the streets.
Former Baltimore Ravens star Ray Lewis recently implored the protesters to “stop the violence.” Ironically, that’s exactly what the protesters are trying to do. They are the warriors fighting for peace in a society that seemingly doesn’t honor the value of their lives. They are the ones who are sick of the violence.
I am a trainer and a practitioner of nonviolence. I believe that nonviolence is the most effective way to create change, and the only way to create “beloved community,” the reconciled world with justice for all that King lived and died for. But just as with the concept of “peace,” “nonviolence” is a highly misunderstood concept.
Extreme forms of violence call for extreme forms of nonviolent responses. And nonviolence can be as loud, as unsettling, and as assertive as violence. King called for a movement that was “nonviolent, but militant, and as dramatic, as dislocative, as disruptive, as attention-getting as the riots.” So if people think King would have called for “calm” in Baltimore, they would be sadly mistaken. And if those calling for “peaceful protests” are hoping for calm, quiet, neat and orderly marches, they do not understand the dynamics of violence or peace.
Less than a month before he was assassinated, King said, “It is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.”
The biggest misunderstanding that exists of nonviolence is that it means simply to “not be violent.” You can watch someone get beaten and killed right in front of you and not do anything to help, and you would be “not violent.” You can watch police get away with murder after murder and not take a stand, and you would be “not violent.” However, true nonviolence is about taking a stand against violence and trying to transform unjust situations. A riot, as inarticulate as it may be, is an attempt to transform unjust situations. It is the cry of a people who have been unheard for generations. And it’s time we listen.
hi Kasu,
You don’t talk about empathy. Mutual and reciprocal empathy seems to me to be the way forward. any thoughts on that? I’d like to talk with you about that.. I’m here in Berkeley area.
I don’t see much talk about empathy in the peace and nonviolence communities and it really seems to be the missing ingredient.
Here’s what Johan Galtung says about it.
“By peace we mean the capacity to transform conflicts with empathy, without violence, and creatively — a never-ending process”
“…peace equals ability to handle conflict, with empathy, nonviolence, and creativity…”
Johan Galtung is the principal founder of the discipline of peace and conflict studies. He founded the Peace Research Institute Oslo in 1959 and is referred to as the “father of peace studies”.
http://j.mp/NXtR3k
“Basic formula in transforming conflict
The basic formula, empathy for attitudes, non-violence for behavior, and creativity for the contradictions, are tested basic tools for transforming conflict constructively and effectively. These can be nurtured and strengthened through organization, empowerment, consciousness-raising and training.
Empathy involves seeing common bonds, common experiences, shared ties, and recognizing that there may be some validity and legitimacy in the other party’s goals, just as there is some validity and legitimacy in our goals. It is therefore important to first of all identify the contradictions and the root causes that gave rise to the conflict before we can start thinking of overcoming and transcending violence as the common challenge or common goal.
The common goal is that which unites the parties involved in the conflict. Seeing our common goals, rather than seeing the other as the ‘enemy’ and seeking its ‘defeat’ or ‘extermination’ is a good step towards transcending violence.
Empathy, nonviolence and creativity are qualities that can be found in every single individual human being. They can be promoted through education and up-bringing,and in many cultures and communities, they grow richly. Many belief systems and religions endorse and encourage their flourishing.
Unfortunately, empathy, nonviolence and creativity are often some of the first victims of violence and intractable conflicts.
Adversaries, as a rule, don’t see eye-to-eye, so that instead of trying to understand the perspective of the ‘other,’ one party often dehumanizes, or demonizes the ‘other’, blaming the conflict and the violence on ‘it’ to legitimize one’s own use of violence.”
How should we feel empathy with murderers? Black Citizens and fascist Cops are not equal adversaries. There is no validity in racism.
Wonderful article, Kazu!
Thank you for this thoughtful and passionate article. I, too, am committed to nonviolent struggle. The thing that keeps running around in my mind is that in order for nonviolent struggle to be relevant in these situations, it has to be as forceful and confrontational as burning down buildings and throwing rocks at the police, a more militant form of civil resistance than I think we have seen. It may be happening, but I am unaware of it.
Here’s why I think that is: in order to create the kind of powerful nonviolent action that is called for, there needs to be planning and development of strategy. The real tragedy is that this kind of planning needs to take place in communities across the U.S. with the expectation that another young African American man IS going to be murdered by the police. You can’t develop a clear powerful strategy after the murder takes place.
And once a plan is made, it can be offered to the community as a forceful alternative to burning and looting and throwing rocks. That will give that community a chance to respond not in a way that is expected, but in a way that gives the community a better way of fighting.
And once this model is found, other communities can adopt it to their specific dynamics and situation. And other communities can take up their version of this action until a real change has been won.
Yes, lets model a revolution. And we are presently doing just that. Check out organizations in your own community. In Los Angeles we have quite a few grassroots, revolutionary orgs. Look for notices in alternative periodicals. Listen to local Left Wing pod casts. Volunteer to register new voters. Talk to everyone you can about social issues. Organize!
There are lots of groups that have been strategizing and organizing for racial justice. I encourage us all to educated ourselves and one another about the work that is happening “behind the scenes”, and take action (maybe just one small, sweet step) to support the movement.
As always, there’s “no peace without justice”.
Though I like much of what MLK said over the years of his work, I think he crossed the ‘Jesus’ line in this last statement – seemingly justifying that riots, simply as the language of the unheard. Jesus chose death rather than to exercise vengeance upon his enemies – however persistently cruel. Self-immolation is the ultimate expression of anger at those who will not ‘hear’ our protests. Refusing to hurt oneself in protest, yet being willing to destroy the property of innocent others or to hurt/murder innocent others, is to have lost one’s way. It is a repudiation of Christianity, an announcement of unbelief in God. Vengeance belongs to God, not man. If man is so angered at the injustice that surrounds him, then self-immolation is the next step – not mayhem and murder.
I beg to differ. When Jesus saw injustice and evil at the temple, he didn’t protest, he knocked over stalls and asked people what the fuck they thought they were doing. He didn’t kill anyone, but he also didn’t wage peaceful protest. He busted up some property, as he and WE well should.
The biggest problem in our world today is not global warming, hunger, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, or even nuclear proliferation. The biggest problem in our world is lack of compassion. If we were trained to cultivate and display radical compassion for ourselves, each other and all other animals these other problems would be solvable.
Admittedly radical compassion is difficult to possess. Viewing ALL life as valuable challenges each of us in unpredictable ways. To realize that black lives matter because white lives matter is just the beginning. Police officers matter because the lives of criminals matter. Politicians matter because the constituents they serve matter. American soldiers matter because the lives of ISIS matter. If any human being is viewed as disposable, then all lives are disposable. This is the great indigestible truth of our species.
As a proponent of Dr. Martin Luther King’s philosophy of deep abiding love through active nonviolence, I have been perplexed and saddened by how certain devotees of King’s message have suggested that he would condone the acts of violence currently playing out in American cities. They are quick to employ his famous remark “a riot is the language of the unheard” to make it appear that he would “understand” the use of violent tactics in certain situations where systemic oppression is so entrenched it can’t be uprooted any other way. But nowhere was racism and oppression more entrenched (then or now) than it was in Montgomery, Alabama in the 1950’s. But King never embraced violence has a relevant strategy. He was an uncompromising apostle of nonviolence until the end. The fact that King was able to express sympathy towards rioters in cities like Rochester, Detroit, Newark, and Watts is just another example of his remarkable capacity for compassion and insight. It did not mean that he condoned, embraced, justified, or advocated violence. In King’s wise estimation violence always signified a major failure of spiritual and political creativity rather than an inevitable and sometimes therapeutic eruption of psychological duress.
The question that King posed to American society is as controversial today as it was in the 50’s and 60’s. Are we willing to despise violence more than we love our cause? And if we are ready to relinquish violence as a viable option, how are we developing the tools of radical compassion that we will need to transform hatred into love? This is the most important question of any age.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this article. I wanted to try to respond to Edwin, Bill and George.
I agree with George’s interpretation of King’s comment about riots being “the language of the unheard.” As a nonviolence trainer and someone deeply committed to those principles, I didn’t even realize that someone might read that statement and think that King was condoning or agreeing with the riots, or that people would use that comment to justify riots. It’s funny, King gets quoted out of context both to “pacify” justice movements as well as “justify” riots and violence.
Empathy is a critical component of nonviolence, one of the most important skills we can develop. Part of empathy is about being able to step into other people’s shoes, feel their pain and understand their perspective. One thing we say in our trainings is that understanding another person’s perspective DOES NOT mean you have to agree with them or their actions. I think King was only trying to offer the perspective of those engaged in violence. This was not in an attempt to justify or condone violence, but to understand its root causes. He was saying that if you impoverish people and oppress them for hundreds of years, it should come as no surprise when they use whatever tools they have at their disposal to rise up.
And when they live in a society where we are taught that nonviolence is weak and passive, when violence has surrounded them their whole lives, when the state imposes its will using violence every day, it should also come as no surprise when the tools that they pick up are of violence.
I think it’s also important as George says to offer empathy to the police and to try to understand their perspective. I have friends who have been in law enforcement, and part of what they have told me is that the training they receive engrains a mentality that they are always in danger, that the community is dangerous and they need to use whatever tools they can to stay safe. They breed fear as part of the culture of policing. Then, they are only given tools of violence to try to “take control” of situations that they are entering. They are typically not offered conflict deescalation or nonviolence trainings as part of the police academy. Add to that the stereotypes of young black men that surrounds the media, the fear of not fitting in to a certain culture of policing, the decades of conflict between police and community, etc. etc. etc.
Again that’s not to justify or condone, but it’s to try to understand. And that’s what we need more than anything, is understanding and empathy for ALL positions, to acknowledge that there are larger systems in play than any individual, and that actions that individuals are playing don’t happen in a vacuum.
Thank you Kazu for your thoughtful response and wonderfully provocative article.