violence

Props to my comrade Red for broaching this subject.

Let's discuss violence. What is violence? Anything from a genocide to an epileptic seizure can be described as violent. We're not so much talking about the definition of the word here, we have dictionaries for that. But rather its use.

What makes violence such an interesting word, in my opinion, is that it describes no singular action. If we blow up a building on a crowded street, I would certainly say we're violent. But it we blow up a building in a controlled demolition, with the area cordoned off, perhaps to make room for a school or a hospital; We are looking at something far more constructive than violence.

That's because violence isn't a verb. We don't say "Oh look that man on the telly is violensing someone." There's violating, certainly. But that's a feeling. To be violated is to feel violenced.. Point is that it's a verb from the perspective of the victim or target, of the violence, rather than a verb from the perspective of the perpetrator.

No, in most modern discourse, and mass media, violence is an adjective, or a noun. A descriptor. Something assigned by the reporter to the reported. I believe this is key to understanding what violence implies. Headlines read "Peaceful protests turn to violence.", or "Violence disrupts in Haiti." It's a way in which we describe the peaceful protestors, or a way in which we describe the Haitians. It is, in this context, a trait. A delegitimising trait.

And traits are beyond the actions. A trait is what motivates it. A trait is what will motivate future actions, and justify the past. A trait is there to bring a distinction.

"15 Pakistani nationals killed in violent US drone strike."

A headline not very often seen. Instead it's simply "15 Pakistani nationals killed in US drone strike." Because while a drone strike is indeed a very violent thing to do, the people doing it are not considered violent. If you're violent, then you're violent when you eat, when you sleep, when you laugh, when you cry, when you're happy and when you're sad, and all the times in between your violence. Because it defines you as a character. A liar doesn't always lie. He or she do different things in between of lies. But when a moment comes when this person speaks, liar is the trait that becomes relevant.

Just like how, when people from other countries defend themselves from invaders, violent is the word that becomes relevant. How, when marginalised people defend themselves from their rulers, violent is the word that becomes relevant.

Violence is simply a matter of legitimisation. They might as well say "bad guys" or "evils". But violence describes, which is why reporters can sneak it in as an objective observation when they want to set the tone for a narrative.

In truth, violent people are simply people we're not supposed to like. To believe in their violent trait is to abandon one's own interests to those of the bourgeois. Instead, we should examine life beyond these simplistic labels and find our own conclusions, which may very well coincide with the conclusions drawn by our rulers. But it's better that we arrive there on our own, rather than to have the bourgeois bark their orders at us like obedient lapdogs.

But look at some of the Ferguson footage, or Seattle footage, or Oakland footage, look at footage of the Apartheid, or any other instance of the working and lower classes being "violent." And tell me you wouldn't have defended yourself too. Look at the drone footage from wikileaks, and tell me you wouldn't shoot back.

Violence is a word used by the oppressor, and the invader. Because they're the only ones with the power to tell the world what to think.