Am I a pacifist?

The short answer, hopefully, is yes. I am a Quaker and have been for a pretty long time. Peace is an integral part of Quaker testimony— the faith is predicated upon celebrating the light of God in everyone. In accordance with this, I've tried to carry myself as peacefully as possible in whatever walk of life I find myself.

Does that make me a pacifist?

As much as I feel comfortable, I like to identify by my politics. I refrain from self-identifying in some cases— it is not the role of a man to brag about being a feminist, for example, or for a white person to brag about being anti-racist. Being a pacifist, however, feels different. After all, pacifism is nothing but anti-violence; everyone can do that, right?

Does this make me a pacifist?

I have been antiwar since long before I was sentient enough to hold a coherent political opinion. This is in no small part thanks to my parents, but the effects remain: An outspoken, uncompromising antiwar sentiment is built into my person. I've been going to antiwar protests as long as I can remember. I've spent hours debating with my uncles about their support for the "just war" theory. For me, being entirely antiwar isn't a matter of debate, but something of a standard for decent humanity.

But am I a pacifist?

I'm certainly not entirely opposed to violence. I've played contact sports like football and rugby for years. If the situation arises, I'm certainly not above fighting for something I believe in. Although it sounds counterintuitive, I don't consider contact sports to be violent acts, or opposed to the celebration of God in everyone. I have no intent to harm when I play rugby; the collisions are simply part of the game.

The real question, though, is perhaps more biting. Is it possible to be both a pacifist and a feminist, or a pacifist and an anti-racist? Does being a pacifist mean that I can't support Palestinian liberation efforts, or that I'm not allowed to admire Che Guevara or Malcolm X? Is pacifism diametrically opposed to anti-state dissent? I certainly don't think so, but the fact is that the state has only been historically challenged by breaking a few eggs— I live in a country founded by violent revolution, after all.

The state is an inherently violent entity. Definitively, a state is a power that holds a monopoly of violence over a territory. This power the state holds has, predictably, been used to oppress non-ruling groups throughout hundreds of years of history, nearly always by violent means. While the 20th and 21st centuries have seen a decline in overt state-based oppression, at least in most of the Western world -- apartheid laws, concentration camps, and the like -- implicit oppression, under the guise of keeping order or fighting terrorism, has had tragically real consequences for black and brown enemies of the state.

Asking Black Lives Matter protesters to work more towards pacifist ends makes me feel like a Fox News anchor, asking these revolutionaries to straighten up and fly right. Nonviolent protest is a nice idea, surely; however, it's hardly an option when faced with oppressive violent action from the state. If the state, a definitively more powerful actor than any protester, cannot be expected to work nonviolently, why should protesters be expected to treat the state nonviolently, when the state has done nothing to deserve this treatment? At the very least, to decry protesters destroying property in response to the systematic killing of human beings is hypocritical; state actors claiming peaceful intent is questionable, when the entire aim of a state is to be singularly violent.

Here, a utilitarian view of pacifism could be adopted -- any course of action that results in a net reduction of violence can be understood as a pacifist action. Revolutionaries fighting against statist oppression, then, are working to create peace; the violence is a product of their circumstances. If it feels like this reeks of hasty rationalization, that's because that's exactly what it is. There has to be a way to maintain an anti-violent stance, while justifying brave souls who take a revolutionary stand.

Of course, it is more complicated than this, and committed anti-violence is incredibly significant. Violence does not solve problems; it never has, and never will. Peace is the stated goal of enough modern societies to be considered ubiquitous; working against an oppressive state is nothing if not a peace project. However, that doesn't change the fact that revolution is necessarily violent, more often than not.

So, am I a pacifist? I'm still antiwar, and work to be personally nonviolent. However, I'm not sure if pacifism is even a goal worth working for, at least for revolutionary groups. Still, any protesters working in the face of state violence have to be considered anti-violent. The short answer, now: I wish I could tell you. I'll try, anyway!