Peace

In 1958, Gerald Holtom, a British textile designer, created a symbol that today is known as the Peace sign. While we generalize it's use in modern times, it was originally intended to protest nuclear weapons in England. A group called the Direct Action Committee Against Nuclear War first used the peace sign on their banners during a 52 mile march from London to Aldermaston, a town known for atomic weapon research. In the 52 years since, that sign has been officially known as the CND logo. CND is the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Most folks call it a peace sign, but I've also heard it called a 'chicken's foot logo'. The idea came from Holtom's knowledge of semaphore signals, a visual method of communication using flags. The signal for the letter N is to hold the arms downward at the 4 and 8 o'clock positions. The signal for D is to hold one flag vertically overhead, and one flag downward, making a vertical line. These letters, for Nuclear Disarmament, are combined in a circle and the result is the international peace sign.

I think it is also interesting that the hand signal for 'Peace', where one holds up two fingers with the palm facing outward, was originally the 'V for Victory' sign used by Winston Churchhill during and after WWII. The idea of using a 'V' as a psychological rallying symbol originally came from Victor de Laveleye, the Belgian Minister of Justice in 1941. Laveleye, on the BBC, stated "the occupier, by seeing this sign, always the same, infinitely repeated, [would] understand that he is surrounded, encircled by an immense crowd of citizens eagerly awaiting his first moment of weakness, watching for his first failure." In modern times, this same sign has been modified, originally by the military, but in pop culture by Robert Deniro's character in 'Meet the Parents', where the two fingers point to one's eyes and then outward to mean 'I am watching you'. But somewhere along the way, back in the 1960's, hippies and counter-culture elements transformed the hand symbol to mean 'Peace'. It is a good mental stretch to think about how a war's victory sign comes to mean 'peace' worldwide.

A friend of mine has the following quote as her signature file: "Peace doesn't require two people; it requires only one. It has to be you. The problem begins and ends there." That is pretty thought provoking, I think. I searched and found that those are the words of Byron Katie, or properly Byron Kathleen Mitchell, a California woman who, in a time of despair, reached a point of enlightenment and ended up writing a book (The Works) about it. She claims that she doesn't belong to any religion or tradition, but from what I have seen of it, it is most similar to a Buddhist path, in my opinion. My thinking contrasts the two ideas: If peace means being submissive to a bully, and not striking back, then that certainly is different than the 'victory' message. Perhaps that is not a fair example of how things would begin and end with one person, but I believe that is the reality if one did nothing in the name of peace. I'm not sure where the line is. What would the Dalai Lama do? How much violence would he absorb before striking back? The answer just might surprise most people. While the Dalai Lama practices ahimsa, the avoidance of violence, he readily admits that it does not always work. He believes that war can bring positive outcomes and that ahimsa cannot conquer terrorism in the world. I believe it is reasonable to practice ahimsa, almost all martial arts are defensive and teach avoidance first, but it would be naive to think that peace can be achieved solely by non-violent techniques. Perhaps Roosevelt was right when he touted that one should walk softly and carry a big stick. Ronald Regan revised this idea in his era, but does military might really make peace, or just subversion where violence erupts at a later date? Many believe, rightfully so, that today's terrorism problems can be traced back to the policies of the Big Stick era.

Things just aren't black and white-they are not clear cut and you can't always know what method to use to bring lasting peace in the world, if it is possible at all. Perhaps Byron Katie's quote is better suited as a mental exercise, that we should find peace within ourselves. I suppose in the end, it's a personal thing and we each have to decide for ourselves how much responsibility to take in our own lives for our own peace.

Peace Out