Justice, Peace and Conflict Resolution 1


The greatest challenge facing modernity is not a conflict over resources, culture, or ideology; it cannot resolve those conflicts without resorting to violence. Black is given a negative format in the dictionary while White is positive and good. The word ‘black’ denotes so many negative insinuations; put in simple language, the dictionary seems to be unfair to the word. The meaning of Black probably affected the psyche of a black man. I, therefore, wonder if the first step in changing a black man’s attitude might be a re-definition of Black to something beautiful. This paradigm shift is necessary for self-esteem.

Historically, Black has been involved in the struggle for personal identity, fighting for Human Rights; Social Rights, and Economic Rights. The boycotts of the American Negroes in Montgomery, Alabama, United States of America, brought Martin Luther King Jr. into prominence and under severe attack by the white men. Still, Martin was an apostle of the nonviolent resolution, and he used this method to bring about peace and Justice. According to Martin Luther King Jr., this Universe hinges on moral foundations. To Luther, the Universe justifies Carlyle in saying, “No lie can live forever.” It justifies William Cullen Bryant’s saying, “Truth, crushed to earth will rise again.” It justifies James Russell Lowell’s saying, “Truth forever on the Scaffold, Wrong forever on the Throne. With that Scaffold, Sways the Future, Behind the dim unknown stands God, Within the shadow keeping watch above his own”; it justifies the biblical writer in saying, “You shall reap what you sow.”


Violence is presented to the youths as a way to survive rather than a way to die and go to prison. Violence is used as the basis of power, dominion, and control. Peace and Justice are complimentary and also reinforcing. The thrust of Justice is legitimate, and it is imperative to have a group of men and women who will stand up for their rights and oppose any wrong wherever it is, but the weapon is LOVE. Evil by any face must be confronted courageously by the power of Love. I can visualize the disciples of Reinhold Niebuhr in the present Youths. Niebuhr was the one that argued that there was no intrinsic moral difference between violent and nonviolent resistance. He contended that the Social Consequences of the two methods were different, but the differences were in degree rather than kind. Niebuhr emphasized the irresponsibility of relying on nonviolent resistance when there was no ground for believing that it would successfully prevent the spread of totalitarian tyranny.

I postulate that Niebuhr got it wrong; I support nonviolent resistance, which is in line with biblical teachings at all times. Henry David Thoreau’s teachings came alive in the Civil Rights movement. Thoreau’s thesis was that one must resist evil and that no moral man can patiently adjust to injustice. I understand the evil in using someone’s resources to develop another while the Golden Goose that lays the Golden Egg languish in extreme poverty and slum environment. I will never support violent resistance. I am postulating the theory of nonviolent resistance, the godly approach. Some would try to turn their displeasure and struggle into ‘a hate Campaign’. This is not in conformity with God’s law of Love, which is the greatest Commandment.



Leave a Reply