It’s kind of like the protest names not working sometimes. There has to be a better way to say this.
This is the meaning behind it:
Do not split.
But what is happening in Hong Kong is they come up with a slogan, which is translated as Do Not Split, which is, we know that some people are willing to be confrontational with riot police.
And when they are, that’s going to cost the state in terms of not only resources, but it’s going to cost the state in terms of political capital and support. And we know that there are some people who are not willing to do that. And we are going to abide by the protocol of Do Not Split, which means that we’re not going to criticize them openly, and they’re not going to criticize us openly.
If we’re the pacifists, we’re not going to have them criticize us for being sort of like, I don’t know, limpid or flaccid or not courageous or whatever. And we’re not going to criticize them for being more confrontational. And the thing is that the support is also tacit.
Hong Kong has its own English varieties. Due to their ties to Chinese Pidgin English, they tend to phrase some things in a similar way as you would in Sinitic languages; such as in “make do” and “long time no see”.
I think this might be a lesser case of that - depending on which English varieties you’re exposed to, it might sound a bit weird as a slogan; I think you’re expecting a verbless construction, like “No Splits” or “No Cracks”; or perhaps a contraction, like “Don’t Split Us”.
I think you nailed it in the second paragraph. It’s the construction of it. “Don’t Split Us” sounds way better to me. I couldn’t figure out why it seemed so awkward.
Now thinking, perhaps it’s also the lack of an object? As in, would “Don’t Split” and “Do Not Split Us” sound weird for you?
(That might explain why I personally don’t see the slogan as weird - my L1 allows object omission, English doesn’t.)
As in, would “Don’t Split” and “Do Not Split Us” sound weird for you?
Yes, those would sound slightly weird to me. Not as weird as “Do Not Split,” but still weird.
That hints both things are in effect - you kind of expect the contraction and the object.
I think you’re asking about a slogan to capture the idea that less confrontational activists will stand in solidarity with more confrontational activists (and maybe vice versa). As a lifelong English-speaker, “Do not split” sounds pretty good to me. “Won’t be split,” “won’t be divided,” “don’t let them break us up,” “don’t break,” “stand united” are other alternatives. “Vote splitting” is a well-known term in English (as is “divide and conquer”). So, I think “Do Not Split” might actually be the best English term based on a very limited knowledge about the issues at hand. I hope that’s somewhat helpful
The “Do Not Split” seems awkward to me. I guess it doesn’t for you though.
I really liked “No Kings” because it’s memorable, it says exactly what it means, and it’s very inclusive. I feel like “Do Not Split” is too ephemeral.
I think I really like “No Cracks” because then it gives the impression the person is putting cracks in the movement. Don’t become a crack.
I really appreciate your input, this is just discussion.
Yeah, not at all awkward to me. It sounds so consistent with other labour or civil rights related organizing messages like “hold the line”
“No Kings” and “Black Lives Matter” are larger statements about the aims of movements. “Do Not Split”, “No Cracks” seem like smaller-scale strategies rather than manifestos (outlining the nature of the entire movement). So, if they don’t feel comparable, I think that makes sense.
I too appreciate that this is all discussion. I think “Do Not Split” is good because it makes the desired behaviour very clear, and it speaks to a strength in numbers. Usually, more sinister language than “a crack” is used when trying to discourage people from acting against collective interests, like “don’t be a scab”. Psychologically, I think the former is more effective than the latter, especially when it’s not as clear as crossing a picket line or not whether one is “cracking” or “splitting”. People will often deny that they’re a ‘crack’ or whatever, so I think the clearer messaging is to describe desirable behaviour. Good discussion :D!
I guess we could sort of do a testing. I post “Do Not Split” a lot because there are a lot of trolls trying to split any kind of protest. It comes up a lot. I’ll try “Do Not Split” and “No Cracks” and see if people respond to either one more or less. It won’t be a definitive answer, but it’s a start. Feel free to do your own testing, there’s lots of testing ground even here on lemmy.
I’d need more context.
In coverage of Hong Kong’s turmoil, it’s best to use their own words.
If it’s about dividing the left in the Trump era… dunno.
