A language question that has baffled me since I was a child (I blame Nixon): how do you know if this two-fingered hand gesture shown below means victory or peace?
Written/spoken homonyms are generally understood by their context, but without other words forming a sentence around it, how should this isolated sign be read?
The country or native language in which the sign is made may provide a context, but here in the U.S. the sign can mean either victory or peace. In such a case, do the circumstances under which the sign is made make the difference? If so, then how does one read a hand displayed at a peaceful protest of a disputed election? Does the demonstration’s hope/goal trump all, or does its method of non-violence? Do two open fingers at an anti-war demonstration automatically signify the hope for peace, or can it suggest the desire for achieving the goal of troop withdrawal?
When you see this gesture, do you think victory, or do you think peace? Why?
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Mostly I’m hoping the person is ordering two beers and that the second one is for me.
Seriously though, I’ve had the same question in my mind since teenhood. My theory, though I’ve never bothered to prove it through intense observation and tracking, is that if the hand is facing so that others see the palm, thumb and extra fingers, it means victory. If others see the back of the hand, it means peace. The first gesture looks more combative and fist-like while the second is much less threatening. But who knows. Maybe the two versions are just gesticular equivalents of accents.
It would be interesting to compare all this with the ASL (American sign language) gestures for peace and victory.
Your Iran piece looks fascinating but I’ll have to save that for another day.
Hi, llady.
If others see the back of the hand, it means peace.
Ahh, but that could get you into a shedload of trouble in the UK, Ireland, and Australia, where two fingers up with the palm facing the speaker means a jolly ol’ “fuck you.” The story goes that the French at the Battle of Agincourt promised to cut off the index and middle fingers (the fingers that pull the bowstring) of the opposing British archers. When Britain won, the archers are said to have prominently displayed those two fingers, still very much intact, in “salute” at the French. (Great story. Probably apocryphal as all get-out, but such a great story.)
It’s nice to hear that I’m not the only one who has found the two-fingers sign to be confusing. It’s possible that my background adds to the problem: I knew the two-finger gesture as a symbol for peace way before I had ever seen it meaning victory. I think the first time I saw a V-for-victory gesture was in an 80s film about soccer/football with Michael Cain and Pelé — and I remember that I was confused: the whole climax of the movie revolved around the gesture and the chanting of “Victoire!” and I could not put together how “victoire” and peace smushed together made any sort of sense to the plot. In my childhood experience — and even now as an adult — the gesture has been predominantly linked to peace movements or messages. You just don’t see a whole lot of V for victory around here. BTW, in the US both directions seem acceptable and seems to vary by group culture and what looks coolest: hippie is often palm-out; hip/hip-hop is often palm-in.
But see: Kanye West can show a two-finger salute with the palm in and be smiling at the camera; I come from the same country, but if I’m making that gesture (palm in), even if I’m smiling, I’m saying, “up yours.” Context and even country of origin don’t always seem to help.
When I was watching BBC footage of Iran the other day and the reporter mentioned thousands holding up the victory sign, I was thrown. Victory does make much more sense in that context, yet it hadn’t even occurred to me until the reporter said it. But in other contexts, the sign can be quite ambiguous. For the longest time, I thought that photo of Nixon leaving office with two fingers (twice) held aloft meant peace in a “can’t we all just get along/don’t kick my ass” sort of way; how in the world the message of victory made any sense in that context was — and still is — totally beyond me.
I wonder if it’s a country confusion? An age confusion? Just you and me, llady, alone against the world?
Maybe having become victorious you believe the world will now be at peace?
Hi, wolis! Very kind of you to drop by. Thank you.
Mind if I ask you to clarify your question? I understand the concept behind the question, but I’m not sure what victory of mine (or general ours) to which you might be referring.
I was never aware of the Agincourt salute. Usually, if something is common to the UK, Ireland and Australia, at least fragments of it show up in Canadian culture. I now remember that I had a Welsh friend who made the two finger, back-handed gesture as a show of contempt, but I thought it was a personal or, at best regional, signal. We were both students in France at the time, and he was having a miserable go of it. He’d make that gesture whenever he was complaining to me about the French, which was frequently. Now it makes perfect sense to me. Thanks.
As to the original question, I asked my dad for his opinion about the victory/peace sign. He’s old enough to know everything, or convincingly pretend to. Having lived through World War II and the hippie era, he’s seen his share of victory and peace signs. His immediate reaction was to call it a victory sign and associate it with Winston Churchill. I actually had to remind him that it also means peace. He didn’t think the backhanded signal meant anything. He certainly would have let me know if he thought the gesture meant f— off. He’d have likely sent me to my room.
Nixon is a complicated one. I’m old enough to remember Watergate, but young enough to have understood none of it at the time. The images of a seemingly triumphant, or perhaps peace-advocating, Nixon only confused me more. I guess it really is all his fault.
The way I see it now, I think he was signalling that Nixon, the president, had been defeated, but not Nixon, the man. It was a mixed sign of defiance and resiliance.
I have wistfully imagined that when some leader of a country goes to war with another, they are doing it to rid the world or some menace so we can all go back to living in peace.. hence victory and peace are synonymous.
Sadly the world is not as nice as my imagination.. however I do recall my mum telling me that when WWII was over people were running down the streets of London shouting “victory” and “peace” in equal measures.