Oppression is something that has been prevalent throughout our classes. After all, things such as racism are deeply rooted within many societies and America is no different. The topic for discussion here, however, is the thought of a violent response to oppression. Should oppression be met with a violent response.
I personally feel that violence is not a solution to the problems that are faced. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, after all. Unfortunately in situations of racism, oppressing in everyday interactions including schools, violence is occasionally an end that is reached. Peaceful protests can be met with police brutality or protests can turn violent in serious cases.
To answer the question; no. Oppression should not be met with a violent response. Rather, protests and cases should be used. While deeply rooted opinions are hard or seemingly impossible to change, changes are made all the time. The important thing to remember is that violence is not the only way to bring a change.
I agree with your standpoint morally. Violence is never the choice we'd want to take, because as you said, violence is definitely not the only way to bring a change. However, unfortunately do to our nation's history, it's hard to avoid...and that nonviolent acts against oppression are often difficult to come by. There was a big block of text I used in talking about this question on my own blog, saying things like, "...pacifism as an ideology comes from a privileged context, ...violence is an unavoidable, structurally integral part of the current social hierachy, ...Nonviolence refuses to recognize that it can only work for privileged people, who have a status protected by violence, as the perpetrators and beneficiaries of a violent hierachy". I thought it was pretty interesting and connected a lot to my opinion on the question. Unfortunately with the current conditions of America, there is a lot more fighting to be had towards equality, and the violence bound to be involved is, to some extent, inevitable.
ReplyDeletehierarchy*
DeleteI strongly agree that violence is not the ideal way to end oppression. However, like Annie said, it is not always a choice. Or rather, it is the choice to end the oppression or to not use violence. My example for that would be the civil war. Could slavery have been ended without violence? Was the civil war worth it? On the other hand, the civil war was a long time ago. Do you think that things have changed enough to allow for exclusively peaceful protests. This topic brings up a lot of hard questions to which I do not have answers, but it is something that must be talked about so thank you for that.
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, I believe that America is the place where racism has taken place, and will continue to exist. Even in a nation like this, however, I also believe that violent response should not be the answer to deal with such oppression. I really like the phrase "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". If we were to take the hostile approach in order to cool off the tension, then no one will remain in the end. However, I guess the reason why some resort to violent protests is because of the need to show the authority and power to the government and its organizations. Although this situation is understandable, like you said, changes are to be made, and will be made no matter what.
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question, I do not think that oppression should be met with violence however like others have said sometimes choice of not using violence is not always present. The quote from Ghandi shows that when oppression is met with violence then it creates a circle of hatred where more and more oppression is created. An example of combating oppression would King and Malcolm X. They had two different approaches with King wanting to stop racism in a peaceful way where Malcolm initially opted for a bit more use of force. If Malcolm had his initial idea of how to combat racism actualized then I think that it would've prolonged the fight for civil rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Morgan that there certainly is a better way that an individual or group of individuals can respond to oppression, but I believe that sometimes there are instances where violence is in a way necessary because it is the only way that you can really communicate your message. An eye for an eye leaves both men blind, but could it possibly be better to have one man dead and the other free than have one man dead and the other a murderer. (the definition of murder in this case would be an individual who would kill or relieve "God Given" rights from another person without any reason)
ReplyDelete