Thursday, May 21, 2015
The 60s in America
A topic that has been brought up in American Studies a few times over the last couple days is the idea of revolt, or response to an oppression faced by a people. This was epitomized in the Black Panther Movement of the 60s, which served basically as a black police, meaning they were there to protect and serve African-Americans. But the question is, is armed or militant response to oppression ever justified, and in my opinion, yes it definitely can be justified, depending on the degree of oppression and the degree of armed response. In this case of the Civil rights movement, especially with black Americans, I believe it is justified. For one, this oppression, the racism, the segregation had been going on for so long, that some hard force that would be able to persuade the government that this movement is here to stay and this is for real. The reason I approve of militant response in some scenarios is that it emphasized the strength/power of the movement. However this violent response has to be to an extent to which there is no violence that kills, or violence that is largely unnecesary. Basically it should be in a manner of defending the honor of the race. Not just for the excuse of it and for the sake of being violently opposed to an idea. So in finality, violent response is justified to an extent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, use of arms as a response to oppression can never be justified. However, I do not disagree with what you said. I definitely agree that using force in this situation to claim their rights might actually reveal to others that they were done with the injustice. I also believe that it will emphasize the strength and gravity of the movement. Nevertheless, bringing weapons into the conflict is a dilemma. If you do not use force, they will continue the harassment. On the other hand, using the force could only bring more burden on them. Who knows what the government would do next? It is capricious, and thus, they should be careful about it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the point that use of arms as a response to oppression can be justified. This is because sometimes violence can only be fought with violence. If a man speaks Chinese, using English or Spanish to persuade him of something will not be successful. You have to speak to him in his own language, and sometimes that means fighting violence with violence.
ReplyDeleteViolence in terms of self defense can be permissible in my eyes, but it should not necessarily be described as violence as it gives a negative connotation. Another description could be used as this vioelnce could be seen as a necessity. The fact that this violence was necessary with things such as police brutality is my problem as I think that our justice and what is seemed as right or wrong was held with very few and convinced very many to agree with and as people begin to realize this more nowadays it has become a serious problwem
ReplyDeleteViolence in terms of self defense can be permissible in my eyes, but it should not necessarily be described as violence as it gives a negative connotation. Another description could be used as this vioelnce could be seen as a necessity. The fact that this violence was necessary with things such as police brutality is my problem as I think that our justice and what is seemed as right or wrong was held with very few and convinced very many to agree with and as people begin to realize this more nowadays it has become a serious problwem
ReplyDeleteI agree with ghazi when self-defense is described as violence it connotates that protecting yourself is the wrong thing to do but rather it is better to be beat to a pulp.I feel that the response of arms can self-defense should be the only response because when an opressor is hurting someone and they do nothing, it leaves the impression of weakness and it encourages the opressor to keep opressing that person. So as people say if someone hits you, the only way to make him stop is to hit him harder then he can hit you. So that it sends the message of strentgh and it discourages the idea of opression in that person.
ReplyDelete