Throughout my historical studies career, one question has remained
to be a consistent source of controversy, the question of whether it’s okay to
fight fire with fire, or in other words, is it okay fight violence with
violence? The form of militant rebellion can be seen in almost any conflict
throughout history, where people use force to fight against their oppressors.
In fact, it is human nature to tend to use violence as a mean to get what you
want, whether it’s freedom from oppression or the savings from a bank. In most
cases, I believe that fighting violence with violence is not the answer, and
that there are many peaceful alternatives to achieving your goal. However in
some cases, the use of fighting force with force can be justified. For example,
during the 1960s a new civil rights movement popped up in America, a movement
that contradicted the non-violent mission of MLK and instead advocated for
black minorities across the country to band together and fight back against
white oppressors. They called themselves the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense,
and they used force to help oppressed black communities defend themselves from
police and government brutality. Additionally, the Black Panther Party also
helped build up their communities through charity acts like food drives, health
clinics, and childcare. The Black Panther Party was one of the first
revolutionary movements in America that used militancy to defend the rights of
the oppressed, because using force and violence was what the situation called
for in order to defend the black citizens. Therefore, I believe that the use of
force of the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense was justified because the
violence was required in order to defend the lives and liberties of the members
of the black minority.
