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.
I would have to agree with you that it is human nature to response with violence when one is instigated with violence. Therefore, I think that The Black Panther Party's violent response to previous police attacks was one of the reasons that there was so much police violence. When the police saw that Black Panther Party was willing to use violence, they continued to respond with more and more violence that escalated until there was a great divide between black communities and policemen. I think that this is one of the reasons that nonviolent protests were so important to people like Martin Luther King Jr.
ReplyDeleteI agree that violence is part of human nature as a response to the things you have discussed. That being said, what kind of personal alternatives do you see as being possible to achieving said goals? While of course nonviolence is ideal, it's very difficult to come across as effective. We see that nonviolent acts are apart of movements which may help push it, but not all the way or alone at all. It's very upsetting how it seems as if the only answer amounts to violence due to an oppressive history. I do wonder what would make these peaceful alternatives more realistic.
ReplyDelete