 |
| (Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org /wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49 /Malcolm-x.jpg/220px-Malcolm-x.jpg) |
The biggest issue with violent resistance for me is the ethics of it.
Being an oppressed minority group fighting for equality is certainly an admirable cause, and based on the level of oppression, violent resistance seems like a natural response, but it's the way these violent acts are carried out that leads to significant moral difficulties. The IRA comes to mind as a way a legitimate movement, Irish independence, was mired by the ethical shortcomings of their violent resistance. Having bombs go off that kill not only British agents, but also their wives and children, is hard to justify under any circumstances. Almost always in violent resistance movements civilians and people only remotely involved are killed, and these sorts of things should be avoided at all costs if there is another way to effect social and political change, which there is through nonviolent civil disobedience.
Violent resistance can also alienate the populace you're fighting for if they start to receive violent repercussions or start to get caught up in the action. It's hard to support a movement when it results in making conditions for average folks worse than when it started, usually due to government crackdown and living in an area where violence is taking place. Civil disobedience is better at uniting large groups of people in protest because of its moral superiority and lower risk for those involved. Violent resistance also tends to divide those who may have otherwise been in support of the movement. It polarizes the public more and makes the movements less compelling for those on the outside.
Non violent civil disobedience may seem like a less effective way of bringing about change, but it has many advantages, both morally and practically, that make violent resistance less appealing than it already is.
Finally, some of Thoreau's thoughts on civil disobedience.
I definitely agree with you and that the bullet poses some major problems. Violence is no way of getting something you want because it then brings power into the equation. It then brings about equality. And if people want equality then violence can't be helpful because using violence is a way of showing you have more power than another. So violence itself is a way of distinguishing between groups of people and showing who is more powerful, which makes the equality gap larger. I also agree that there is an ethical problem with the use of violence. So many innocent people are killed for a movement that don't need to be. A cause would be much more benefitted if groups could use non-violent methods of achieving their goals. It makes a cause more worthwhile, in my opinion. It makes a cause seem more important and something special to be a part of.
ReplyDeleteI agree that violence should not be the answer, but I also feel that it is sometimes beneficial to be feared. One of my ultimate fears is the fear of the unknown. If Malcolm X claims that violence is on the table then the opposing groups will assume that to be true. There actions will be based on that notion. They will try to take all precautions to ensure that that doesn't happen. Just as I prepare for every possible topic that could appear on the exam because of the fear of the unknown question, the same goes for Malcolm X's opposition. He isn't eliminating every opportunity to attain justice until he absolutely has too. Once again I don't agree with violence but I understand where his possible antics were coming from.
ReplyDelete