It is no secret that America's history is riddled with racism. From the beginning days of slavery to current institutional oppression, racism towards groups of color has been an ongoing issue in this country for hundreds of years and continues to be today. Although this suffering has had long-lasting effects on those impacted, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Throughout the article, “Afterword: Understanding History” by Charles Cobb, the author articulates ideals surrounding black protest in both violent and nonviolent formats. Mr. Cobb addresses explicitly this with the idea that, no matter what kind of protest is put into place, people of color will usually be forced to resort to self-defense in protests due to fear-driven racism
…show more content…
It was not “cool” to be a civil rights activist; you had to stand up for what you believe in and be willing to fight for your basic rights. And sometimes, that meant really fighting back through reciprocal violence. In the article, “Afterword: Understanding History” by Charles Cobb, social theorist Thomas Sowell stated: “…for centuries, Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other and tried to wipe each other out? Only after the impossibility of achieving that goal became clear did they finally give up and decide to live and let live.” (p.244 Sowell) While this personification of “two wrongs don’t make a right” does address the pointlessness of fighting, sometimes a group must resort to self-defense when left with no other options. Groups of people of color were forced to use communal self-defense when being attacked by radical racists trying to silence their voice through violent demonstrations. As pointed out by Cobb in the reading, there was no meaningful difference between armed vs. nonviolent protests regarding peacefulness. So, if it’s going to get ugly either way, wouldn’t you rather have a form of protection instead of being left entirely
It was not “cool” to be a civil rights activist; you had to stand up for what you believe in and be willing to fight for your basic rights. And sometimes, that meant really fighting back through reciprocal violence. In the article, “Afterword: Understanding History” by Charles Cobb, social theorist Thomas Sowell stated: “…for centuries, Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other and tried to wipe each other out? Only after the impossibility of achieving that goal became clear did they finally give up and decide to live and let live.” (p.244 Sowell) While this personification of “two wrongs don’t make a right” does address the pointlessness of fighting, sometimes a group must resort to self-defense when left with no other options. Groups of people of color were forced to use communal self-defense when being attacked by radical racists trying to silence their voice through violent demonstrations. As pointed out by Cobb in the reading, there was no meaningful difference between armed vs. nonviolent protests regarding peacefulness. So, if it’s going to get ugly either way, wouldn’t you rather have a form of protection instead of being left entirely