Throughout history, violence has been used as a means to many ends. As far as the earliest recorded histories, we can see that man has killed each other in pursuit for land, gold, and general greed. Yet violence isn’t inherently evil: a hunter who kills animals to feed his family is guilty of nothing. Under this pretense, we can see that many have tried to use violence to further justice. When the Senate assassinated Julius Caesar, they did it “for the Republic”: to ensure that Rome would never fall to a dictator. In the 1200’s, English lords fought a series of wars against King John, eventually forcing him to sign the first ever declaration of human rights: the Magna Carta. These examples directly conflict with the adage we are constantly
…show more content…
When six black men in Oakland saw the crimes police were committing against their community, they formed the Black Panther Party. It was designed to help African Americans achieve their full civil rights. But they did it in a violent manner. They followed police around while open-carrying shotguns, they invaded the California state legislature brandishing guns, and even got into shootouts with police. As one might imagine, this didn’t help their cause at all. The director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, called them the “single greatest threat to the internal security of the United States.” Their use of violence had turned millions of Americans against the extremely sympathetic cause of racial equality. The same narrative happens in the play Antigone, in which the King Creon punishes the titular character for disobeying his command not to bury her brother, a traitor who led an army against his own nation. It is an arguably just law, as in a time of civil strife and uncertainty, it would be unwise to let him be a martyr. If Creon had instead condemned Antigone to some other non-violent sentence, it would have been unlikely the same consequences would have occurred. It is clear in many instances that violence is not suitable for the achievement of …show more content…
Where the Black Panthers failed, Martin Luther King, Jr. endured through his peaceful means of civil disobedience. His use of non-violence meant that his movement was only about the facts: the horrible treatment of African Americans, the terrors of institutionalised racism, and so on. He never gave any reason for possible opponents to detract from his movement, and so he reaped what he sowed. His efforts led to the numerous legislation directed at ending discrimination, such as the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. Where the Senate failed in overthrowing their dictator Caesar, Gandhi succeeded in removing the British monarchy through peaceful revolution. His peaceful civil disobedience movements such as the Salt March unified Indian spirits, and proved to the British that India was not just an easy source of wealth. His road to independance was long and difficult, but unlike movements marred by violence, actually led to true
When six black men in Oakland saw the crimes police were committing against their community, they formed the Black Panther Party. It was designed to help African Americans achieve their full civil rights. But they did it in a violent manner. They followed police around while open-carrying shotguns, they invaded the California state legislature brandishing guns, and even got into shootouts with police. As one might imagine, this didn’t help their cause at all. The director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, called them the “single greatest threat to the internal security of the United States.” Their use of violence had turned millions of Americans against the extremely sympathetic cause of racial equality. The same narrative happens in the play Antigone, in which the King Creon punishes the titular character for disobeying his command not to bury her brother, a traitor who led an army against his own nation. It is an arguably just law, as in a time of civil strife and uncertainty, it would be unwise to let him be a martyr. If Creon had instead condemned Antigone to some other non-violent sentence, it would have been unlikely the same consequences would have occurred. It is clear in many instances that violence is not suitable for the achievement of …show more content…
Where the Black Panthers failed, Martin Luther King, Jr. endured through his peaceful means of civil disobedience. His use of non-violence meant that his movement was only about the facts: the horrible treatment of African Americans, the terrors of institutionalised racism, and so on. He never gave any reason for possible opponents to detract from his movement, and so he reaped what he sowed. His efforts led to the numerous legislation directed at ending discrimination, such as the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. Where the Senate failed in overthrowing their dictator Caesar, Gandhi succeeded in removing the British monarchy through peaceful revolution. His peaceful civil disobedience movements such as the Salt March unified Indian spirits, and proved to the British that India was not just an easy source of wealth. His road to independance was long and difficult, but unlike movements marred by violence, actually led to true