The Means and Ends of the Struggle for Justice
Throughout this course we have studied the different worldviews and thought processes of many influential thinkers in their quests for justice, freedom, and/or equality. One key point of contention between some of these figures is related to the use of violence in pursuit of these greater goods. Practically speaking, without a morally pure, nonviolent stance of passive resistance, your chances of convincing the populus of your plight and the necessity for change and action thereto plummet. In the words of MLK Jr., “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.” (MLK, Where Do We Go From Here?, 62) This is not to say that violence is never successful in terms of legislative change. For instance, the Civil War (violence for a greater good) resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation (legislative change). However, comparatively, it did very little to morally persuade …show more content…
A man who saw two wrongs as making a right and just society would likely have never gotten along with the Mahatma. In “Message to the Grass Roots,” Malcolm begins by demonizing the entire white race as “the common enemy” of all negroes, and advocates the exclusion of whites as the first step in revolution or rebellion. He lists the American, French, and Russian revolutions as templates for what a revolution actually is. “How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed.” (Malcolm X, Message to… , 7). But as Gandhi pointed out in Hind Swaraj on page 88, history does not record innate peace. “History does not, and cannot, take note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul.” And so Malcolm X, (conveniently forgetting the entire home-rule revolution which Gandhi successfully led), continues his intellectual
Throughout this course we have studied the different worldviews and thought processes of many influential thinkers in their quests for justice, freedom, and/or equality. One key point of contention between some of these figures is related to the use of violence in pursuit of these greater goods. Practically speaking, without a morally pure, nonviolent stance of passive resistance, your chances of convincing the populus of your plight and the necessity for change and action thereto plummet. In the words of MLK Jr., “Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.” (MLK, Where Do We Go From Here?, 62) This is not to say that violence is never successful in terms of legislative change. For instance, the Civil War (violence for a greater good) resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation (legislative change). However, comparatively, it did very little to morally persuade …show more content…
A man who saw two wrongs as making a right and just society would likely have never gotten along with the Mahatma. In “Message to the Grass Roots,” Malcolm begins by demonizing the entire white race as “the common enemy” of all negroes, and advocates the exclusion of whites as the first step in revolution or rebellion. He lists the American, French, and Russian revolutions as templates for what a revolution actually is. “How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed.” (Malcolm X, Message to… , 7). But as Gandhi pointed out in Hind Swaraj on page 88, history does not record innate peace. “History does not, and cannot, take note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul.” And so Malcolm X, (conveniently forgetting the entire home-rule revolution which Gandhi successfully led), continues his intellectual