Is a militant or violent response to oppression justified?
The definition of oppression according to Google is prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. This leads me to believe that oppression in itself is a violent action, and therefore the action of a violent or militant response is comparable to an act of self defense. In the Deceleration of Independence, the founding fathers said that, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government." This section refers to the decision of the colonies to rebel against Great Britain, and that they led a revolution because that government had become oppressive. In the Decleration of our nation, it is stated that it is a right to rebel when oppressed, and as we know from our studies, the Revolutionary War was indeed violent and militant. Oppression is an act of open aggression, and if in diplomacy that warrants a deceleration of war, then it does so in this situation as well. It is our nature as humans to remove aspects of our lives that cause pain and suffering, and so it is our nature to attempt to throw off oppressive behavior as well when forced with no alternative. Considering the Revolutionary War again, the colonies were not in a position where diplomacy and words could sway their oppressors, and it is the case for those who are being oppressed. They cannot reason with those who are violent with any response other than violence in return. Now, this thought process seems pretty closed-minded, and I understand that there will be instances where violence is not the only response, but the question is if it is justified, and I believe that, given the circumstances regarding the oppression of a group, violence can be justified. To end on a few questions: Can you come up with an example where oppression has not been met with violence? Also, although slightly off topic, I noticed that many of the modern world powers have gone through some sort of revolution. Is this connected? Does a nation have to undergo a revolution against oppression to become more powerful?
-Chavez Rodriguez
To answer your second question, I don't think a country HAS to go through a revolution to rise to power. India has had many revolutions which may have even made it worse off. Revolutions sometimes are not a good thing, especially if the revolution simply comes from a fear of an upcoming oppression or injustice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement that a revolution is not always a good thing. I feel that violence should always only be a last resort. In the case of America, every attempt at non-violent protest was met with more oppression. Hopefully the revolutions that occur in the future have more luck with their non-violent approaches.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMaaz, I think it also very much worth noting that India is the response to Chavez's query: "Can you come up with an example where oppression has not been met with violence?" Mahatma Gandhi's peaceful revolution shook the British Empire in a way that the IRA never could; the sheer moral force of non-violent protest gave India a path to independence that nothing before or since has accomplished so completely.
ReplyDelete