Eliminating Slavery-Violence Vs Nonviolence

Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement

Slavery in the United States first started in 1619, when African slaves were transported to Jamestown, a settlement in the colony in Virginia. These slaves were brought to the United States primarily to help with the making of crops, especially tobacco. The practice of slavery remained present throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in other colonies of the United States, which helped build and strengthen the American economy as a whole. In 1793, the cotton gin was invented, which triggered the immense importance of the practice of slavery towards the success of the economy in the southern parts of the United States. On the other hand, the northern parts of the United States experienced a

During the time prior to the twentieth century our world accepted slavery as a normal part of life. Aphra Behn and Phillis Wheatley, both female authors born about 100 years apart, had their own views of slavery and wrote poems and stories about the subject. These women were physically different, Aphra was a Caucasian, and Phillis was an African American, and their lives were rather different as well. Aphra was a spy and playwright, who lived the middle class life and Phillis, was a slave who was taken from her homeland, brought to America, sold into slavery, then later freed. I believe that both writers’ views were difficult to figure out, especially by just reading their works.

Slavery was one of the most horrific acts ever instilled on a race of people in world’s history. The history paints a truly horrific picture when blacks were stolen from their homelands, taken away from their families, enslaved and suffered from harsh punishments. The first opposition of practicing slavery in antebellum America takes its origins from the beginning of nineteenth century. The most recognizable abolitionists such as William Lloyd Garrison, George Thompson, David Walker and Frederic Douglass were the first who unfolded the antislavery debates in transnational ways. Their persistent eagerness and appeal to public opinion helped to sow seeds of abolishing slavery in America.

In America, violence never has or will solve problems; it only makes them worse. Martin Luther King Jr. was a major leader in the Civil Rights Movement and often sought out to inform others that violence was not the answer and peaceful protest was; claiming that “… rifles [wouldn’t] solve their problems” (Source A). King also claimed that peace yielded better results than violence and was heavily against the Vietnam War. He knew that America as a country had sent thousands of men away; men who were brothers, sons, husbands, and neighbors off “miles away to guarantee liberties” they did not have in the United States. (Source A).

In the history of mankind, there has been multiple cases of violent and nonviolent opposition. The question is which of these is more appealing than the other. In violent protest, citizens protest against their opposition with violence such as; rioting, vandalizing, arson, assault, and many other forms of violence. In nonviolent protest citizens will protest their opposition peacefully through calm and non-violent protest. This is also known as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the most efficient form of protest in a society.

Violence is an unavoidable terror that has played one of the, if not the most, important roles in all of history. Without violence, lands wouldn’t be conquered, empires wouldn’t fall, and people wouldn’t have any limits or restrictions. The French Revolution is one example of a violent uprising because the people of France revolted against the rule of King Louis XVI by raiding, storming, and slaughtering for their natural equal rights. The revolution marked the end of a government ruled by monarchy and the start of the Republic of France. One important reason of why the revolution was successful in bringing political change was because it was violent.

There are very few situations in which violence is the proper response. However, even before this country was established Americans have been using violence to communicate their ideas when they feel that they are not being heard. A very good example of this is the race riot, which has been a very frequent occurrence in American history, especially in the past century. Whenever a riot occurs, those involved often come under heavy scrutiny, and are heavily criticized as savage or unintelligent. In Particular the Baltimore riots of 2015 were heavily scrutinized and those that were involved were often referred to a senseless thugs. However I believe that the Baltimore Riots were a necessary evil that helped the country to move closer to equality.

During the civil rights movement, the people (African American) and theirs leaders use different methods or approaches to achieve their goal, but I will focus on DR Martin Luther King JR and Malcolm X philosophies towards the “role of violence”. DR King and Malcolm X are two black men living in America when black people are treated and considered inferior human race. They are actually second class citizens in their own country. Although Dr King and Malcolm X goals are the same, but their method or approach towards achieving it are drastically different. Dr King believed that to work against injustice, one must develop a nonviolent frame of mind to achieve that because differences cannot be settled through violence. I think that

To achieve peace by disobeying the law seems counter-intuitive. The structures of society support the morals of a nation, but still with human nature comes the possibility of unjust laws and discrimination. Civil leaders such as Gandhi, Thoreau, and Martin Luther King Jr., preached and lived the necessity of civil disobedience and peaceful protest. Nowadays, organizing a movement is relatively easy, but with every assembly there appears to be a select few who radicalize and incite violence. When peaceful resistance is maintained throughout the entirety of the movement, then there will be positive outcomes. Unlike the armed militants of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge whose message of violence and chaos was rejected by

America, the land of the free, holds 25% of the world’s prisoners yet only has 4% of Earth’s population. Once the 13th Amendment was passed the incarceration of African Americans increased substantially. The prison population of the United States rose from about 300,000 in 1972 and now it is at 2.3 million and rising. Although slavery was abolished with the 13th amendment, discrimination took a new form as institutionalized racism began to rise in law enforcement and political advances in America.

A life of servitude sounds better than slavery one would think. Committing a petty crime in America, could yield a life of bondage in the prison system, once released for time served. Convicted felons what society calls ex-prisoners are constantly tormented with life on the inside of prison bars, while attempting to adapt to life on the outside of prison bars. Offenders, struggle emotionally, physically, from his or her experiences while incarcerated, and financially of course secondary to conviction, some or unable to gain employment. Resulting, back to a life of crime. Lawmakers continue to pass tougher laws on petty convictions, while privately funded correctional organizations are all about the capital, not the rehabilitation and or

I do not think that slavery could have been solved without civil war. I agree with Mitchell. The south was using slavery to make money. They did not have that much out of pocket expenses since owning a slave was cheap. So if the south was not willing to part ways with the ideas of slavery then they would not have had as much profits coming in from all the farm land that the southerners owned. The Southerners would have also had these massive plots of land to farm but no one to do the work of the

Are Violent Protests the Only Solution Towards a Nonviolent Community? Causing violence seems solvable towards the goal of peace, right? Violent protests are embedded in the history of the world, however, peaceful protests are becoming increasingly prevalent. Protests in the form of violence date far back, Malcolm X influenced violence heavily to gain equality, while Gandhi aimed for peaceful protests, several protests that turn violent would occur for the goal of independence, however, people still protest in today’s time, resulting in involvements in both peace and violence.

In the United States of America during the 1830s-1840s, abolitionists tried to find the most effective way to put slavery to an end because they believed it was wrong and it was on a rise. Henry Highland Garnet believed that aggressive action was the most successful way to end slavery, while William Whipper believed nonviolence was the solution. After reading information from both sides, it is clear that aggressive action was the most effective way to end slavery.