Homework Help is Here – Start Your Trial Now!
Social Science
History
In a minimum 300 word response, explain what you think the proper response should be when the government fails to live up to the social contract. Is peaceful protest enough? Can violent/destructive protests be justified? Purely academically, are African Americans justified in overthrow of the government, like the early American Revolutionaries? Why or why not? Don't consider the possibilities of success or practicality..... are they justified in doing this?

In a minimum 300 word response, explain what you think the proper response should be when the government fails to live up to the social contract. Is peaceful protest enough? Can violent/destructive protests be justified? Purely academically, are African Americans justified in overthrow of the government, like the early American Revolutionaries? Why or why not? Don't consider the possibilities of success or practicality..... are they justified in doing this?

icon
Related questions
Question

I need help with this

MLK advocated for non-violent direct action, to force "negotiation" but others have argued for stronger action because of the lack of any substantive progress on racial equality. Peaceful protests are met with just as much negative reactions (closing down highways and street intersections) as violent ones are from the general public, and are increasingly less effective in forcing "negotiation." Some also think they are justified by the social contract to engage in more violent protests. Take for instance Kimberly Jones, author of "I'm not dying with you tonight" in this video: She invokes the social contract as justification for demonstrations that have resulted in destruction of property, and explains how the government has failed to live up to their obligations. Add to this the problem that protest, whether peaceful or violent, is used as evidence for the stereotypes that oppress them, (if Blacks protest, they're a violent group of people and morally degenerate) which reveals a double standard that we hold since we call the people who fought in the American revolution heroes for engaging in similar acts of violence. Both the Boston Tea Party and some protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder resulted in significant destruction of property (the Boston Tea Party destroyed about a million dollars of tea in today's money, which belonged to the East India Company, not the crown). What, if anything, differentiates the colonial revolutionaries from the BLM or rioters (I'm not implying that they are the same people) of today? In a minimum 300 word response, explain what you think the proper response should be when the government fails to live up to the social contract. Is peaceful protest enough? Can violent/destructive protests be justified? Purely academically, are African Americans justified in overthrow of the government, like the early American Revolutionaries? Why or why not? Don't consider the possibilities of success or practicality.... are they justified in doing this?
Transcribed Image Text:MLK advocated for non-violent direct action, to force "negotiation" but others have argued for stronger action because of the lack of any substantive progress on racial equality. Peaceful protests are met with just as much negative reactions (closing down highways and street intersections) as violent ones are from the general public, and are increasingly less effective in forcing "negotiation." Some also think they are justified by the social contract to engage in more violent protests. Take for instance Kimberly Jones, author of "I'm not dying with you tonight" in this video: She invokes the social contract as justification for demonstrations that have resulted in destruction of property, and explains how the government has failed to live up to their obligations. Add to this the problem that protest, whether peaceful or violent, is used as evidence for the stereotypes that oppress them, (if Blacks protest, they're a violent group of people and morally degenerate) which reveals a double standard that we hold since we call the people who fought in the American revolution heroes for engaging in similar acts of violence. Both the Boston Tea Party and some protests in the wake of George Floyd's murder resulted in significant destruction of property (the Boston Tea Party destroyed about a million dollars of tea in today's money, which belonged to the East India Company, not the crown). What, if anything, differentiates the colonial revolutionaries from the BLM or rioters (I'm not implying that they are the same people) of today? In a minimum 300 word response, explain what you think the proper response should be when the government fails to live up to the social contract. Is peaceful protest enough? Can violent/destructive protests be justified? Purely academically, are African Americans justified in overthrow of the government, like the early American Revolutionaries? Why or why not? Don't consider the possibilities of success or practicality.... are they justified in doing this?
Expert Solution
steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

SEE SOLUTIONCheck out a sample Q&A here
Blurred answer