There are those who have argued that the only justified revolution is a peaceful revolution. There are others who have argued that violence is a necessary component of political revolution. Dickens seems torn on this issue, at times arguing that the revolution is necessary and even inevitable, at other times criticizing the revolution for its violence and brutality. When (if ever) is violence justified as a response to political oppression? Are there other, better routes to freedom, or are oppressed people justified in rising up against their oppressors?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Violent Resistance
There are those who have argued that the only justified revolution is a peaceful revolution. There are others who have argued that violence is a necessary component of political revolution. Dickens seems torn on this issue, at times arguing that the revolution is necessary and even inevitable, at other times criticizing the revolution for its violence and brutality. When (if ever) is violence justified as a response to political oppression? Are there other, better routes to freedom, or are oppressed people justified in rising up against their oppressors?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Sometimes violence is necessary to instill fear and thus leading to respect
-JrEagles09
However, violence after a certain amount of violence, people will get sick of it. It's not respect. It's just blatant fear. And then they rebeeel... and it just gets icky... It's like trying to beat your kids to make them obey you. It'll only work for a certain amount of time before they become psycho and try killing everything.
-Shukumei
I disagree with that. I feel like you have to be a crappy person if the only way you can get resspect is thru fear.
-Mona Lisa
hmmm.
interesting.
people should not be scared into respecting someone, as neither should someone give respect out of fear.
i don't think the revolution had anything to do with respect but more with greed.
-mccrizzle92
the violence, although needed for a while to get the revolution "accomplished", was far FAR overdone.
But those kings and queens heads needed to come off. Sure, they were people too but while they were still in the palace they are the object of the oppression, and after they are dead it proves that the revolutionaries mean business and that the rest of the monarchy and ruling class should just give up.
If not, slightly more violence may be needed to fully accomplish it, but killing everyone who has even the slightest angst against the revolution is completely uncalled for.
-quakken
You make a decent point but you can only carry on violence for a certain amount of time before you totally lose control i mean just look what happened to the medieval civilizations they used fear to keep their subjects in line but if you carry on to long your exactly right you are totally screwed.
-JrEagles09
i agree with you... its the people in power and who have power who get respect and if that person shows their weakness then they dont deserve respect.
--beachbum
I think that it depends on what kind of person you are that is going to decide if you are going to make it a violent or peaceful thing. If someone wants to win the easy way they will just use violence and fear but if they really want to get what they want through a good and "clean" way then they'll do it peacefully.
-2lex
If there has to be a violent revolution, there has to be some smart people behind to make sure that there is a balance.
If you let the people who are doing the revolution go completely insane and there isn't really a speaker for the revolution, then it CAN easily get way to out of control.
-quakken
I think that you should use violence as your last resort. It may help get your point across and it may be easier but take a chance try the hard way, you will have consequences both ways.
-giggles745
a real country should be based on respect for the government not fear of a dictatorship, so basically the french revolution had a great purpose but no actual value due to the lakc of respect
-trevz
I agree with giggles875. In addition, I think that the French Revolution needed a purpose. Simply wanting "change" isn't nearly specific enough and clearly caused chaos.
-The Beast
I agree with giggles745 because yes, violence will help get your point across but it can also scare away anyone involved ya' know? So, ya I think you should only use violence if necessary! *Sunshine*
It's sad to say but people respond the most to drama and violence these days and I don't think that it was wrong for Dickens to struggle with this topic. He obviously challenges his readers to seriously think about war and if it really does any good. Whats wrong with making people think?
-thatsgoofy
I can see why Dickens jumps back and forth in his book, sometimes it's necessary to use violence but it should be avoided if possible. There are many other ways to get a point across that don't have to do with violence, and sometimes talking something out works way better than fighting it out. Say a kid has an abusive dad. If they are arguing, wouldn't be better for the kid to avoid using violence? If the kid resorts to using violence, so will the dad and nothing will be settled except how much they hate each other. Violence is like the saying "What goes around comes around", you can't give violence without receiving it.
~Stephanie
To not have went completely out of control the french revolution would have had to have one strong leader who would have had to coordinate the actions, instead of an idea being instilled and then everyone trying to collectively finish it.
It would have to have a good leader to be nonviolent also, so either way they just needed a trusted figure instead of a group of a people to carry it out.
huh. a dictator needed to carry out a revolution against a dictator. Ironic.
-quakken
Stephanie-
Okay, so we always say we should avoid violence because "its the right thing to say" right? Well, if you think about it, none of the existing countries would be where they are today without violence. So is it really such a bad thing to have violence and war? I mean, the effects of war are not pretty, thats for sure, but we take action and positive things come out of them. So is it all bad?
-thatsgoofy
wat about the swiss?, lol theyre totally neutral, duh!
-trevz
Trevz, With all that money in their banks, they have to be. Or else they'd seriously get pwned...
-Shukumei
I think that the more violence that there is means that more changes have to change with the current government. It reminds me of Biology when one species becomes so powerful that it is actually evened out by nature. In the Revolution, the French government was SO far in debt and the estates were so messed up that the revolutionaries spread "liberty" like a virus and tried to get as much as they could out of it.
Though violence is justified when violence has been used against the oppressed or the oppressed have no way to revolt or change the government. In a well running government the people would have their rights to speech and press and that would be the best way to revolt. However, the people would have no reason to revolt if they had a well working government
-Mr. Owl
800 of the king's Swiss guards were killed during the revolution even though the king told them not to fire on the revolties.
-Mr. Owl
Your right in a sense but just look at us we were ruled by a good government but we had a bloody revolution all in the name of "liberty" and we were being oppressed by the king.
-JrEagles09
killing for freedom and liberty is better then just trying to kill because you want something better... as Americans we had fine life's... we wanted freedom not a better life...
--beachbum
No not all violence is bad but when violence is used unnecessarily it's just silly. Did using La Guillotine to kill thousands of people accomplish anything? Not really just a bunch of blood shed, and a lot of the people killed were innocent.
~stephanie
i agree with many of you, violence can only take you so far when people will start to get annoyed and will start to stand up for themselves. The extreme violence will just come right back around.
~swizzle
Post a Comment