posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 11:09 AM
Ok. This is just a theory I have put together through observation.
It seems to me within this last century (20th century) theres has been a huge change in the way it is acceptable to protest. Non violence seems to be
the only route acceptable by society. It would seem that it has been ingrained within life in the United States and other modern nations
around the world that if things got rough you are supposed to sit there and take it.
Now, to set the record straight, my personal belief lies with violence being the last resort, but still within my right to make that decision to take
the next step if necessary.
A vague but sad example is how parents teach their kids today. It is always walk away, correct? Now, there are always the "badasses" who think
they are tough and become bullies praying on the "weak" ones who were always taught to always walk away, but my father was one who believed in
fighting. He was always a scrapper who did not like to take crap from anybody. I believe in a more suddle aproach. He was more direct, but always
thought he was in his right to take that step if necessary. And again, I am not saying fists first words later.
So my point here is more of one that centers on public displays of protest. I was giving the example that lies with peoples personal beliefs that get
filtered into the mainstream view. Like most anti-war protests are non violent. Back in the 60s most civil rights protest were non-violent. Those
people got pummeled, killed, raped, thrown in jail, received broken bones among other dispicable things.
The funny thing here is how these crowds that stay non violent sometimes get subdued with violence and this is acceptable. We use war (the ultimate
form of violence) as a means to an end and this is acceptable. By that logic, I would think people would be going at it like cats and dogs, but
protests stay non-violent and yet the dissatisfaction of the American public is at an all-time high.
My point here I guess, is when does it become acceptable for violence? Once Americas name is destroyed beyond all repair? Once the violence comes to
us? When do the people who make the decisions have to answer to the people and be held accountable? And if the court system fails, when does the
public take things into their own hands?
...Im short on time, so I will have to come back to this later. Look forward to hearing from anyone with an opinion.
edit to add:
I think there has been some agenda to cast a non-violent "net" over the public. And given the impression by the media and school systems that it is
immoral and always wrong to commit acts of violence. When in fact this nation was built upon it. The government has subdued the public and uprisings
since the civil war and absolutely nothing has been done about it.
I am not saying this is the time to rise up or anything as I believe it might be futile unless it was done by 100 million people. Obviously there are
enough content people that would never let that happen. But in the past I believe there arose situations where the government should have been put in
check. I won't go into what those situations are because that is not the point of this thread.
But it would seem the government has granted itself (whether it be its policing agency or its military) the moral authority alone to commit acts of
aggression and violence with complete disregard of our (the people) right to become violent if indeed necessary.
[edit on 26-8-2008 by abelievingskeptic]