Tuesday, April 19, 2016
Nonviolence
In Ta-Nehisi Coates informative article, "Nonviolence As Compliance", and Martin Luther King Jr.'s heart felt speech, "Letter From Birmingham Jail", they both talk about how unjust society has become towards that off colored people. In doing so they treat blacks in the worst way by beating them, calling them out of their names, still being segregated and a whole lot more to the point that black people are just fed up and are trying to make a change. The government wants the black community to calm down and not start any violence but as both King and Coates was saying, how can anybody be calm and not be mad at they way they are treating them? Both authors would agree that the black community needs to speak up on the problem at hands rather than sit back and allow the white community to feel like its okay when its not. So in doing so they must come at them in order to see and understand where they are coming from and how important this issue is to them. However Martin Luther King Jr. suggests that they come at them but not for the intentions of violence, but instead to negotiate with them first to see what they are going to say about it. And if they respond saying "They will make some changes" then turn around and don't make any then thats a problem, because then your going against your word. But according to Coates he would not do this because he feels like they've had their chance to make a change, so there won't be any negotiating since they didn't negotiate with them. Also Coates and King would agree that a law that is unjust to a person's right is okay to speak on it since it does involve that of peoples individual rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If Coats and King sat down for an argument I think they would both agree that there is still a problem with racism in society. However, I feel like Coats believes that if government officials are acting with violence instead of peace, then how do they have the right to tell victims to be calm? It isn’t fair that the police are telling people to stay calm when they are the ones creating all of the mess, and when people want to stick up and fight for themselves they aren’t allowed to? I don’t believe that violence is the right way to handle anything, but it is really unfair for the people creating the violence to be the one who tells other people to stay calm. King however believes that nothing should be handled with violence. People in society should be able to talk with each other and be respectful. King would be against violence in every aspect, and everyone respected him for that. So unlike Coats, I don’t think that violence would fix anything. I think a lot of Coats argument comes from anger and although she has a right to feel angry, I don’t think acting upon those feelings will fix anything.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Martin Luther King’s letter he wrote from a jail cell, you get to understand that everyone new him as a non violent man. Throughout the letter you can truly see that he is against violence, because he knows it wont make a difference in the end. Yet in the article “Nonviolence as a Compliance” by Ta-Nehisi Coate’s, we can understand that Coates thinks since police and other are violent to citizens then we should be allowed to be violent right back. I don’t agree with Coates thoughts because I think violence is totally in the wrong direction of things and how to overcome obstacles.
ReplyDeleteIf I joined their conversation I would definitely be on MLK’s side because he is not one to be violent to make a point, and not on Coate’s side because his thoughts are not what I agree with personally.
In the Letter from Birmingham, the subject of nonviolence protesting against oppressors of the city of Birmingham are greatly supported. It suggests that because of failed negotiations, then the oppressed community has a duty to get together and make demonstrations so that attention can be brought to the issue. "Nonviolence is Compliance" has a focus on, specifically, the brutality of police and the injustice done there against blacks. It covers the victims of this brutality and how action must be taken against it. This author seems very aggressive and would be totally prepared to do something about it through any means, violently if it came to that. If both authors came together for a debate, I feel that the author of the Letter from Birmingham would greatly disagree with the violence and push for protests in a more effective and less dangerous way. I imagine them really butting heads on this subject, but if they had to agree on something, it would be that blacks still face great oppression and that something should be done about it. If I were there with them, I would agree with that as well, but would probably agree with nonviolence because I admire that author's values and goals.
ReplyDeleteIf both Martin Luther king Jr the author of a “letter from Birmingham jail,” and Ta-Nehisi Coates author of “Nonviolence as Compliance” were to have a sit down, they would have huge disagreement in nonviolence protest. Martin Luther king jr, heavily favored nonviolence at all his protest even at the expense of violence emerging on himself and the protesters present. Coates would agree to a certain extent until police and the state would allow violence to occur to its citizens who are protesting. Coates says in his article that “When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con.” Coates is trying to act on the fact that nonviolence sometimes does not work. Martin Luther jr would agree that nonviolence would present extreme adversity when tested as did his civil rights movement. At the end of the day nonviolence has led to change and the advancement of protesting without any violence present.
ReplyDeleteTa-Nehisi Coates and Martin Luther King Jr. would both definitely agree that the black community was/is being treated unjustly. I think there is a big difference in their writing though, while reading I felt as if Coates is very angry, and in "Letter from Birmingham Jail" you can see King is upset, but you never feel like he writes angrily. (even though he's obviously bothered by what was going on)
ReplyDeleteKing was always known for being peaceful, one of the many reasons he is such a respected man. I thing King would disagree with how Coates wrote the essay, since it seems so angry. They both talk about the police in their writings, King notes that yes, they have done many wrong things, but they're not all bad. Coates makes it seem like all cops are bad people, and thats not true. If Coates and King were sat down together I think they would agree that a change needs to be done, but I think they would disagree on how to bring the changes. Coates would probably want more riots like the ones in Baltimore and King would want peaceful protests, such as the sit ins.
If the authors of the two readings, “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. and “Nonviolence as a Compliance” by Ta-Nehisi Coates sat down for a debate I believe they would agree and disagree about certain things. They both talk about the unjust actions that are and have been put upon African Americans and that they need to be treated with more respect, so that is definitely what they would agree on. Although, in Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter, he is using a calmer approach by saying that violence is not the answer, but it is his duty to fight against the unjust events that are occurring. By getting people to understand where he is coming from without violence. As for Coates article, I feel that there is a lot of talk about the violence that is going on and a more intense and angry tone. So I believe that he would want a more action approach, but not violent necessarily. But he believes that questions will not get answered without “violence” or some sort of protest. I of course would not condone any violence so I would agree with Martin Luther King Jr. more. Things don’t always have to involve violence to get things done.
ReplyDeleteBoth authors would agree on the fact that the Black community was not treated well. But they would disagree on the non-violence subject. Whereas King believes heavily in non-violence, Coates believes in its effectiveness to a certain extent. He believes that in certain situations non-violence doesn't work, and that you can't force it to work. There are times where you have to protect your people. They also have different views on police. Coates thinks that they are an evil force, whereas King sees that they do some good, even if they do some bad as well.
ReplyDeleteIf I was in the conversation, I would agree with both of the to certain extents. I would agree with nonviolence being effective, but I would also agree that it sometimes should be abandoned. There are situations that will not get better if you allow yourself or your people to get abused. I would agree with Dr. King in the fact that police aren't completely evil, but there are some cops or forces that do not serve with good intent. Coates is only seeing the bad that is done to his people, he's allowing it to overshadow the good that can be done.
If the two authors Ta-Nehisi and King sat down to have a debate today I would say that they would disagree on violence mainly because King did not want violence to be the answer as he had a “turn the cheek” mentality. While on the other hand Ta-Nehisi said that rioting could possibly be the answer because the disrespect given to the black community after all this time is disgusting. The debate on violence and nonviolence being the answer has been going for as long as civil rights, King being for nonviolence believes that everyone deserves respect or at least that is my opinion on his viewpoint while for Ta-Nehisi he believes violence could be the answer in some instances because so far nonviolence has not helped us out and it seems like we are regressing as a country rather than progressing. If I was able to sit down at their debate I would tell them that just about everything in this country that contains law enforcement is filled with stereotypical thoughts which is shameful in itself because if a colored person were to be accused of a crime they would be treated with disrespect, while if it were a white person white privilege would kick in unless that person was accused of committing a violent felony.
ReplyDeleteCoats and King have one beautiful thing in common and that is their passion for equality. To promote the idea of equality and to inform the public of the injustices that occur every day. King would understand Coats and exactly where he comes from; however, I do not think he would promote a type of violent behavior. Peace was the way in which King wish to achieve justice. I don't necessarily think Coats wants to be outrageously violent, but I do believe he is doing as anyone would and questioning the authority. Questioning why those who have been violent get to beg for peace. He is over the ideals of a double standard and the hypocrisy of the Government. I personally don't blame him. If I were to inter a conversation with the two I would probably side with King. I believe in peaceful protest, but I would be just as frustrated as Coats. I would be so angry and I would want to condone the actions of those around me because they have my back too. It's hard to say what is right and what is wrong, but Coats and King bring two different ideas to the table for people to choose from.
ReplyDelete