Morality In Ken Chowder's Discussion Of Political Radicals

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

Timothy McVeigh committed the most deadly act of domestic terrorism in United States history. His actions resulted in both outrage and fascination, and lead to significant inquiry into why he did what he did. Many at the time, already scared by the rising trends of Jihadist terrorism felt that McVeigh’s actions were in large part something new, something atypical to the American experience. However, such was not the case. Terrorism has been prevalent throughout American history and tied to various trends and movements, including abolitionism. Ultimately John Brown and Timothy McVeigh have striking similarities, such as the presence of their action outside of the more established and organized groups of their respective movements and the media

One of the worlds best known advocates of non-violent social change strategies was Martin Luther King Jr. He synthesized ideals drawn from many different cultural traditions. The image of a social activist and leader was the result of extensive formal education, strong personal values and licit ethics. This excellence in leadership can be traced to his character, which is shaped by his moral values and

In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong.

The reason why I say he 's a hero not a terrorist is because if you define a terrorist and line it up with what John Brown believes in and what he wanted to accomplish then you would think he 's a hero also. See people got to remember the Harpers Ferry revolt wasn 't the only slave revolt John Brown was apart of, he was also apart of other attacks in different places. For example in his "Conversation: Patriot or Terrorist" it says " During what became known as the Pottawatomie Massacre and the Battle of Osawatomie, Brown assumed the role of abolitionist leader and led violent attacks against proponents of slavery." See that he wasn 't just apart of one revolt and one attack like Osama Bin Laden was "no" he was part of a couple attacks and battles. His mission was to free slaves and make the economy and country better by allowing everyone to be treated equal and have equal rights. Like what we have sort of

Domestic terrorism has played a major part in shaping the societies of the United States. The ideologies of individuals can become radicalized. This can lead to a movement. This movement involves the infliction of fear upon the communities, in attempt to make it a better world. It is critical to examine the events created by one man’s extreme ideologies in effort to better understand.

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

John Brown should be considered a martyr for his courageous attempt to free the slaves and abolish slavery at any cost necessary. Brown was a determined man that felt it was God’s will to put an end to the treacherous reign of slavery. He did not want to use violence. However, John Brown knew he needed to take action and end slavery once and for all. It gives me the pleasure to address any doubt to the American Morality Society that John Brown was a martyr and a vigilante; rather than a terrorist. His actions were bold, courageous, and revolutionary at a time when it was difficult to stand for the abolishment of slavery. My goal is to prove that John Brown’s brutal actions were necessary to gain the attention of a rising crisis in the nation. John Brown was a martyr because he knew he was doing God’s work for a

In John Brown’s case, he had killed 5 slaveowners, and although he killed them mercilessly, he still only killed people who would have been defined as guilty in his cause. John Brown’s attacks on slaveholders can be justified as an act of freedom fighting through the definition proposed by Walter Laqueur. “terrorism constitutes the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective when innocent people are targeted”. Through this definition, it is evident that John Brown did not fit the qualities of a terrorist. Laqueur defined a terrorist as someone who targets innocent people to gain a political stand.

Terrorism is a violent act by a person or group of people such as mass destruction, murder, or kidnapping directed towards the government or civilians in an attempt to intimidate or harm them. John Brown, an American Abolitionist, is an arguable subject on deciding whether he is a freedom fighter or a terrorist. The events involving John Brown at Pottawatomie Creek and Harpers Ferry were unjustified and would define him as a terrorist.

When one looks back on the frenetic 1960s, conservative sentiments aren’t usually the first thing to come to mind. Yet, while the New Left and the radical counterculture were reshaping cultural ideals, it was the New Right who emerged from the 1960s as a viable political force. The New Left can be categorized as a broad, largely youthful, movement with the goal to challenge various social norms and to institute a “participatory democracy”. Moreover, the New Left was “New” in a sense that they differed from the labor-centered liberal elites at the time; insisting on creating larger, more radical changes to society. On the other hand, the New Right was a largely grassroots movement aimed to restore traditionalist values from the “Eastern Establishment.” The New Right was “New” in a sense that it revitalized conservative hope at a time when those hopes looked mighty bleak. When analyzing the wildly different outcomes of the two movements, it becomes apparent that the New Right’s political-oriented manner to achieve their goals proved to be the decisive factor in maintaining long-term stability; something the confrontational New Left did not have the resources to achieve from the outset.

    When I decided to write this essay, I knew without hesitation that I would write about Washington's response to the terrorist attacks that struck New York and Washington. I did not realize how difficult such an undertaking would be, as I find myself in a somewhat an uncomfortable position. Forcing myself to confront the issues at hand means deciding which freedoms are acceptable casualties in this war and for whom.  To allow Attorney General Ashcroft to lead us into a new era of American justice that resembles McCarthyism or the internment of Japanese-Americans a half-century ago would be regrettable.

In my opinion, John Brown was a terrorist. In 1856, three years before his celebrated raid on Harper Ferry, John Brown, with four of his sons and three others, dragged five unarmed men and boys from their homes along Kamas’s Pottawatomie creek and killed them. Two years later, Brown led a raid into Missouri, where he and his followers killed a planter and freed eleven slaves. They also left with wagons, mules, harnesses, and horses. During his raid on Harpers Ferry, seventeen people died. Ironically,

In both literature and the waking world, the idea of a revolutionary figure has always been one of wonder and intrigue. It is no coincidence that authors continuously weave revolutionary characters into their stories to both entice readers and give them a sense of realism. The revolutionary archetype duplicated throughout fiction is seen as a morally good character openly opposing the current state of affairs despite the action being against the known laws, this character type is also often forced to sacrifice something for their cause. Diana Farley from The Red Queen Series by Victoria Aveyard, Manon Blackbeak from the Throne of Glass Series by Sarah J. Maas, and Linh Cinder from The Lunar Chronicles Series by Marissa Meyer are all clear examples

Radicalism is defined as “the beliefs or actions of people who advocate thorough or complete political or social reform.” Radicalism is most often a response to something that is seen as broken. In today's world, people are weary to admit the governments of the world are broken as it is a relatively good time. There have been few wars, the world's economy has been booming. However, radicalism can still be seen in parts of the world where people are still heavily oppressed and in places where governments do not function well, such as places in the Middle East and Africa. However, if radicalism is given an opportunity, it seizes it. This was the case in early 20th century Europe. For centuries the people of Europe were taken advantage of with the feudal system, the Industrial Revolution, and constant wars. As a result of these oppressive situations, the people of Europe became disenfranchised and many immigrated to the United States to relieve themselves of the old rigid systems of Europe. However, all people have a breaking point. The poor harvests of 1788 lead to an already angry French population to revolt against the monarchy. Men such as Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Giovanni Gentile all sought ways to fix the problems of society in the late 19th century. Engels is quoted as saying: