preview

The Brief Staircase By Rebecca Makka Analysis

Decent Essays

Freedom, the concept of not being held back from someone else’s needs, a world of not being held back by an outsider telling you that what you do is not allowed. The general idea of being free can be summarized within 3 points. Being able to say what you want without fear that someone will come after you for your words. Being able to live your life as abnormal as it is as long as it doesn’t harm someone else’s life. Being able to go out and be comfortable in your own skin no matter the abnormalities or differences between physical appearance. This is a world that where those have to be fought for, and though it would be very appealing to live in a world where those three fundamentals are free and given to everyone by birth. But humans are not …show more content…

The freedom to say what you want without fear that it counters someone’s belief and cause them to react in a violent way is a core value of the definition of freedom on this paper. The first amendment values this in the United States yes, but the people do not in this world, since humans have a tendency to want to only hear what they believe is correct keeping them in a safe bubble of same-think. Such as in the passage named “The Briefcase” by Rebecca Makka, where a man who was only a chef was taken through violence by having a place where people could criticize the government and talk about revolutionary ideas. In this story, it is explained how seriously people can take other’s words. Whether the words offend them, or if the words are meant to throw them off their power because they are being corrupt and living a lifestyle that only benefits them and not the people that the rulers were set to rule. Some may say “But if someone says something that is unjust, towards something else, wouldn’t that violate this?” No it would not, most words humans speak are opinion, and all bad opinions stem from some truth, the best way to break a harasser’s slander is to prove them wrong, is it …show more content…

If a leader were to say that his country was doing well if all the people were suffering and he was living a healthy and care free lifestyle would be a violation on the definition on freedom itself. With freedom, the lifestyles of others should not violently interact with another’s lifestyle. It doesn’t matter the abnormality of the lifestyle. Just because it is abnormal, something the masses do not do does not mean the lifestyle is one that should not be permitted. Now others may say that living a so called ‘good’ lifestyle is the best way and all other styles should be abolished and banned yet some styles are not harmful to others, said lifestyle just doesn’t fit into agreement with the lifestyle of the masses. Such as the case within the time period of the “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” With the African Americans in America at the time, their lifestyle was harshly controlled by the largely dominant race at the time, whites. There was barely if not any freedom within their people, they could not do what they wished without being discriminated against or even killed by people who did not like their skin color, or their voice, or any physical attribute they had. Before moving on, some might also say that “Oh, but some lifestyles look very unpleasing towards the eye, or it might cause some discomfort within mine.” The best answer is to just deal with it, unless the act is hurting

Get Access