Throughout the history of mankind, groups of individuals have sought to dominate and exploit other groups in order to satisfy their own selfish desires. The entitlement to oppress usually stems for the notion that the oppressor is superior to the oppressed, and as such the oppressive and dehumanizing actions taken are legitimate. Often the philosophy of separation is based on a difference in race or class. In an effort to reclaim a sense of dignity and pride, and to enjoy some sort of human decency, the oppressed men are forced to resort to violence since the oppressors will not easily relinquish their powerful positions to those who seek freedom.
In the movie, ‘Battle of Algiers,’ Director and co-writer, Gillo Pontecorvo along with his co-writer, Franco Solinas examine the circumstances around the fight of the Algerian people, mainly through the National Liberation Front, against French colonialism in that nation. The writers position on the requisite need for terrorism when people fight for attaining freedom is glaring through the movie. I believe the men are stating in an uncompromising manner that terrorism in absolutely important and indispensable when a people is fighting to be liberated, as the oppressor understands no other language but the language of violence. From the beginning of the movie this was made clear when Ali La Pointe was told by Djafar that the violence was necessary to wake up the people and to clean up the society of all ill reputes, making the
The organizational structures of political and economic systems cause and sustain the sort of hierarchical relations that enable dramatic differences between and across sectors of societies. Within these hierarchies, the people at the top have privilege, wealth, and power, while those at the bottom of the hierarchy are dominated, oppressed, and exploited (Christie, 1997). People are harmed and killed as a result of structural violence but, unlike direct violence, it occurs more slowly. The harm or death of oppressed people may come about because “some people are deprived of food, shelter, healthcare, and other resources” (Christie, 1997). Because structural violence is embedded in a society’s way of being, over the long-term, groups of people may not be able to meet their basic needs to the degree that normal development and growth is impacted.
“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.
Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement
Violent rages began during the time of Jim Crow. The laws didn’t prevent one race from hurting another for reasons that are not acceptable. Lynching was the biggest form of violence, and mainly, blacks were the ones targeted. Lynching is the “public, murder carried out by mobs” (Pilgrim).
We are all unequal, therefore, build an unequal society, but not together, but superiors are responsible for building it; those belonging to the elite. In the approach taken by the author of Inequality & violence in the U.S. the capitalist system, makes us see the dark side of society, distinguishing the types of violence in the author 's opinion, they are worrying. Violence is closely linked to economic inequalities, ethnic or gender caused in most cases by a capitalist and militarist system exacerbated.
The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather
The history of humanity is written in blood. Even as violence as a whole is decreasing, acts of extreme violence continue to be perpetrated. To be clear, this essay is not about individuals violent and cold at their core. Such people are readily understood within the image of a lone, antisocial killer set apart from humanity by their very lacking of it. This essay is about violence conducted on a scale that can only be enabled by the participation of people who, under normal circumstances, would not act violent. The puzzle of how and why genocides, apartheid, state brutality, torture, and mob killings are perpetrated by ordinary people points to psychosocial mechanisms as their cause. Ordinarily non-violent people commit extreme violence
There are two sides to many things, one could argue that there are two sides to everything. Violence is not excluded from this argument. The two possible sides, or viewpoints, that are a result of violence can easily be seen as extremes of either side. One side could argue that violence is something that is necessary and the other argue that violence is only a tool for destruction. People who insist that violence is necessary in order to move forward view it as a way to sway the outcome to their benefit. For those who see violence as a cowardly tactic to control people, violence is a useless display of power and dominance. Yet violence has also been a way to defend oneself from people who pose a threat. This can lead people who have good
You must also take a look at the reasons for violent acts and what constitutes as such. In the “Meanings of Violence” by Dov Cohen and Joe Vandello, they examine the difference in the meaning of insults between the Southerners and Northerners in the United States. They talk about the importance in social status and the concept that anthropologist have called “Culture of Honor”. With the concept individual is based on their social position and how tough they are or what courage they carry. There is also the idea that if a persons social standing in reduced for whatever reason that there is belief that violence could be used to restore their position. The idea of culture-of-honor is that an incident may occur over something as “trivial” as being glanced at wrongly, or showing a threatening insult. The individuals may not see it as being a trivial circumstance but a threat to stand their ground and prove their
These examples of senseless violence only serve to widen the perceived gap between the “classes” of people.
Since its release in 1966, Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers has divided critical opinion. The film which depicts the Algerian struggle for independence against French colonial power, was awarded the Lion d'Or at the 1966 Venice Film Festival. Yet, despite this acclaim, the inherently controversial film was banned in France until 1971 due to its graphic portrayal of torture and repression during the Algerian war. The politically engaged director had however sought to make The Battle of Algiers within a 'dictatorship of truth,' neither supporting the Algerians nor reducing his film to propaganda. Influenced by the distinctive film style Neorealism, Pontecorvo rendered such an extraordinarily accurate reflection of social reality that
Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.
Terrorism in the twenty-first century has some similarities and differences from terrorism in the twentieth century. Terrorism is, in its broadest sense, the use or threatened use of violence in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological aim. Also useful to remember that because the two entities involved, the terrorists and the terrorized, are on the opposite end of the political, religious or ideological continuum, the same act is viewed by them differently. There is much sense in the phrase one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
One major link includes the fight between an oppressed group and their persecutors. Whether it’s the proletariat and the bourgeois in “The Communist Manifesto,” or the inequality of genders in “The Second Sex,” or the flight of the African Americans in the “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In all of these texts we are shown how easy it is for one group to abuse their power and create unfair rules and regulations only imposed on the more inferior members of society. Each group of oppressor thrives off of alienating, and subjugating their inferiors.
As far as terrorism and these terrorists extensive plots against other countries, a more in depth look should go towards the social aspect of these individuals. This is a big part in the cause of terrorism. Some of the findings, through brief research, may suggest oppression is related with terrorism. Another term that could be used and may be more appropriate in this case would be the term totalism. A totalistic individual is one who sees themselves as being oppressed, and basically will justify his or her actions through their own self-pity. This perhaps may be a cynical definition, but the average person who is picked on by a tall muscular bully may not always resent tall muscular people. On the other hand, another individual as opposed to a totalistic individual will not forgive nor forget this type of person. They may also be extremely prone to making horrific attacks against these types of people.