Violence And The Power Of Words

“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.

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

In the real world people don't see words as a weapon. Instead we see it as something that is crucial for us to function in society. People don't look at the big picture and see how words really are something that can be dangerous. Zusak writes, “Blood leaked from her nose and licked at her lips. Her eyes had blackened. Cuts had opened up and a series of wounds were rising to the surface of her skin. All from words. Liesel's words” (Zusak, 253). Words are everything to humans. It doesn't matter where you are in the world, words allow you to break down that barrier that's holding you back from connecting to others. Words change lives both positively and negatively. liesel expresses, "I have hated words and i have loved them, and i hope i have made them right” (Zusak, 528). When Liesel wrote this she understood how powerful words were. She knew that a single word can impact many many people. Most people don't think about what they are going to say before they say it. it comes naturally they say what they think. picture this, what if we were able to use words to our advantage like liesel? We can we just have to think. Words are everything, they are most certainly not things that wander out of people’s mouths and have no

His main point of the essay is that violence will get you nowhere, many resort to violence or aggression believing that's the only way to get their points across, but this will just make things worst

In the novel “Black Boy”, Richard Wright describes a boy who is tired of getting robbed and attacked by a pack of boys on his way to the grocery store. It says, “I hit again and again, dropping the money and the grocery list. The boys scattered yelling, nursing their heads staring at me in utter disbelief.” (Wright 4). Richard hits the gang of boys with a stick to make them leave. This shows that some violence is needed to solve a problem because if Richard tried to talk to the boys, he would get his money taken, so by hitting them, he got rid of his problem, because they will now leave him alone. Furthermore, people will need violence to defend themselves and others from getting hurt. Khaled Hosseini writes in the Kite Runner, “He really meant to hurt me. Assef raised his fist and came for me. There was a flurry of rapid movement behind me. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw Hassan bend down and stand up quickly (…) I turned and came face to face with Hassan’s slingshot. Hassan had pulled the wide elastic band all the way back. (..) Hassan held the slingshot pointed directly at Assef’s face.” (Hosseini 2). The main character Amir was about to get beat up, but his friend used a slingshot to make Assef, the bully leave. It shows that using violence to fight violence works, because the bully was going to hurt Amir with brass knuckles, but when Hassan

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

“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it”, he believed that violence and force was the most effective way of getting what they wanted. As history has shown us though the nonviolent protests, lead by Martin Luther King was more effective and made an impact on the outcome of the civil rights movement. He was inspired by some of the greatest nonviolent advocates of history, for instance Mahatma Gandhi.

Martin Luther King was always against violent protest. “In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred” (Martin Luther King’s Speech). King never wanted the revolt and protest of African Americans to get nasty. He wanted it to stay clean, and to be focused on the main goal. The goal was for blacks and whites to have equality and to coexist in our communities. This was how Martin Luther King’s philosophy was different to Malcolm X.

Martin Luther King, Jr. had separate opinions on how to deal with violence. Malcolm Little believed that if someone hits or hurts you, you should hit them back. He thought that when someone reacts violently, people should be violent back. Malcolm protested nonviolently, but when people would hurt them he thought blacks should show no mercy. Malcolm said, “Revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way” (Myers 107). Malcolm didn’t care what would happen to the whites. He just wanted blacks to be better than them. When Martin Luther King, Jr. protested he would do it in a non-violent way. Martin did not believe that if someone hits another person, that person should hit back. He wanted all of his fighting and protesting to be non-violent. Martin believed that no matter what whites did, people should never fight back. He wanted to love whites like they are brothers. Both of these men also had separate opinions on what should happen when blacks and whites are

Dr. King Jr. refused the idea that violence could get you anywhere. He was once quoted saying “Violence begets violence” (Martin Luther King Jr). This means is you are willing to bring violence to the table you better expect it will be coming right back. He advocated highly for equal rights in a non-violent manner

believed in was non violent approaches. He wanted situations to be carried out in a different format, rather than using violence. Martin Luther King Jr. saw that many strong leaders used violence in order to make people listen or to solve problems. He thought that maybe if he didn’t use violence the crowds of people would listen to him. He saw that many people didn’t listen to fore say, Adolf Hitler. Hitler used violence as his answer to everything and it made no body want to listen to him, unless they were forced to. Martin Luther King Jr. thought that using non violent approaches would make it a more courageous act, rather than a cowardly act. He also thought that it would promote the understanding of one’s opinion or act without the use of physical means. By not using physical means, it could accomplish much more. Martin Luther King Jr. made many people understand him more and even listen to him

Human civilization has come a long way from the Stone Age. Yet man continues to be violent in his conduct. In fact, violence has increased today. A man cannot walk on the street without looking over his shoulder because of fear of assault. Top leaders of the nation, as well as retired military generals, are assassinated in broad daylight. The roads are spilled with human blood. Firearms, bombs, swords, are frequently flourished and used.

. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me” is a saying that has been around many elementary schools, maybe some middle schools. That saying is 100% percent totally not true. As much as we pretend that words do not hurt us, well they actually do and sometimes cause a lot of damage to another person, maybe even permanent damage. Words can hurt you more than being physically hurt. If you say the right thing, you can make that person end up committing suicide or doing something else crazy like attempting to kill you or random people who didn’t deserve it. When people are bullied, it is mainly by words, when a fight breaks out at school, it was probably from words. The school shootings that have been happening lately,

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” John F Kennedy states. Even though the treaties, and peaceful protesting (pen) has been meaning to give peace, but really it creates for violence that’s why it’s makes it inheritable (sword). JFK says. The pen can deceive, control, and is the start and stops to any sort of violence. The sword is like the effects of the pen’s actions.

In the article “Why The World Is More Peaceful”, the author, Steven Pinker (2012), argues that, over hundreds of years, violence has declined around the world. He claims that government, commerce, and literacy have encouraged people to restrain their violent impulses, empathize with others, and use reason to solve problems. This article was first published in the journal Current History. It is a continuation of an argument Pinker made in his book The Better Angels Of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined (2011). The article is directed toward a general but educated audience. Although Pinker’s article is relevant and logical, many of the author’s arguments are not supported with adequate