Monday, April 18, 2016
Coates & King
If King and Coates sat down for a debate regarding the role of anger, extremism, and violence in social justice movements, I believe they would have very different opinions. Coates’s article discusses the death of Freddie Gray. A black man who’s spine was severely severed due to police brutality. He mysteriously died a week later. Coates expresses how unfair it is for those who abuse authority to demand nonviolence when they themselves have disobeyed the laws that they so much enforce. Coates and King obviously disagree about the appropriate way to protest. Coates argues, “When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself” (Coates). In the debate I believe Coates would argue that violence is necessary when there is an abuse of power. I think he believes that justice can’t be served with nonviolent protests. Coates would most likely argue that anger is the best way to achieve social justice. On the other hand, King is a strong advocate for nonviolent protests. King explains, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored” (King). I think the two would agree that freedom, or justice, is never easily given. King states, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (King). Coates knows that no progress will be made without standing up for ones rights. I think although they would disagree on the means of protest or achieving justice, they would agree on the attitude involved which is that it must be demanded. I also believe they would agree on King’s definition of just and unjust laws. Coates and King both feel betrayed by the police violating basic human rights. If I joined the conversation I would share my opinion on the subject. I believe King’s “Letter from Birmingham jail” to be beautifully written with the exact approach that should be taken in regard to social injustice. I do not believe that violence should be stopped with more violence.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree with you and couldn’t have said it any better. If these two authors sat down and talked about the great issue of excess force and injustice in the police force they would most definitely be on the same page. However, like you mentioned maybe not so much on the non-violence riots/sit ins. Coates seems to be pretty angry and upset in his essay and argues that at this point in time they give the people no other choice but to fight back while on the other hand King finds hope in the opposite, in non-violence sit ins. I understand where police officers come from in the sense that they are few and the people are many; and when you have angry people come close up, mentally they have prepared themselves for the worst possible scenario because in most other cases where sit ins have turned into riots there has been a lot of violence. When situations like these happen it is understandable that a police officer can do nothing more and be self-defensive as the people look at them as nothing more than the enemy when they are there just as a median to keep everyone safe from harm, but when a police officer step out of their professional conduct and become overly aggressive due to stress of hatred coming their way that is where the line gets crossed. In those instances I do believe and agree just as much as these two authors that the justice is wrong and need to do a better job of serving it people, they need to do a better job of filtering and hiring the best and most professional along with well trained policemen and women to serve its people. Instead of trying to hire men or women that are physically equipped to deal with violence they need to be looking at an equal balance of both professionalism and physically equipped personnel as those are the people that can truly use common sense and serve their city, state and country out of a truly good will.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if our authors, Coates and King, sat down to debate their opinions and roles of anger, extremism, and violence in social justice movements , they would disagree and agree. King writes a letter while he sits in Birmingham jail about all the criticisms he hasn't responded to because he seldom pauses to answer too any of them. He discusses the way a nonviolent campaign works in four steps through, collection of facts, negotiation, self purification, and direct action. And how in Birmingham they have gone through all of them. He even says to himself, ”maybe i’m too optimistic”. While Coates writes in response to the death of Freddie Gray and how it’s a mystery how he did in police custody. He discusses how he believes the police departments pay to cover up the brutal acts they commit. He says that he turned on the tv to hear politicians asking the people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and nonviolent. He is upset about this because at this rally they took Freddy Gray because they found a switchblade on him and a week later non one knew what happened to him. As the reader can tell, The two authors would agree on peaceful protesting but would disagree when police get involved. Coates would argue that violence is vital when there is an abuse of power, while King would preach about staying peaceful. If i were to sit down with them, I would tell them to remain peaceful and to keep protesting for equality.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. Although Coates would argue otherwise, I believe violence should not be fought with more violence. It's fighting fire with fire, absolutely pointless. People can't get their points across by rioting, it just sends the message that whoever is rioting is unstable. I can see why Coates disagrees because his approach gives the police a taste of their own medicine. It shows the affect of what police brutality has on its victims. However, like Dr. King said, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored”. It doesn't send the message the protesters are trying to get across as effectively as peaceful protesting. If I were able to speak to Coates, I would definitely argue against violent protesting, and show him that through peaceful protesting, Dr. King effectively got his message across. Yes, there is no such thing as equality today in America, but this country is a lot more equal than it once was.
ReplyDeleteIf the authors, Coates and King sat down, there would probably be a strong debate on this issue of violence or non-violence approaches. King believes that there should be a non-violence approach taken before you use violence. King is all about keeping the peace and you will be heard and that there should be non-violence protests instead of riots. On the other hand, Coates believes that we should not treat the law enforcement with a non-violence approach because it is simply not fair. The law enforcement does not deserve to be treated in a non-violent manner because they treat people very violently. Coates believes that the city pays for things like police brutality to be covered up when instead, they could use that money to build better parks. Despite their disagreement on violence, I think that these two authors would agree that there definitely needs to be a change in the system and that police brutality needs to be stopped. I think that they would also agree that protests and standing up for what they believe needs to be done is necessary for change. If I sat down with them, I would probably be more interested in King because I also feel that there should be a non-violent approach. Like Halley said, violence should not be stopped with more violence. I think that definitely no one will listen to what you have to say if you use violence.
ReplyDelete