Freedom and Authoritarianism Freedom and equality are intertwined with one another. Freedom is defined as the custom of being free, political independence, and the possession of civil rights. When reflecting upon the history of the twentieth century many people all over the world were not afforded the luxury of being born with freedom or born with equal rights. In most cases, those people were often oppressed or subjugated by various forms of systematic state sponsored authoritarianism and terror.
In order to receive the freedom necessary to survive and the equality required to live a happy and successful life the oppressed people had to take action. Often times the action took on various forms such as, revolts or nonviolent campaigns. Because the governments reliance on authoritarianism and terror to control their citizens, often times revolts and / or nonviolent campaigns were the consequence. Therefore, any advances towards gaining freedom and equality cannot happen without some form of systematic state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror taking place first. It is no coincidence because the two phenomena are linked.
As mentioned before, any gains toward freedom and equality coexist with authoritarianism and terror maintained by the government. Emma Goldman, an anarchist, speaks of freedom, in “Victims of Morality”, but believes that religion is the main factor hindering the growth of that freedom. Goldman uses the term “morality” when referencing religion. Goldman believes that “morality” is “paralyzing to the minds and hearts of the people.” She also believes that morality forces people to become conformists during the process of reasoning and the completion of daily tasks, by ignoring their true inner thoughts and feelings. Therefore, Goldman believes that morality restricts people’s happiness and freedom by “shutting out love, light, and joy from the lives of innumerable victims.” As a result, Goldman does not believe that morality will help eradicate the ills of society. Goldman’s views involving religion and freedom differ from those of Dr.
The Essay on Thevalue Of Freedom People Fighters Government
Peter Colley Humanities 3340-03 Portfolio # 2 Summary The values demonstrated in the documents are freedom and bravery. The martyrs believed in the right to worship freely as they saw fit and were willing to die for that freedom. They demonstrated bravery in their willingness to die such a cruel death for the cause of Christ. The contemporary event that parallels that of the martyrs is the ...
Martin Luther King Jr.’s views involving that same topic. In Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, his belief was that any gains toward freedom and equality could not happen without the use of God’s will and the influence of Christian values. Dr. King Jr. believed that Christianity and his faith in God would help eradicate the many injustices in society.
A guiding force in Dr. King Jr.’s nonviolent protest were the “principles dear to the Christian faith”, in which, the need to fight injustices against people was on of them. He also believed that the rights denied to the oppressed were “God-given rights” and necessary to live a prosperous life. Dr.
King’s faith in the church and religion to help maintain his crusade against injustices was tested but the involvement of the “white church and its leadership.” He yearned for the acknowledgement from the white religious leaders of the community to “see the justice” of the nonviolent campaign and “serve as the channel” to enable the “passionate yearnings of the oppressed race” to reach the “power structure.” Because the majority of the white ministers stood by idly watching the fight for justice, Dr. King felt that they were being controlled by their “fear of being nonconformists” and that the white church had a “weak” and “ineffectual voice; which allowed the “power structure” to be “consoled” by the church’s silence. Dr. King’s nonviolent approach to achieving freedom and equality is on the opposite end of the spectrum when compared to the views of Franz Fanon, Malcolm X, and V. I. Lenin.
The Term Paper on Martin Luther King Malcolm Black Blacks
MLK and Malcolm X: Different Tactics Same Results Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X grew up in different environments. King was raised in a comfortable middle-class family where education was firmly stressed. Malcolm X, on the other hand came from an underprivileged home, where education was not such a big deal. Malcolm X was a self taught man, who received little schooling and rose to ...
All three authors; Fanon, Malcolm X, and Lenin condoned the use of violence. Their views on violence, although not the same, are very similar. Franz Fanon, in his “The Wretched of the Earth”, believes that freedom cannot be obtained without the use of violence. He believed that the United States, following in the footsteps if Europe, “became a monster” and “has justified her crimes and legitimized slavery.” Fanon believes that more would be accomplished if the U. S. did not attempt to emulate the ways of Europe.
He wants every person to work collectively as a whole, “combine our muscles and our brains in a new direction” in order to receive freedom. In Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet” he speaks about the “political oppression… economic exploitation… and social degradation” that many blacks have experienced “at the hands of the white man.” He believes that in order to obtain freedom and equality a choice must be made, either “ballot or the bullet.” Malcolm X advocates the use of violence is necessary but first provides alternatives unlike Lenin and Fanon. Malcolm X realizes the power of voting and the necessity of the Blackman to become “politically mature” in order to end the political oppression. He says, “when white people are evenly divided…
it is left up to them [black people] to determine who’s going to sit in the White House.” In addition, Malcolm X believes that violence should only be used when encountering anything other than nonviolence. He says that people should work “nonviolently as long as the enemy is nonviolent, but violent when the enemy gets violent.” When using the term “ballot” Malcolm X means freedom and the black people have to fight until they overcome. V. I. Lenin, in his “What is to be done, State and Revolution”, also condoned the use of violence. Lenin believed that the revolution was inevitable.
The Essay on Civil Rights King Nonviolent Black
Martin Luther King Jr. and His Philosophy on Nonviolent Direct Action Any number of historic movements in the civil rights struggle have been used to identify Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - prime mover of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, keynote speaker at the march on Washington, youngest Nobel Peace Prize recipient. However, the single events are far less important than the fact that King, and his ...
Lenin’s widely known Economic Revolution theory consisted of four revolutionary stages. First, would be armed uprising of the proletariat under the right leadership. Second, is the seizure of political control by the workers to be led by the communist party. Third, the socialization of the means of production and the abolition of private property.
Fourth, the final stage is the withering away of the state. After the implementation of all four stages Lenin believed that there would be no room for oppression and the society will become classless and stateless and communism would emerge. Lenin believed that the oppressed class would eventually be free from subjugation but only through the use of violence or a revolution. As mentioned before Dr. King’s view on the use of violence to obtain freedom and equality contrasted with those of Malcolm X, Franz Fanon, and V. I.
Lenin. Dr. King believes that the “white power structure left the Negro community with no alternative” than to implement the nonviolent campaign. The nonviolent campaign consists of four steps: “collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action.” Dr. King’s idea of “direct action” is “laying our case before the conscience of the local and national community” through sit-ins, marches, and other forms of nonviolent campaigns, instead of violence. He believed that by doing those things negotiation would be inevitable because the injustices could no longer be ignored.
The use of violence as a solution to the problem causes more tension and focuses more on the violence than the underlying problem. Dr. King felt that those who engaged in the nonviolent campaign did not create tension they simply brought the “hidden tension” to the forefront so that it could be handled. Dr.
King felt that by implementing the nonviolent campaign it provided for a creative and positive outlet for those with “repressed emotions” so that the “hidden tensions” were not released violently. Therefore, violence would be avoided due to the nonviolent alternative and still provide solutions to the problems of the injustices experienced by so many. In conclusion, it is safe to say that strides toward freedom and equality in conjunction with the most systematic state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror in human history are interrelated. They are necessary for human society because one cannot be achieved without the other. One has learned through history that oppressed people will not remain oppressed forever. As Dr.
The Essay on Martin Luther King 15
Martin Luther king Jr was born in January 15th, 1929 in Atlanta, Georgia. His parents were martin Luther King Sr and Alberta Williams King. His father was initially called Michael King, but after they traveled to Germany, he changed his name to Martin Luther after a German protestant leader Martin Luther. He got married to Coretta Scott in June 1953 in his hometown Alabama. They got four children. ...
King stated, “The yearning for freedom eventually manifests itself.” That explains why it is necessary to have dealt with state-sponsored authoritarianism and terror first in order to achieve freedom and equality. One has learned through the readings of authors such as, Franz Fanon, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. , and V.
I. Lenin that freedom and equality are never voluntarily or willingly given up by the oppressor; it must be commanded by the oppressed.
