"To those who complained about the violence of revolutions, supporters pointed out the violence that maintained the status quo and the unwillingness of privileged classes to accommodate changes that threatened those privileges. It was persistent injustice that made revolution necessary and perhaps inevitable" (Strayer, p.520).
The last part feels like deja vu-like something I encountered recently, maybe on a test, or final exam. Nevertheless, to the issue of the violence brought on by revolution, Strayer makes a good point of turning our attention towards the violence maintained by the status quo. But not only violence, but injustice, oppression, exploitation-and everything else protected for by the standing order.
This all goes back to a recent post of mine, where I wrote about how often revolutions are put into action by an outside party-pointing out the North's role in initiating the call for abolition of slavery, so incessant in the South. Granted, there's always this negative connotation associated with revolution, but I argue that we shouldn't be surprised. Nor should we be quick to judge. For it's my opinion that if people are unhappy with something, it's their right to oppose it-the means in which they do so depends on the severity to which they feel they've been robbed of their dignity. Robespierre slaughtered some thousand "enemies of the revolution." I applaud him for it.
Going back to Martin Luther King Jr and the Civil Rights Movement, how many people do you think thought he was outright crazy for calling for equal rights for a black people. Think about how absurd that would have seemed if you were a white person living in the 1950's and 60's. Or a man living during the early part of the 21st century, when women were calling for equal liberties and the right to vote. Downright outlandish right? And now we have gays asking for the same. How dare they!?
What I mean to comment on in all of this is people's subjective experience. We're all making history, and we're all having history done to us, if that makes any sense. Who are we to devalue the way another person sees things, no matter how extreme or how far from the norm they [appear to] fall. Who are we to judge? History has shown us, and it is quite evident, that people in power don't like giving up that power. It's been repeated in the lab. Look no further than the Stanford Prison Study of 1971. In any case, when African Americans demand reparations, which they have been denied in the past, it's often viewed as outlandish. But why? Because it goes against...what? The standing order-the way things are. Revolutions do just that-challenge the so-called natural order. I urge us all to consider what the "natural order" is. Just to finish that thought, what came of 40 acres and a mule? The Reconstruction? When we talk about redistribution of resources in this country and beyond, we might want to start there.
Strayer goes on to comment: "to their victims, critics, and opponents, revolutions appeared quite different. Conservatives generally viewed human societies, not as machines whose parts could be easily arranged, but as organisms that evolved slowly. Efforts at radical and sudden change only invited disaster, as the unrestrained violence of the French Revolution at its height demonstrated."
So in light of this, should one who is unhappy with the way things are address their grievances and allow 200 years for things to change? After all, that's reasonable given our timeline. Or is it? I think certain situations necessitate so-termed "disaster." The responsibiliy, in my opinion is for us to see it (the injustice), and counter it before it reaches a boiling point.
Going back to Professor Fitzgerald's comment last night about the uncertain, but sometimes obvious future, I think too may times we live life reactively, and shield ourselves from life's events under the cloak of ignorace we call the future. While I may have posted this quote, by Shakespeare, before, I neverthless find it a great point to end on. While Strayer also makes this contention, Shakespeare captures it quite eloquently: "There is a chronicle for every man’s life, which shows what happened to him in times now past. If you study that chronicle, you can prophecy what lies ahead with some accuracy. The seeds of things to come are buried in the things that have already happened. These seeds grow, and become the children of time."
No comments:
Post a Comment