| | |
|
JohnBrownDiscussion 9 - 01 Mar 2012 - Main.JohnBarker
|
| | In class today, I was reminded of Dr. King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" (available here for those who have not read it before: http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html), which I read at the beginning of last semester in conjunction with Walker v. City of Birmingham for the first assignment for Civil Procedure. In Walker, the Supreme Court upheld contempt charges against protesters who disregarded an injunction preventing them from gathering to march or conduct civil rights demonstrations without a permit. The protesters, believing that the injunction was unconstitutional, disregarded it so that they could hold long-planned demonstrations on Good Friday. The court's holding evinces the concern for stability and order that some were alluding to in class today. It suggested that individuals who seek to challenge a law they believe to be unjust must do through the procedure of the courts; challenging an unjust law by disobeying it is not socially acceptable.
King's letter takes a pointedly different view. I would encourage everyone to read it who has not already done so because I would do a disservice in trying to paraphrase, but the main premise is that there is a difference between unjust laws (any law that degrades human personality, any law that the numerical majority compels the minority to follow but does not follow itself, a law out of harmony with moral, natural, or eternal law, any law that is inflicted on a group denied political representation) and just laws (any law that uplifts human personality, that the majority follows, that is in harmony with moral, natural or eternal law). One has a "moral responsibility," King says, to disobey unjust laws. He further states that "one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty...an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law." | | | It's also worth comparing Brown's ideology to that of Malcolm X. In response to what Kirill wrote, while King's access to technology was a reason why his nonviolent strategy was successful, there were still many figures within the black community who rejected his approach. Unlike MLK, Malcolm X (at least for the majority of his career) advocated a more aggressive and confrontational strategy to fight against racial discrimination. While he did not explicitly advocate violence against his adversaries, he emphasized the need for African-Americans to arm themselves and be prepared to fight back in self-defense. Similarly to Brown, he had an unfaltering belief in his cause and was willing to achieve his goals even though his tactics were not embraced by the majority of Americans. Both him and Brown viewed violence as an unfortunate, but at times necessary means to accomplish their objective. The importance of Brown today is for us to maintain a set of core values and beliefs that we would feel strongly enough to defend even if we are faced with strong opposition and public backlash. Lawyers are often criticized in society for altering their morals and perspectives to fit the needs of their clients. Brown's actions should encourage us to stand on our own in situations in which it is unpopular and difficult to do so.
-- ManuelLorenzo - 29 Feb 2012 | |
>
> | Like Daniel, I have a little bit of trouble figuring out how to think about John Brown's violence and means to his ends. Ultimately, there are some things (like slavery) that it's easy for us to call extremely morally wrong. And so looking at Brown's actions as struggle for a moral and objectively right cause, where there was no effective internal political process to make changes in a nonviolent way, I agree with Thoreau's speech and find Brown to be inspiring and valiant. However, there are things that are less objectively moral, and means that are going to be less objectively reasonable. Can we really let one man be the judge and jury of what morality in our society is? As brave and inspiring as we can call Brown's actions now, I still have a hard time saying that we shouldn't still punish someone in his position. He can be judged through the court of public opinion and history, and through that medium his message can be heard and the social change he sought can be effected. It seems to me any "radical" operating outside the confines of the system to such an extreme extent (involving killing) still needs to be dealt with through the system and that the positive effects of their actions occur after/separate from these system-specific consequences. I admire Mr. Brown a great deal and support his actions completely. But I can't justify giving so much power to one man, and so in such circumstances I don't think punishment should be withheld just because the actor is in the right. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |