|
Law in Contemporary Society
|
|
Lawyering for Justice-- By OkontaP - 31 Mar 2016 American history lessons in Liberty, Missouri were never dry, always triumphant, with a clear winner and loser. Throughout my 13 years of schooling, American history was designed and presented in a distinct way: a clear American protagonist was cast against a foreign villain in a poetic series that mirrored the exploits of a justice seeking superhero. Events centered around a patriot, that stood up for American Exceptionalism, who was to always be praised and revered. Those that were at odds or attacked American ideals were labeled aggressors, to be chastised, and enemy to these great United States. Lessons were often not much more nuanced than that. America was good, and the white male figure that fought for American ideals was great; its soldier, its revolutionary, its patriot. Inspired to create my own path of patriotism, to fight for people that looked like me. From a young age I journeyed to be an attorney. In my adolescence, I didn't see the role as a lawyer in the fight for justice as limiting, but rather one, if not the only, legitimate means to ensure that the values in which these patriots had sung, were provided for all, not just their white male counterparts. Lawyering, I thought, was a tool to be a revolutionary advocate; emboldened by the law and legitimatized by education. In the two and a half days that the sophomore student body at Liberty High School studied the Civil War there was no surprise that this discussion lacked the same nuance as other lessons. There was no discussion at the inherently perverted nature of the American social, legal and political system that enslaved men, yet championed for equal liberties and freedoms for all. There was no discussion at the gaping hole in the law that discriminated against and overcriminalized particular populations simultaneously. There was no discussion on the profession that I revered, and how many of its most successful perpetuated a vilely unjust system. The conflict was flat-lined to an issue over a collision between states' rights and the authority of the federal government. The lessons sustained the idea of American patriotism. The legacies of men who held their fellow men in a brutal form of demoralizing captivity, or were complicit in a system that allowed other men to do so, were left untarnished. Forever regarded in the minds of eager adolescences as those that vigorously supported the American notion that "All men are created equal". American attorneys. American superheroes. American patriots.To Be A RevolutionaryThe core of early American idealism centers around a discourse of equality, life, and justice. The guarantee of inherent rights was in direct contradiction however, to these claims. At the time the Declaration of Independence was first circulated, even the great American patriot himself, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. English abolitionist Thomas Day ridiculed the hypocrisy stating, "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot signing resolutions of independence with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves". Fellow abolitionist sought to eliminate the duplicity the men that led the confederate allegiances of states and the government’s perpetuation of this injustice. The illegitimacy of the government in maintaining the system of slavery not only justified the actions of John Brown, but made his defiance inevitable. A historical account of John Brown usually refers to the man as a “radical abolitionist”, using violence to overthrow slavery. He led attacks during the Kansas-Nebraska Act slavery conflicts with his sons, and met those that participated in slavery with an equal level of violence. The end of his work was met in 1859 after Brown led a raid on the federal armory of Harpers Ferry in Virginia. The forces held the area under siege for two days, but were eventually defeated. Brown was tried and convicted for his leadership in the event and was executed after stating his just and God sanctioned motivations for leading the liberated forces. Often described as a “slave rebellion”, I think a more adequate description would be a “slave revolution”. A revolution that created a fundamental change in how the problematic and contradictory nature of slavery was viewed in American society. John Brown was a true American revolutionary, or more accurately a true American patriot, because he not only wanted, but demanded freedom for all. His action exemplified the American ideal: knowing his actions would meet an almost certain death, he battled for equality and self-determination by any means necessary.To Be A Terrorist“He’s a terrorist because he broke the law”. The intersection between law, freedom and terrorism is an interesting one. Adversaries of Brown may claim that he is in fact a terrorist because he used violent and illegal methods to attack a government endorsed system (slavery). However, the notion that eradicating an inherently unjust and viciously violent system peacefully is null. How else could Brown have demand freedom from the chains of oppression and subjugation, without taking a sword to those chains? There was no legal remedy for slaves or those that wished to end slavery within the confines of American law. The life and Supreme Court case of Dred Scott let the world know that a black man lacked standing as citizen, let alone a free man in federal courts. How could he have peacefully turned the wheels to one of the bloodiest battles on American sand (the Civil War) without creating a spark in which no one could look away from? If Brown must be labeled a terrorist for the revolutionary act of self-defense on Harpers Ferry, then every single American citizen that participated in the act of terror by subjecting their fellow man to the brutalities of American slavery, or that were complicit in this system by not actively fighting it, affirmatively repudiating it, or by sitting back and “paying taxes” should be labeled as an American terrorist as well. A terrorist to every American man and woman whose ancestors’ blood taints the bedrock of American society. But what if Brown was a lawyer?To Be A LawyerBrown wasn't a lawyer, he didn't receive a legal education or carry thousands of dollars of debt for a certificate and title. Nor was he provided with a "particular legal skill set" that made him more knowledgeable on how to overthrow an unjust system. Brown's actions involved violence and unlawfulness, no matter whether or not it was warranted. An individual that takes an oath to support the laws of the state and the Constitution can never be the revolutionary that Brown was. Advancing peace and justice as a lawyer appears to be anything but easy. Working within the law to advocate for change and dismantle the exact laws and institutions which granted your legal authority is terrifying to say the least, frighteningly debilitating. Consistent raises in big firm salaries make lucrative misery seem like a better option than lawyering for change. I have been a consistent champion for social justice and advocating for legal, social, and civil rights. I understand that I need to serve as a resource for proper representation in court and create pragmatic and accessible solutions to combat failures of the justice system. But the debilitating fear of venturing into this unknown world, swirls within. Individuals opposed to the actions of Brown often point to Martin Luther King Jr., as a respectable man, that championed for social and legal change without the use of violence. Yet, these respectability politics are limited. Violence doesn't always take an obvious physical form; violence is the denial of resources, violence is white supremacy, violence is having the tools to create better opportunities for your community, but failing to act. Legal action is not always the best action when freedom from a powerful oppressor is being pursued. However, legal action can serve as a tool against a pervasive and institutional violence perpetrated by powerful oppressors. I admire Brown, in spite of his use of violence, and I hope to obliterate the violence committed against me and my brothers and sisters.You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
|
|
