Three Ways of Meeting Oppression
Student
Professor
Course
Date
Critical Analysis: Three Ways of Meeting Oppression
Martin Luther King highlights three ways that people can meet oppression. According to him, the first method is through acquiescence. According to Martin Luther King, acquiescence is the process by which people accept to be oppressed (Carosso, 2021). In this method, the oppressed people accept being treated badly by the oppressor since they may not have the power to fight for their rights. However, I also believe that oppressed people do not always choose or ‘just accept’ to be treated in inhumane manners. In my view, the oppressors often use total authoritarian methods or dictatorship that damages the physical and mental conditions of the slaves. Therefore, the oppressed may have the will or the zeal of breaking free from their slavery but as a result of fear, they usually end up accepting their fate. In his article, Martin Luther King does not highlight the physical and mental conditions that oppressed people undergo before accepting their conditions. In the story of Moses and the Israelites, Pharaoh used total authoritarian rule. All the Israelites’ baby boys below 2 years of age were killed in order to suppress their population. Furthermore, they were tortured, beaten, and made to work under very harsh conditions. Therefore, the Israelites did not ‘just accept their condition’ but the environment they were subjected to made them become fearful and also develop a timid mentality. Contrary to what Martin Luther states about acquiescence, I also believe that the brutal methods used by the oppressors also make the slaves become timid and chose to keep quiet.
Martin Luther King also states that the second method that oppressed people use is violence. According to him, the oppressed may resort to using force in order to gain their freedom. He gives the example of those countries that gained independence through violent means. However, Martin Luther King also notes that this method does not always bring long-term peace (Carosso, 2021). According to him, such a method may lead to deaths and long-term emotional damage to the survivors. However, I also believe that circumstances may also push the oppressed people to use this method. In fact, some oppressed people have lived in peace after resorting to using violent methods to solve conflicts. Although some people may die, the use of violence has worked in some scenarios. For example, the majority of African countries are enjoying their freedom after using violent methods to gain independence. Therefore, I disagree with Martin Luther King that violence does not bring long-lasting peace. In my view, the oppressed people can endure pain but when pushed to the limit, their choice is to use violence. Sometimes, it pays off eternally.
Furthermore, I disagree with Martin Luther King when he states that, “using violence brings distraction for all and thrives on hatred rather than love.” In my view, I believe that your oppressors only respect you when they also understand your strength and you’re potential. When you overwhelm them through violence, you also gain their respect. Between 1775 and 1783, the Native Americans terribly suffered under British rule (Hulbert, 2018). The majority of them were killed, tortured, and forced to work under very harsh conditions. As a result, violence was the only method they could use to gain independence. They resorted to using violence to fight Great Britain to break free from the yoke of slavery. Their decision ultimately paid off as they got their freedom and independence. It also led to peace and harmony between the two countries and which has stood up to the present day. Contrary to what Martin Luther King believed, I believe that violence sometimes pays off.
The third method of meeting oppression is using a non-violent method. According to Martin Luther King, non-violent methods often seek to use dialogue to reconcile the two opposing sides (Carosso, 2021). Martin Luther King also states that in this method, no party should be seen as superior to the other party. Moreover, Luther also supports this method as being the ‘best’ method of solving a conflict. However, I also believe that this method may not be applicable in all situations. For example, if the dialogue was that good, then there would be no Ukraine-Russia war. Various leaders had tried to use dialogue to de-escalate the conflict between the two countries but the Russian counterpart was too rigid to accept and was driven by greed and power. I believe that using non-violence means to break from oppression cannot be applied in the modern era. I believe that just like Pharaoh, some people are always driven by their evil desires. In most cases, minority groups are always oppressed by dictators who are always driven by greed and their evil desires. Therefore, it may become very difficult to change such people using dialogues only. African countries had tried so much to use dialogue and non-violent means to seek independence, but it didn’t just work out. Therefore, they decided to use violence. Moreover, Ukraine had also tried to use dialogue but was forced to fight back when Russia began to advance in its country. I believe that using non-violence means can achieve very minimal success in the modern era. This method cannot be used to achieve the geo-political stability that the oppressor may be seeking to achieve.
In summary, the three methods of meeting oppression as suggested by Martin Luther King are effective. However, I also believe that these methods cannot be applicable at all times as they also have their strengths and limitations as highlighted in the paper above.
Reference
Carosso, A. (2021). “Stride toward Freedom”: Martin Luther King,
the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Gandhian lesson. In Gandhi after Gandhi (pp. 46-53). Routledge.
Hulbert, K. A. (2018). The New Map of Empire: How Britain Imagined
America before Independence by S. Max Edelson. Ohio Valley History, 18(1), 97-99.