Well guys I've been thinking about this for alittle bit and I wanted to know what you guys thought about this.
Some people say the violence is never the answer, some say it's the only answer. So what would have made a better resistance for african captives?
The Rhodes Colossus
published in the British magazine Punch, 1892
saying that violence is never the answer is non sense to me because you must use violence when its needed. i dont even call what the enslved africans revolt violence i call that fighting to survive look at the situation they were under. its a balnced act dont use violence when its not needed but when you in sitution where its the only way than you use it
ReplyDeleteMalcolm X said "I don't call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence."
ReplyDeleteAfricans were not fighting for nothing, they were standing up and fighting for freedom.
If the Africans were able to bring about recognition and respect by being peaceful then they would've, but in reality it just wasn't like that.
In the video "The History of Slavery In America" I learned that the slaves resisted by simply not doing the work, they broke equipments, slowed down the process or sometimes they just acted as if they didn't know how to do the work. To answer your question the slaves did an outstanding job by resisting, I don't think I can think of anything else that they didn't try...fighting back and basically going on strike was the way to go.
peace
A pointless death is never valued, fighting for the lives of others is justified. Animals always fight if provoked, breeding rights, or selfdefense. I believe only people fight pointlessly. But as I said there is always a reason to fight for what you believe is moral
ReplyDeletei think that an eye for an eye does make the world blind but if its over war then yeah, but if its over freedom its a different story because the africans were scared for their lives as a bunch of people africans never seen before and forcing them from their land to work and get abused even killed over work.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree that an eye for an eye does make the world blind. Violence was definitely an asset for the Europeans. Even though the Africans used violence sometimes it was only to defend themselves never intentionally like the Europeans. None of this would have even happened if the Africans were back in Africa. It was to defend themselves. They also had no say even if they spoke out whatever concerns they may have had. They had no voice.
ReplyDeleteviolence has always been a part of society. People use it to get what they want when they want. The only reason Euroopeans have taken over parts of Africa was because they had weapons and they approached the Africans in a way demanding attention. If the Africans had the same technology at the time as the Europeans or advance technology they would have put up a fair fight or the invasion of the Europeans wouldn't happen.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@DomoSM Violence created more violence. When the Europeans captured the Africans many fought back ferociously which caused their life to be taken away. When Nat Turner killed the white slave masters and their families he was then caught and treated violently by the white man, he got hanged. What Nat Turner did was necessary however he dealt with a problem in a way that would have only resulted his life to be in endangered and for many the fear of life is death.
ReplyDeleteMartin Luther King said something along the lines of 'When someone strikes you on one cheek, turn and offer him the other cheek'
Enslaved Africans did not only resist by violence. Peaceful movements that were created by Ghandi and Martin Luther King were created and they worked as well.
Therefore I disagree with your comment of "Violence had to be the answer for African slaves"
-peace
Thank you everyone for all your posts so far. I see all of you all do believe that a balance of of both peaceful and violent protest was necessary for the certain circumstances and I could not agree but I would like to hear know if you guys will What is your favorite protest and/or protest leader? I will also have another thread if you don't want to answer here. :)
ReplyDeleteWhen faced with violence there is nothing to do but defend yourself. In this case death was a regular occurrence so using violence only makes sense, the Africans were left with in a situation where they could fight for everything or lay down and what everything they have worked for.
ReplyDeleteI rather go blind fighting for my family, lively-hood, and nation then watch everything I know and love ruined.
If someone with power, and more then just money; MEN to fight with, they have you by your neck, wrists and ankles, shackled and restrained for the one sole purpose of slavery.. when one has this obstacle in his face, they do not back down with anger they uprise so they can retaliate in their way of pride. One understands that the enslaved Africans resistance was a form of self pride, are you going to let yourself die or fight till you can't no more i.e. La Amistad pg. 94 in the textbook, and in notes from November. People think of violence as such a harsh word and just like India said, when faced with violence there is nothing to do but defend yourself.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion violence is never the answer but if you are faces with weapons and have no other way of protecting yourself then it makes sense. The Africa captives did what they had to at the moment to get out of the stations they were in. If I were in that satiation I feel like I would have done the same thing.
ReplyDelete