This chapter is all about the balance between good and evil as well as terror and violence. Throughout the documents there is an underlying theme of the use of violence to induce terror and therefore instigate change. The use of terrorism isn't only a modern ideal but has been a form of inducing change for hundreds of years. Document 9.1 recounts the events in which eight journalists were massacred in such a brutal fashion and the journalists quest to find the truth about what happened. The religious and ritualistic way in which the journalists were killed summarizes the level of fear and terror that the villagers lived in. As stated, whilst it was clear the victims were unarmed the attackers still murdered them and ritualistically disposed of their bodies as if they were the devil.
Document 9.2 provides a politicians view (president gomez) on the use of violence in politics and progress. It is evident that he believes there is nothing wrong with utilising violence to induce change within a society. This idea that revolutionary violence is another element of the human condition is a common reoccurring theme throughout history from the French revolution, the American revolution and the resistance against Nazi Germany in WW2 to the revolutions throughout the entirety of Latin America against the colonial powers. Finally, Document 9.3 is a declaration by the President of Peru in 1992. In contrast to the previous two documents, President Fujimoro declares the need for democratic progression and it is clear that he believes the people have the ability to enact change without violence
Whilst the vast majority of the world would like change to occur quickly and peacefully, is the use of violence and terrorism more effective at inducing longer lasting change or does violence only set back society and its progression?
I think that it is important to look at violence in the past as an example of what NOT to do. and in this way, perhaps the violence can promote change in behaviour. However i do not think that corruption and violence is going anywhere anytime soon, but i do believe that there is a way to peacefully bring about societal change. During the civil rights movement in the US, and the war in vietnam, peaceful protest was exercised to bring change to inequality and peace between people. Yes there was also violence alongside these movements but i think there is evidence that this form of political protest had a strong enough impact to bring change. I think that violence breeds more violence unless it is combated with non-violent protest.
ReplyDeleteI think change is often a result of something that is sort of an "awe factor" that shocks people and brings them together for a cause either in a bad or good way (like violence or peaceful protest). Progression really depends case to case I guess, whether a change is progression is sometimes hard to judge.
ReplyDelete