Thursday, November 11, 2010

Is Violence Really Necessary?

In his "The Terror Justified" speech to the National Convention on February 5, 1794, Maximilien Robespierre describes the goals of the Revolution. "It is time to mark clearly the aim of the Revolution and the end toward which we wish to move;" To sum up Robespierre's justification of the Great Terror, he reasoned that only through violence can a people achieve equality. His words echo those of other great revolutionaries. The legendary Che Guevara once said "I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." Both Robespierre and Guevara believed in revolution as the birth to equality and as the antithesis to oppression. The question is; is violence justified in the pursuit of liberty (happiness)? Is it necessary? Certainly, the sans-culottes depicted in Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People" fearlessly pursue Liberty clad with swords and muskets as the American colonists pursued her against the British. Rather than taking a stance personally on this question, I'd like to see what others think first. If you don't believe that violence is necessary to achieve equality, can you provide a historical event that supports you? Or would you agree with Robespierre? and feel that he is vindicated in sending tens of thousands to their deaths. Che Guevara once said that a revolutionary is guided by love. But does love automatically guide us into violence?

1 comment:

  1. I believe that, unfortunately, violence is inevitable in a revolution. I cannot think of a single example of a nonviolent revolution. However, Robespierre stated that violence comes from virtue; therefore, violence is excusable because the intent was right. I do not agree with Robespierre. I do not believe that violence can ever be justified.

    ReplyDelete