How do we respond to injustice and inequality? Is violence ever the answer?
ENGLISH WRITTEN RESPONSE
‘How do we respond to injustice and inequality? Is violence ever the answer?’
According to the 2010 Oxford Dictionary, violence means ‘behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something’. I believe there are different ways through which we can respond to situations involving injustice and inequality; in some cases violence is the answer. We can see this through both fictional and factual evidence. Our world has gone through two main wars with fighting still continuing today, but has the way we have responded with violence to these injustices been correct? And is how we have reacted to situation in the past and present benefitting the cause?
World War One began because of four main reasons: Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism and Nationalism. It was started because of a conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, which could have been resolved, by fair play and negotiation but both countries resorted to violence. Throughout the war, because of the decisions countries made, war was prolonged for longer than necessary. This is proven in a statement on behalf of soldiers by Siegfried Sassoon, an English soldier and poet during the First World War. Sassoon admittedly entered the war believing that the purpose was of ‘liberation and defiance’ (S, Sassoon) but after fighting he believed that the war had become one of ‘aggression and conquest’ (S, Sassoon). In his statement, he proclaims that the people who have the power to stop the war are prolonging it and a conclusion would now be attainable by negotiation. Violence was the only way to stop some countries’ thirst for power and control, but if the leaders of the time had seen that the war could have been finished through negotiation, many men and women lives would have been spared.
World War Two was caused through bitterness after the ending of the First World War and a great economic depression. Another reason was the leaders at the time, for
‘How do we respond to injustice and inequality? Is violence ever the answer?’
According to the 2010 Oxford Dictionary, violence means ‘behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something’. I believe there are different ways through which we can respond to situations involving injustice and inequality; in some cases violence is the answer. We can see this through both fictional and factual evidence. Our world has gone through two main wars with fighting still continuing today, but has the way we have responded with violence to these injustices been correct? And is how we have reacted to situation in the past and present benefitting the cause?
World War One began because of four main reasons: Militarism, Alliances, Imperialism and Nationalism. It was started because of a conflict between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, which could have been resolved, by fair play and negotiation but both countries resorted to violence. Throughout the war, because of the decisions countries made, war was prolonged for longer than necessary. This is proven in a statement on behalf of soldiers by Siegfried Sassoon, an English soldier and poet during the First World War. Sassoon admittedly entered the war believing that the purpose was of ‘liberation and defiance’ (S, Sassoon) but after fighting he believed that the war had become one of ‘aggression and conquest’ (S, Sassoon). In his statement, he proclaims that the people who have the power to stop the war are prolonging it and a conclusion would now be attainable by negotiation. Violence was the only way to stop some countries’ thirst for power and control, but if the leaders of the time had seen that the war could have been finished through negotiation, many men and women lives would have been spared.
World War Two was caused through bitterness after the ending of the First World War and a great economic depression. Another reason was the leaders at the time, for