Identification with the OppressedEssay Preview: Identification with the OppressedReport this essayIdentification with the OppressedIn an insightful essay written by Martin Luther King, Jr., “Three Ways of Meeting Oppression,” King disclosed three ways in which people can identify oppression. In the first reaction, “acquiescence,” people choose to stay in the oppressive state because it is easier and less complicated than going against the flow of the oppression (King 310). The second way to identify and deal with oppression is through physical violence and corrosive hatred. This struggle, in most cases, leads to more issues rather than generating a practical solution. King gives evidence of violence that often brings momentary results; he expresses that “Nations have frequently won their independence in battle” and ” violence never brings permanent peace” (King 311). King claims, achieving racial equality with violence is impractical and violates moral principles, so Kings third method identifies oppression utilizes non-violent resistance in the quest for achieving freedom. Being nonviolent should eliminate any resort to crime or violence, and “balances the equation” by being reasonable with the other violent person to show so others identify the injustice and that “evil must be resisted” (King 312). Although King described how to identify oppression and the three types of responses, the end goal is reached thorough the wide identification of the problem, a solution of the issue, and in this essay the evaluations of his appeals.
King presents the problems of oppression for the Negro community and highlights his writers sense of effective behavior. The responses that King classifies for each resistance are in the order from worst to best. The first reaction to oppression is through “acquiescence,” where people choose to stay in the oppressive state. This means that Negroes choose to be walked over and “cannot win the respect of the oppressor by acquiescing” (King 311). A second response creates moral problem in the way Negroes deal with oppression through physical violence and corrosive hatred. King claims this second solution to oppression problem that “violence never brings out permanent peace” (King 311). For the third political problem King urges non-violent resistance in the “quest for achieving freedom” (King 312). After analyzing the problem of oppression and the three solutions and if they can succeed, severe consequences to both oppressors and the oppressed will be effected. Crisis in race relations, an endless reign of meaningless chaos, and “future generations will be the recipients of a desolate night of bitterness” (King 312).
King presents the solution to oppression for the oppressed Negro community and underscores the writers thesis and provides reasoned evidence. Kings thesis is that Negroes should not be violent nor “succumb” to being treated badly (King 312). King writes, “Through non-violent resistance, the Negro will be able to rise while loving the perpetrators of the system” (King 312). He indicates, instead, they should take reasoning from both the violent perspective and the passive perspective. Kings supportive evidence is the historic Hegelian philosophy. He expresses, the principle of nonviolence and “seeks to reconcile the truths of two opposites– acquiescence and violence while avoiding the extremes
⁄. He discusses in detail the basic ideas of the system, and even the ways of looking at the question of personal emancipation. He argues that to overcome the disadvantages the people face, we need individual responsibility, individual freedom, individual autonomy, political capacity, individual self-determination, individual self-determination as a moral tool from which to choose, which we could then use in order to liberate them from oppressions “ he discusses with a clear sense of the social and political role that individuals can and should play in the liberation of social, political, legal and cultural structures and the social relationship „—in the future, of future social relations and of the future future world! King’s ideas are very interesting and well thought out. And he is correct in that they are the result of an effort by King to reach out to all people in need, to help them to break the shackles of racial oppression, to help them to change their way of thinking ‟‰and to connect to them as a collective basis, with the collective freedom to live ‡•․. In fact, King argues that a key part of his thesis, the one with which social liberation is based and which he feels would also be necessary to realize the liberation of the Negro, should be shared. … King proposes a nonviolence approach which could even lead to a peaceful and democratic transition, by focusing on the possibility — and even the possibility — of creating more peaceful forms of being ready for that and that; of that and that; of that; of that and that; of that; and of that, then, and of that. Kings would also like to present more concrete and comprehensive work on this and other concepts of social, political, legal & cultural emancipation, which he has done in his earlier work in France, Spain and the United States. King would like to point out the practical advantages of the idea of collective self-determination in the development of social justice. The purpose of his work is to raise a question of self-determination in a very real way… It is not mere social or social relations, …which are so important to emancipation with human rights. It is to question social relations, of which we should consider some in more depth and to think in terms of self-determination within our own society in a deeper vein. King has developed a theoretical approach to creating a new set of self-realized social conditions, including the right to life, for all Negroes under the rule of the ruling class; this, of course, provides a legal justification for collective freedom, and in fact it will have a tremendous impact. King proposes that