Testing, Testing... First Political Thing I Ever Wrote: "Anarchy"
This essay was written about five years ago, when i was fifteen. Since i make reference to 9/11, I must have edited it at a later date, most likely the following fall.
Radicalism: a word that sends most people running for shelter after hearing someone even whisper it. It brings thoughts of riots and tear gas, war and death. But is it really all that bad.
Without radicalism there often would have never been change. It is something that people see and hear. What good are ideas if they are not heard? It is so easy to dismiss or not even mention peaceful protests because once they are over, they are gone; however, a destructive riot will be remembered for years to come, particularly if someone died in it. We very rarely hear of protests in social studies which didn’t have costs.
It is the job of the radical to get the attention of the people on top. Sometimes the people on top refuse to change, even if they know the whole world is against them. It is in situations like these, where the majority supports the change but the boss isn’t listening, that violence may be an option. He might just listen when he has a gun pointed at his head.
Though their acts of theft and vandalism are generally more of a nuisance then a contribution to society they can occasionally make a positive difference. Look at the war of independence for example. Most Americans don’t regret the blood their ancestors shed for them to be free.
In the case of the Quebec City Riot I honestly think the radicals were a necessary part of the protests. You see the government kept the peaceful protesters so far away from the picture that foreign leaders probably wouldn’t have even noticed there were even protests going on. By breaking the barricade they delayed the meetings, thus forcing them to notice. I would also like to note that the barricade was the only thing they broke. They did not vandalize any surrounding property. Perhaps even the radicals are looking for more exact methods of getting attention. Notice how they only wrecked what they were protesting; a fence witch symbolized oppression.
Unfortunately today we are faced with a great threat to radicalism. Since September 11th they have been selected as scapegoats for terrorism. It is dangerously easy for the “man” to get rid of opposition by labeling them terrorists whether they are or not. Laws are being passed that would give the government rights to act on such persons without following the usual judicial procedures. Would you consider the protesters in Quebec City terrorists?
It often scares me just how trusting people are of the government and how little they are willing to do to change things that are obviously wrong. In a country of pacifists maybe we need a few small cliques of extremists to keep the government on their tows and the people up to date with what’s really going on.
posted by Nicholas @ 5.7.05
2 Comments:
testing testing, does this hing work... chuk your a jackass
Very well written. Theoritically, in a democratic society, acted out radicalism should be done at the polls, via the vote. That is what democracy allows. If the people do not exercise their democratic rights through the ballet, the onus of the state of affairs the country is in lies on the shoulders of the people, the masses. Therefore, I think it is first better to educate the masses for the perceived changes needed, than to bang ones head against a goverment that keeps itself distant from the people. That is why local newspapers are so important, exspecially letters to the editor's section. The wrongs or abuses, or potential abuses, need to be disseminated to the general public in a language and context they can understand, over and over again. Other forms of media also have a responsibility to accurately and fairly disseminate the information. Unfortunately, newspapers and other media we pay for, are a business, and therefore have a bais in their views, that reflect their main finacial supporters; whether a particular view is a benefit for the majority or not. I do believe that there is a difference between a radical act, such as riot, kidnapping, murder, vandalism, etc. with the purpose of bringing a concern to the public or government view, and a rebellion which is designed to overthrow a govenment. The former generally destroys a limited amount of property, may kill a few people, or interupt a government's agenda for awhile; the latter, seeks to get rid of what is believed, overall, by the majority, to be a ruling tyranny, and thus replaces it with a new form of govenment. So the American revolusion started out as a riot (the Bosten Teaparty) as a form of protest over unfair taxes, then when Britian didn't responed the way the colonists wanted turned into an outright rebellion. I feel that if a ruling government is not preceived by the majority of the people to be a tyranny, differences of opinions should be expressed within the laws of that country, and if the law is unfair, then the people should lobby to have the law changed. Keep note here that the majority of the people need to support the change, if a country does not have that support then the law may not get changed. Here in Canada though, special interest parties sometimes do get the law changed because the founding principles of democracy are being erroded by public atrophy and changes in laws and legislative constitutions and by the "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", so that a majority support is no longer needed to enact change. The danger in that is this, yes, some of the special interest groups get the changes they wanted or needed but eventually the pendulum will swing the other way. Other special interest groups, such as the police, military, arms dealers, fearmongers,etc., and the govenment, learn how to use the same tactics, law systems, and legislative systems to push their agendas, which may eventually result in a loss of democratic rights and democracy itself. Charles do you realize that it will take only one successfully carried out act of actual terrorism on our soil to get our peoples lined up like ducks behind our govenment to beef up security, which will encroach on our privacy rights? When a group of people percieve a common threat, it will instinctively circle the wagons to protect itself. I do not believe that Canada is immune from terrorist attacks; it is too physical, economically, and religeously tied to the USA. So to me I see a continual endeavor will be made to curtail our privcy rights in the name of National security. It is my hope, with my knowledge of Canadian history, that when the threat of terrorism passes, that Canadians will remove the restrictions imposed on them as they have done in past occasions of national security threats, ie WW1,WW2,FLQ Crisis,etc.
Love Mom
Post a Comment
<< Home