COMMENT
Political change -- for good or for bad -- in history is often (almost always) the result of rebellion, which means violence that goes against the "interests of the state."
The state, of course, uses preventive violence systematically to maintain order and discipline.
Examples: American Revolution (1776), American Civil War (1860), Russian Communist Revolution (1917), Arab Spring (2010).
What kind of criteria do you use to sort out the "good" revolutions from the "bad" ones?
Start with a reflection on Sacco & Vanzetti and the distance between the reality of anarchists' methods and their ideals (also Toni in L'emigrante would be a good example.)
In my opinion, rebellion is important. When you, your race, your religion or beliefs are being treated poorly, it is only right to stand up and speak out. Throughout this course it's been implemented in my mind that Italians were greatly discriminated against and treated poorly. Sacco and Vanzetti starts off with with violence from police doing things such as beating, breaking and entering into Italian shops and homes, and the arresting of a number of Italians. Because of acts such as these by police, done for no reason other than because of discrimination, Italians felt the need to fight back for justice.
ReplyDeleteRebellion is an important tool for fighting when corruption or injustice occurs. While I do not agree with rebelling violently myself, it is probably something that is inevitable overall. Rebellion is prevalent in Sacco and Vanzetti, with scenes of protest when the two men are convicted up until their execution, and even Vanzetti's refusal to ever admit guilt like the government would have wanted him too. Sorting out "good" rebellions versus "bad: rebellions is a simple criteria of which are being done to help versus which are being done to harm.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't condone the use of violence when expressing your beliefs but sometimes rebellion is necessary when your rights are being violated. In Sacco and Vanzetti it shows police violence against Italian immigrants and also racism and that they should be deported. Words alone cannot fight this injustice so they must resort to other means.
ReplyDeleteRebellion is tricky. The rebellions that we look back on today as favorable are seen as such because history is written by the winners. It could be said that a "good" revolution can be sorted from a "bad" one by the quality and overall integrity of the new regime. But all governments are hypocritical. The Russian Communist Revolution was supposed to bring equality to all, but ended with most of its citizens starving with a few demagogues rich at the top. The French Revolution promised to rid the country of the aristocracy but ended with the installation of an emperor. The United States promised the freedom of all men, but hardly gave half of that; not allowing women to vote until 1920 and treating African Americans as second class citizens well into the 1960s. A good case could be made that none of these governments are/were "good" or "bad" but merely the victors and thus the ones that wrote history.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were patsies through and through. They not only belonged to a race which the people of the United States hated, but also held political views which the U.S. government saw as dangerous. These men weren't given a fair trail. They were given the trail that the Government wanted them to have. One which humiliated them and scared the American public into believing anything about anarchists. These aren't the actions of a government which cares about freedom, but an authoritarian government willing to do anything to keep the status quo. Through all this, though it seems like the only answer to the authority of the government is violence, in reality violence stands against everything that anarchy is and is a counter productive tool. While it gives an immediate reaponse, it is in the long run to be used as an example of why the cause you believe in is evil and does nothing to further the cause, no matter how righteous it may be.
-Tim Caston
If sorting out the good revolutions from the bad, violence is only allowing yourself to stoop low. When incorporating violence, you are only showing just what others have already perceived you to be; violent. However, to make a point known, or to prove/ justify that a point, your point, is right, rebellion could be called into action. In "SACCO & VANZETTI" the violence used to keep the Italians away was complete brutality to innocent people, who were using their, "freedom of expression". The police felt that their words and chants were too powerful and used extensive force to stop them. To defend themselves again injustice, they acted in rebellion. Here, actions speak louder than words.
ReplyDeleteWe as a society often relate rebellion to violence; it is often the first spring of action that we take. However, as shown in L'emigrante and Sacco E Vanzetti, their styles of rebellion are completely different. Sacco and Vanzetti migt have been anarchists, but as shown in the movie, they never used violence even if they carried their guns. Moreover, Toni, used violence almost immediately to get his way and remove Peppino from the picture. I believe a good rebellion is a rebellion that does not need violence to get its point heard loud and clear. At the same time, a good rebellion is one that is successful and does more good than harm since rebellions often times cause a lot of damage due to violence.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe kind of criteria that I use to sort out the "good" revolutions from the "bad" ones are the so called preventative violence that is implemented to maintain order and discipline. Any governmental system can bring into play a set of rules and regulations that the people should abide by and feel its justifiable. The criteria that should be examined shouldn't be bias or discriminatory to certain individuals. The criteria should be uplifting the people and uniting them.
Sacco & Vanzetti were literally put on trial because they were immigrants from Italy. The native born Americans thought it was a blessing in disguise that they were also anarchists who weren't shy to say so. Sacco & Vanzetti methods were realistic because they wanted the equal treatment of their people, unfortunately America at the time wasn't ready to do just that. Their ideals were to stop the violence, unfair wages Italians were given, etc. but again the Americans weren't ready to acknowledge their wrong doings. So they were made an example.
Revolution simply is a radical change in power. It happens quickly and includes violence. Therefore, I don’t believe in “good” revolutions. Despite my opinion, I think that French Revolution was a turning point in the world history.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were anarchists. They were no borders for them. No limitations. It is really hard to survive with the ideology that rejects any hierarchy. It is not fair to say that their fight was pointless, though Sacco’s last act about not signing the petition might say a lot about it. But it is truly hard to make any significant change, when the government is all against you.
There are Natural laws that govern the universe and we as humans have to accept it. We don’t have another choice. But on top of that layer, there is another layer of laws that were created by humans. Most of the people they accept those laws. People might not love their government but they accept it. And there are some small portion of people who don’t accept it and they make it their life goal to change it. For me Sacco and Vanzetti are heroes, but deeply inside I think their ideology is at some point is utopian and unrealistic.
Revolution simply is a radical change in power. It happens quickly and includes violence. Therefore, I don’t believe in “good” revolutions. Despite my opinion, I think that French Revolution was a turning point in the world history.
ReplyDeleteSacco and Vanzetti were anarchists. They were no borders for them. No limitations. It is really hard to survive with the ideology that rejects any hierarchy. It is not fair to say that their fight was pointless, though Sacco’s last act about not signing the petition might say a lot about it. But it is truly hard to make any significant change, when the government is all against you.
There are Natural laws that govern the universe and we as humans have to accept it. We don’t have another choice. But on top of that layer, there is another layer of laws that were created by humans. Most of the people they accept those laws. People might not love their government but they accept it. And there are some small portion of people who don’t accept it and they make it their life goal to change it. For me Sacco and Vanzetti are heroes, but deeply inside I think their ideology is at some point is utopian and unrealistic.