Critique of Three Ways of Meeting Oppression

384 Words2 Pages
Critical Analysis of “The Three ways of Meeting Oppression” Martin Luther King Jr., in the article, “Three Ways of Meeting Oppression,” believes that there are three ways to deal with oppression, which are acquiescence, physical violence and non-violent resistance. He disagrees with the first two ways, and opines that the blatant injustice against the black population in the United States of America, needed to be challenged by a series of non-violent steps. While I agree with King that accepting oppression silently or fighting it with violence is inhumane, it cannot be denied that no social movement has ever acted in a totally homogenous manner. Most non-violent groups have either shared their struggle with others, wishing to achieve the same or similar ends by different means, or have become radicalised by increasing oppression, eventually resorting to more extreme tactics. Mahatma Gandhi and King got success through non-violent methods because the oppressors they were dealing with were democratic in nature; however, the non-violent campaign led by the Dalai Lama concerning Tibet has had scant effect in the Communist China. Furthermore, George Bush had to resort to aggressive methods while dealing with the Taliban that were extremists in nature. No doubt, non-violence is a powerful weapon for upstaging regimes but for only those with the content of morality and values. Hence, it could be posited that such a contrast in methods is needed to remind those in power, that they are as vulnerable to ultimate force if oppression continues. Though I agree that any form of violence cannot be justified, in certain situations, atrocious acts of racism pierce through the victim’s soul and leave it so severely bruised that all sense of morality vaporizes into thin air. I believe that more aggressive action can render non-violent resistance favourable, and force the oppressor to
Open Document