I know this is a really vague question, but it’s been on my mind A LOT lately. I’m specifically asking about people fighting on behalf of a group that is subject to oppression of some kind. 3 years ago, with all of the protests in America that included violence majorly against property and minorly against people but were about police brutality, I couldn’t help but question the seemingly popular notion that the violence wasn’t justified. Why wasn’t it justified? Because the police had not officially declared war on black people and other minority groups, but instead continue as an authority figure to protect and uplift their own members who do punch down on people belonging to minority groups? Because the protesters had yet to exhaust their non-violent routes? Were these protests in 2020 a retaliation or a first strike? Even if they were a first strike, was it justified?

What about Hamas? Palestine has suffered from genocide in all but name for over 70 years so does that make Hamas the aggressor or are they the ones acting in self-defense?

What about the issues with income inequality that have previously around the world led to uprisings and revolutions like in France and Russia? Were they justified even though the poor were not being constantly physically oppressed?

What about the issues with representation in government that led to the American revolution? Did those justify violence? Was the American revolution justified simply because of violent moments like the Boston massacre?

Is there a line that a group in power crosses that justifies violent revolt, or is it never justified?

  • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    When widespread violence is already in play, then the use of widespread violence in opposition is justified. It’s not always the right move, though.

    Edit to add that, looking at history, those advocating for large-scale violence in pursuit of a righteous cause are typically more interested in the violence than the cause.

    • BmeBenji@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is it possible to pursue a righteous cause through violence? What if every alternative to violence has been exhausted, if that’s even possible.

      • daddyjones@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not so much an answer to your question, but I want to push back on the idea that Hamas are in any way about defending the rights of ordinary Palestinians. They are a genocidal hate group who use other Palestinians as pawns in their terrorist atrocities. Think whatever you want about Israel and support whatever solution to the situation you like (unless it’s genocide - don’t support that), but don’t think that Hamas are in any way the good guys.

        If in doubt, just remember - the good guys never murder babies. Hannah are not freedom fighters, they are evil.