The “Violence Never Solves Anything” Argument (UPDATED)

Darren Wilson, a recently retired officer

After Darren Wilson, a white cop with a color-aroused of black males was let off the hook for the murder of Michael Brown, an unarmed black male, there have been reports of violence in their hometown of Ferguson, Missouri. The protesters were pissed off, because another cop got off easy for taking a black life like it needed to be snuffed out. Ferguson is now the epicenter of the unraveling of the suppressed animosity hidden deep within American citizens forced to survive – not live – in an unfair, racist society.

But then, you have the usual oppositional comments from those who likely don’t know what it’s like to be a part of “the other”. From the obviously racist to the naive hypocrisy glaring in the phrase “Violence never solves anything.”

Yeah. Violence never solves anything per sae, but it’s a hell of a sure fire way to get what you want. Besides, if you use that phrase to condemn the protesters against a racist, oppressive system, but stand behind Darren Wilson, you’ve proven to be the biggest hypocrite since Bill Clinton. 

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, or have allowed to school system to brainwash you, you would know that violence gave birth to this country. America, as you know it, would never be what it is without the genocide of the First Nation people, the brutal kidnapping, enslavement and holocaust of Africans and their descendants, the bombing of other nations, including those in Asia and the Middle East, the oppression of Blacks, keeping out immigrants from below the southern boarder and all forms of systematic violence against poor people, including whites.

But alas, I’m not supposed to bring all that shit up, because that would be blaming the ever-innocent white man. It’s all ancient history. So, that doesn’t matter. There’s no need to bring it up. Funny, how some people consider the past irrelevant whether it’s 500 years ago, 50 years ago or five minutes ago when it concerns forms of white racism.

Crime and violence are not exclusive to black culture just like terrorism is not a part of the Islam faith, nor is the word “illegal” is not used as an adjective against a person of color from another nation. History shows that white culture – like it or not – throughout history has been the leader in those sins. Maybe it’s past time to own up and pay up.

And if you think this is another case of blaming the white man, go ahead and think that, because that’s probably what needs to happen. White men are not as innocent as they proclaim themselves to be. If you’re stupid enough to link terrorism with Islam, then don’t be shocked when we link the KKK with Christianity.

So, pardon me and other folks when we tell you to stuff that fake pacifist shit up your ass when you support government actions that take the lives of so many people. Violence is an American as apple pie, and so many of us are ravenous for it. Do yourself a huge favor, and deal with that shit and own up to it before you make a colossal ass out of yourself.

P.S. I almost forgot. Some of you lose your shit after sports events like Hockey or mundane things like pumpkins, as it seems. You have a problem with violence going on in your community with murder-suicides, serial killings and sexual assault. So, how can you tell us that violence doesn’t solve anything when your people are still using it for insignificant events and pathological hatred against your own?

Go ahead. I’ll wait for your weak-ass argument.

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “The “Violence Never Solves Anything” Argument (UPDATED)

      1. In a way, it’s still the same as telling POC what to do according to white people. And it shows hypocrisy as none of them told the Bush daughters what to do or how to dress.

  1. Just read the essay. Excellent, as usual. You bring up some good points! I may have posted this video before, but it hits home the fact that this country was founded on violence:

  2. @ Brothawolf:

    Exactly! It is like Mary Burrell said on Clutchmagonline*s comments section, I am so sick of the double standards!

  3. Brotha you never fail to impress me with your intelligence and wittiness

    Gold Star 🌟 for you
    Another excellent post

  4. “P.S. I almost forgot. Some of you lose your shit after sports events like Hockey or mundane things like pumpkins, as it seems. You have a problem with violence going on in your community with murder-suicides, serial killings and sexual assault. So, how can you tell us that violence doesn’t solve anything when your people are still using it for insignificant events and pathological hatred against your own?”

    What happens if you condemn it ALL? Likewise, if you can’t condemn it, does that mean you have to support it ALL, even if you see, e.g. what happened to Brown as an injustice?

    1. Mike,

      What I’m saying is that the people whose legacy has been a violent one against black people are the LAST people to tell us that violence is not the way. To put it bluntly, white people taught us that violence is the American way.

      1. So does that mean that if you’re not black, you should not tell black people “violence isn’t the way”, even if you believe it, and your belief on that also extends to all forms of violence committed against blacks?

      2. Any group that has been violently oppressed, systemic violence included, should not be told by the dominant group which has used violence to assert their place, and has displayed violence as a result of more oppression has a legitimate reason to express their anger and rage in such a manner. In short, the dominant group has been oppressing other groups besides blacks. So, it should stand to reason why those groups finally rise up against further forms of oppression which will likely include violence.

      3. So does that mean that if you’re in that dominant group, you should instead support violence to solve problems? But of course that gives the contradiction of meaning that you could easily conclude you should support oppressive violence, which is obviously wrong (contradiction because it would mean that both supporting and opposing the idea of violence as a solution to problems would be wrong). Or perhaps, that if you’re in that dominant group, you should just not say _anything_ about whether or not the oppressed group uses violence and just stay out of that issue, no matter what your personal feelings/beliefs are on the matter? As that would seem to be the only option to avoid the contradiction. You’re bound by your group, no matter what your individual morality is, correct?

      4. The dominant group should not support any means of violence, especially the systemic and institutional kinds, but the truth is they they do in large doses. In the end, the dominant group go to the top by the same means they abhor the oppressed groups of doing. That’s why most folks find it hypocritical as a group to address the oppress on what to do and what not to do, especially when it comes to venting out their anger outwardly. Is it right? No. But how the dominant group obtained and maintained their position is wrong as well, but no one wants to talk about that. Why is that so?

        As an individual who happens to be black, I am seen not as an individual, but as part of a monolith with one mind. Me and millions of other blacks are never seen as individuals in the mainstream the same as whites, especially when crime and violence goes. But at the same time, accomplishments, heroism and overall niceness s considered natural for white people while violence and criminality are considered natural for black people. Neither of which are true, but in a racist society, that’s how some people see it. And that is another thing we don’t want to talk about. Why do you think that is?

      5. Also Mike, consider this, why should the dominant group condemn the violence perpetrated by the oppressed, when members of the same group don’t say a word about the sources, which include the very individuals, who caused a chain reaction that led to the violence and the same kind of violence going on within their circles?

      6. (That is, in short, _you_ (generic) as an individual may not support violence as a means to solve problems. But _you_, being from that dominant group, should not tell the oppressed group that, and should stay out of their business on that, because even if _you_ also do not support the violent oppression, _your group_ does, and you are bound by your group’s actions when it comes to entering into these kind of relations. Do I have that right?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s