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?

  • lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Taking the French Revolution for example, as I’ve read summaries of in the past, it was really a high nobles hoarding wealth with high taxes versus lower nobles and merchants inciting the peasantry to overthrow the greedy bastards. The famed “let them eat cake” was propaganda used by one of the lower nobles to properly enrage their mobs.

    The Catholic Protestant revolution was a nobles and merchants versus the Catholic Church over paying too high a tithe and donations. Martin Luther was a monk recruited and sponsored by the nobles to incite the masses against the Catholic Church’s greed.

    The American Revolution was also about refusing to pay higher taxes and was lead and sponsored by the biggest land and slave owners.

    So pretty much, the line in our history that was crossed and triggered many famous revolutions was in fact money. As long as someone’s piece of the pie was threatened, boom! Revolution!

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

        I disagree, there’s no beef involved in this. At most it’s birdshit. But alright, i’ll change it. The lower nobles made use of Luther’s rhetoric to incite the masses and stage revolts.