I'm going to be honest, my mind is drawing a blank at this moment. Looking at the quote, I can't help but have an internal debate, but it's hard to draw the little fragments together and piece them into one solid argument. There's a peaceful side of me that cries for the end of violence, the part that believes that violence doesn't solve anything. Then there's the more. . . cruel side of me (I guess that's what you can call it) that says that violence can have a forceful way of achieving things. But I know, that deep down, I don't approve of violence as a means of solving issues.
To point out the obvious figure, look at Martin Luther King. He lived his life in peace; rallying in peace; and bringing peace to others. Yes, he was assasinated, so maybe he did pay for it with his life and freedom. However, did he truly lose his life and freedom? Biologically speaking, the answer is yes. He is no longer alive, living, or breathing. But he didn't lose his life because his meaning was never lost. He lived his life with a meaning. That meaning being for the equal treatment of African-Americans. He passed that meaning on, which in turn, created laws for the equal treatment of African-Americans. Even though he died, his message for peace and equality transcended to others, therefore, his life was not completely lost. So, though he did live a peaceful life, and he did lose his life for it, his message transcended to others which therefore, kept his legacy and memory alive.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment