In the past two days in class, we have been discussing the character of Coalhouse Walker, and his actions regarding his car and the death of Sarah. Whenever anyone talks about why Coalhouse did what he did, they always start with "I don't endorse violence or terrorism, but", and I started to think about why everyone does this, and this brought me to the question: Is terrorism or political violence inherently bad?
First, I think we should start with the definition of terrorism. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." I would argue that actions that fit this statement are not inherently morally wrong, and I think that most people would agree, at least with some actions. I think that nearly everybody would say that it isn't morally wrong to kill somebody like Hitler, even though that would constitute terrorism (at least to the Nazi government) under this definition.
Given that most people would agree that terrorism is acceptable under some circumstances, I think we should look at Coalhouse's situation more specifically. Se we've decided that terrorism is OK under certain circumstances, we should look at Coalhouse's:
1) Firemen attempted to coerce $25 from him
2) When he tried to (fairly and peacefully) resist this, the firemen wrecked his car.
3) In response to this, bot Coalhouse and Sarah attempted to solve the situation peacefully and legally, and as a result of this, Sarah ends up dead.
4) There is a system of institutionalized racism in place discriminating against Coalhouse and other POC in the US
I would argue that under these circumstances, and with both reasonable (lawsuit) and unreasonable (petition to president) legal means having failed, and Sarah having died, this is justification for some type of terrorism. So in Coalhouse's situation, I would absolutely endorse terrorism and violence.
However, I think that the specific acts of terrorism and violence committed by Coalhouse are less than helpful at best. While the firemen that he killed were members of an institution that upheld institutionalized racism and a group of scammers, they are volunteers, and they do provide a service that can save 'innocent' (as innocent that you can get in a racist society) lives. A more helpful target for political violence against people would be the police that failed to help Coalhouse (and which also uphold racism) or specifically the secret service agents that killed Sarah. However I think that just property damage of the fire department, or something like Conklin's car would generally be better optics for the public, and more people would be supportive of his actions and cause, leading to more positive change than you could get out of what he did in the book.
First, I think we should start with the definition of terrorism. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations defines terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives." I would argue that actions that fit this statement are not inherently morally wrong, and I think that most people would agree, at least with some actions. I think that nearly everybody would say that it isn't morally wrong to kill somebody like Hitler, even though that would constitute terrorism (at least to the Nazi government) under this definition.
Given that most people would agree that terrorism is acceptable under some circumstances, I think we should look at Coalhouse's situation more specifically. Se we've decided that terrorism is OK under certain circumstances, we should look at Coalhouse's:
1) Firemen attempted to coerce $25 from him
2) When he tried to (fairly and peacefully) resist this, the firemen wrecked his car.
3) In response to this, bot Coalhouse and Sarah attempted to solve the situation peacefully and legally, and as a result of this, Sarah ends up dead.
4) There is a system of institutionalized racism in place discriminating against Coalhouse and other POC in the US
I would argue that under these circumstances, and with both reasonable (lawsuit) and unreasonable (petition to president) legal means having failed, and Sarah having died, this is justification for some type of terrorism. So in Coalhouse's situation, I would absolutely endorse terrorism and violence.
However, I think that the specific acts of terrorism and violence committed by Coalhouse are less than helpful at best. While the firemen that he killed were members of an institution that upheld institutionalized racism and a group of scammers, they are volunteers, and they do provide a service that can save 'innocent' (as innocent that you can get in a racist society) lives. A more helpful target for political violence against people would be the police that failed to help Coalhouse (and which also uphold racism) or specifically the secret service agents that killed Sarah. However I think that just property damage of the fire department, or something like Conklin's car would generally be better optics for the public, and more people would be supportive of his actions and cause, leading to more positive change than you could get out of what he did in the book.
I think that often when we view terrorism from the aspect of the victim, because mainly we are concerned about our own country. However I agree there are some cases where it's justified. That isn't to say that all terrorism is justifiable, but when you view it from the other side you can better understand the rationale for the actions. We get put in a tough spot as both sides do bad things, and we find ourselves weighing arson and murder against institutionalized racism. Given our modern perspective we can understand this situation better. In the 1900s it would be easy to see Coalhouse as a terrorist and the firemen as the victims, but looking through a modern lens we see that neither side is innocent. Doctorow puts us in a unique situation where we see it from the perspective of Coalhouse and realize that his actions are a last resort and justified.
ReplyDeleteWow, the more I read this, the more brilliant I feel this is. At first glance, you view Coalhouse's crimes as terroristic given our view of America as a whole. However, it is very interesting to look at it from Coalhouse's view. Terrorism was definitely committed against him. I definitely think that you are right in this way. However, I can not endorse him committing these crimes against innocent bystanders (even JP Morgan who can pay for anything he wants). Therefore, I still believe there is much fault on both sides of the aisle.
ReplyDeleteDefenders and practitioners of terrorism conceive of terrorist violence as "asymmetric warfare"--and this model clearly seems to apply to Coalhouse, once he starts referring to the "rules of war" as governing his actions. The question is maybe not "violence or nonviolence": the asymmetric warrior will point out that the state uses violence all the time to enforce its ends (e.g. Coalhouse being gunned down by a firing squad of NYPD officers), and that terrorists are only responding in kind. Innocent people are killed by state violence all the time, too--the military calls it "collateral damage" when an airstrike or drone kills civilians, and the terrorist simply applies this same moral standard to their own use of violence as a means to an end.
ReplyDelete