Changing Views, Roles, and Depictions of Men and Women in Society

Men, for most of history, have been considered the “dominant species” that are stronger both physically and mentally than women. They are supposed to be tougher, more intelligent, and more adept at making money in society. These false and overrated expectations of men grew over a long period where women were pushed aside, denied equal rights such as voting. However, in a modern-day society that has taken large strides towards a discrimination-free nation, times are changing. The “rapidly shifting landscape” of American culture has changed the role of men, altered their expectations, and tipped the scale in the U.S. in favor of the women. The media, which has carved an everlasting image of what it means to be a man or women, needs to be shredded apart in order to accommodate the truth that is a new American culture. In reality, these extremes are simply incorrect in a civilization that is being taken over by women. The problem that is at hand is the need to comfort and assist men in their time of need. This does not mean making men better than women, but rather helping men adapt to the changes in this nation and guiding them to accept this shift in power. After the Great Recession, the men population needs to regain their footing and start contributing again to this society. When there is equal contribution of men and women then that’s when America will reach its greatest heights.

            According to feminist Hannah Rosin, “thinking and communicating have come to eclipse physical strength and stamina as the keys to economic success.” Simply put, there is no longer a need for the strong physical traits of men in today’s intellectually-driven society. Men can no longer be expected to bring in the money for a family when the women are the ones with the jobs. Rosin goes as far to claim that feminist management styles are the most effective and that the most innovative and successful firms are those that promote women. Rather than explain the changing role and end to the dominance of men, she jumps into how women are much more beneficial to companies and much better workers than men are. Her shift from facts and data towards opinion reveals her sway towards the extreme of feminist ideals. It seems like Hannah is more concerned with promoting her opinion on women superiority than anything else.

            Although opinionated, Hannah Rosin is correct in that women now have the majority in the American workforce and are outdoing men in college education. The only obstacle remaining for women is the wage gap, and it will not be long before that disappears as well. Women’s incomes have skyrocketed and so has their role in the overall family income. Probably the single event responsible for the collapse of men was the Great Recession in which men lost three-quarters of the 8 million jobs. This event was the turning point for women in the workforce because it devastated the male working class.

            The result has been the quickly changing role of men. In Andrew Romano and Tony Dokoupil’s Newsweek article “Man Up!”, they explain that since the 1950’s, masculinity expectations have remained the same while women’s have gone through many changes. In the “Macho” man expectation, men are supposed to reel in all the cash and do little to help at home. In a society where women are working more and more, it is crucial that this expectation is altered so that men’s role is broadened to both home and work. However, men’s resistance to change their generic identity to one that involves a more “nurturing” occupation has prevented them from adapting. The fact is that the society expects very little from fathers, and certainly not for the fathers to be nurturing or help around the house. These expectations need to change, and so does the doubly large housework that wives do over husbands. “Being a man” must change from singlehandedly working to support a family towards a collective wife-husband effort to take care of kids, do housework, and have a job. Signs of this change are seen in the support for the idea of “paid paternity leave” as a substitute for maternity leave. Men, now more than ever, must take on an expansion on jobs with the decline of physical labor such as mining and machinist jobs. Women have been able to expand from teachers and nurses towards CEOs and soldiers but men must do the same.

            The challenge that lies before men is the shift in American culture towards favoring girls over boys. This shift is mainly due to girls outperforming boys in school. As explained by Phil Zambardo, the industry of America is supplying isolation mainly to boys. Excess drugs, video games, and internet are causing boys to become more socially awkward and less effective in school. This is clearly favoring girls over guys because girls are less prone to fall to these desires. As a result, more boys drop out of school and more girls get college degrees. Through this process where thinking and communicating are more effective traits that women are mastering, they are taking the advantage over men. Girls are outdoing boys throughout all areas of school, and it is to the American culture and industry’s cadence towards the needs of boys under 18.

            In addition to the changing role of men, the issue of the media in American society is stronger than ever by forever going to the extremes of masculinity and women. TV channels such as MTV have created the Mook and Midriff which involve the one-sided stereotypes of what each gender is supposed to act like and look like. The essential issue is that males are always depicted as crude, loud, and obnoxious whereas girls are consumed by appearance and sex. Theses stereotypes are wrong because they pressure kids, whether boys or girls to conform and adapt to the mold set forth by media such as MTV. Jean Kilbourne, in her “Killing us Softly 4” movie, explains that although part of a girl’s expectations and thinking is genetic, the media is largely influential in affecting women everywhere. Magazines tell women how to look by showing flawless faces and bodies that may be artificially altered. The media is outrageous in that it promotes the dehumanization of women through surgery on women’s breasts or face. Finally, the culmination is seen in that often in music videos or magazines, women become sex objects that show off their bodies. They cause the ordinary women to strive for beauty that is unattainable, which is wrong and immoral.

            Although not as extreme, guys must also conform to what is expected of them in the media. According to Jackson Katz, the media has shifted over time to present a “tough guise” that all men must put on to mask their emotions. Males can no longer show vulnerability and need to fix problems through violence. Though this may be “a real man,” men should be able to be whoever they want to be, whether sensitive or tough. Both the male and female depictions in the media are wrong in that they attempt to force people to be what the media wants them to be. It is essential for all people to either ignore the media’s stereotypes or change them altogether for the better of American culture and society.

The Civil Rights Movement

Clarence Taylor, a professor at the City University of New York, puts forth a central opinion in his podcast that there were three or four phases of the Civil Rights Movement in America. He questions the ideas of popular historians and is not afraid to disagree and stray from normality. Clarence adds a controversial fourth phase to the movement, suggesting that it still has not ceased in modern times. Despite challenging common views, Taylor provides a step by step breakdown of each section of the civil rights movement and their contributions to the American society.

            At the start of his podcast, Taylor explains the “popular” or conventional view of the Civil Rights period. Moreover, that the first of two concepts involves the period in time that the movement took place, which is most often characterized as from 1954-1965. This conventional view contrasts with the sections of the movement we have discussed in class. Similarly to Taylor, we broke the movement up into three parts: desegregation from the 1930’s-1963, securing voting rights from 1963-1965, and improving urban conditions and economic equality from 1965-?1968. Professor Taylor is correct in the sense that there cannot be a label as to when the civil rights movement began; however, he is wrong in the area that this popular view applies to almost all documentaries, textbooks, and books. As evident in our class, the decade during civil rights that Taylor refers to is not the only decade studied in the “accepted” view of civil rights.  Documentaries and textbooks begin with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education not because they believe that is when the push for civil rights started but because that was the major turning point in the fight for equality and desegregation. Professor Taylor asks “why 1954?” and it is because this was the first major victory for civil rights activists and the first step towards recognizing African-Americans in the American society. It is clear that the civil rights movement was occurring well before the 1954 Supreme Court case, but Clarence fails to mention the specific significance of the case.

Professor Taylor introduces James Lawson’s book Freedom then Freedom Now, and in the book, Lawson’s evaluation of the “popular” timeline of civil rights involves events in the struggle that are common because they make “America feel good.” Lawson suggests that most Americans only focus on occurrences such as sit-ins and freedom riders that are stories of blacks fighting back against segregation and succeeding. Furthermore, that these stories prove that America has come far from its terrible past, but they hide the appalling and hideous truth of America’s sins. Nonetheless, in class we have delved into all aspects of America’s horrid past through videos and readings such as about Emmett Till or the 16^th Baptist Church. This may be a small exception to Taylor’s theory, yet we have viewed the real resistance that the sit-in and freedom riders faced from groups such as the KKK or white mobs. Unlike the usual civil rights perceptions explained by Taylor and Lawson, we observe these bombings, murders, and beatings that are absent from familiar teachings. Also, we decide how far America has come from a terrible past rather than assuming.

            As the second concept in his popular view of the civil rights movement theory, Taylor explains that most people falsely believe that the movement took place particularly in the South and that the period of struggle was limited to one region. Furthermore, that these people believe that during the mid 1900’s everything in the North was “hunky dory.” The North clearly had its own issues with segregation, but Taylor stresses that most people do not realize the Northern troubles. This is mainly because the segregation in the North was completely legal; thus, there was no basis to fight for desegregation, causing the bulk of the civil rights movement to occur in the South. The Northern segregation was legal because it featured neighborhoods that were either predominantly white or black due to discrimination. Segregation was illegal, but because of the majority neighborhoods, the result was segregation without any unconstitutional actions or government force. Therefore, the majority of people are unaware of the struggles in the North because of de facto segregation due to the low publicity compared to the South in the mid 1900’s. Only in 1974, when segregation was forced upon Boston, was the attention drawn to the race-problematic North.

            Later on in his speech, Professor Taylor makes the bold declaration that the Cold War was the most important event of the 1900’s. Yet, when Taylor makes this assertion, he is probably referring to how the Cold War was very significant in shaping the civil rights movement. The fight for democracy over communism forced Americans to rethink the status of mid 1900’s America. To achieve full democracy and fully advocate their cause, people realized that the U.S. needed to advocate for the equality of all races and genders. This universal war against communism helped fuel civil rights. Though the Cold War was crucial in bringing America together, the claim that it is the most important event of the century is a little excessive. It was a critical time in U.S. history and it helped increase the true meaning of American nationalism.

            In his last statement, Professor Taylor stresses his unique idea that America is not in a post civil rights era. In his explanation, he disagrees with the opinion that legal discrimination was broken down by the civil rights movement. Taylor says that the economic component of blacks’ rights was brushed aside and ignored. Although it is true that America is dealing with black economic equality today, it has reached a post civil rights era where the nation is growing closer and closer to the true meaning of freedom and equality where “all men are created equal.” However, from 1965-1968, economic equality was the vocal point of the poor people’s campaign led by Dr. King. It was only after the assassinations of King and Kennedy that the movement fell apart.

Professor Taylor contradicts himself by saying there is a fourth and current phase of the civil rights movement at the beginning of his podcast, but then later Taylor explains that the movement has come and gone but the issues remain. As seen with busing Boston in 1974, Taylor is correct that the objectives of civil rights have not come and gone. Despite the low numbers of equal rights activists in the present American society, it is essential to finish what visionaries such as Martin Luther King Jr. helped to start.

The Significance of Reconstruction

      Eric Foner, a Columbia University professor, makes a strong argument in his podcast that reconstruction was one of the most significant periods in American history. He explains that the period in time was part of the many vicissitudes that America has experienced. Foner summarizes that essentially the laws for equality in America were present in the Old Constitution and its amendments; however, the civil rights act of 1866 and 14^th amendment were ignored and lacked the enforcement that was key to their effectiveness. In his detailed description, he concludes that despite failure, reconstruction was a noble effort to establish a racial democracy and cemented the foundation for future civil rights movements.

At the beginning of his speech, Professor Foner encourages the idea that reconstruction is a part of every-day Americans’ lives. Moreover, that the events and questions that face society today were the very same that faced the 19^th century American population. His statement is true in many aspects including that citizenship and terrorism are issues faced in both reconstruction and the present. On the other hand, each issue takes on a much different meaning in current society than it took in the 19^th century. For example, the KKK was American-born terrorism that was widely accepted by the South in the 19^th century. Even though their actions were clear terrorism, America was not united in shutting down the KKK until the mid-1900s. Alternatively, the U.S. as a whole has joined in an effort to combat modern-day terrorism. Modern-day terrorism involves foreign rebels committing acts of treachery against America. These attacks differ from the KKK in that they commit acts of violence against all Americans not just a specific race. In addition, the American citizenship debate has changed drastically in that it now involves illegal immigrants attempting to enter America rather than African –Americans already living in America. During reconstruction, the government was trying to build up black rights and citizenship whereas now the government is making qualifications for what it takes to become an American. One engrosses a specific race receiving equality, and the other is immigrants entering the country receiving equality. Foner was correct in that terrorism and citizenship were two problems that American society was engaged with during reconstruction and is now. Yet, the details of each issue vary greatly between times.

Another area Professor Foner covers with particular detail is the politics of history. He uses the negative views of Reconstruction during 50-60 years in the 20^th century to stress the realistic significance that the period holds. Ultimately, state-ways and the several laws passed were not able to change the prejudice and discriminative feelings towards blacks in the South. From the Southern point of view, they believed that it was a mistake to give blacks rights, that they needed to prevent the Republican North from taking control, and that the Northern outsiders misguided them with a poor understanding of southern life. Moreover, the KKK advocated for white supremacy and an end to reconstruction in the south. By providing the common beliefs of these early 20^th century historians, Foner is able to provide accurate reasoning of why reconstruction failed. For instance, it failed for the same reasons that these historians believed that the reconstruction period was a low-point in American democracy because it searched for black equality.

            An interesting statement that Foner makes in his podcast is that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was “one of the most important laws ever enacted in American history.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was essential in that it made all blacks U.S. citizens with equal rights as whites and paved the way for the 14^th Amendment. This bold assertion, however, is true only in that the concept of the law rather than the law itself is what was essential to U.S. history. The notion that an act of the government could be passed creating equal citizenship for all races was larger than the actual act itself. For example, the Civil Rights Act would be nullified less than 25 years later by the Slaughter House, Civil Rights, and Plessy v. Ferguson cases. Nevertheless, the concept of blacks gaining citizenship in America sparked the passing of the 14^th Amendment and led the way for future civil rights activists. Thus, Foner’s proclamation that the act was essential in U.S. history is not far off in that the act was a turning point for laws and rights in America.

            A final significant issue that Eric mentions is how the 14^th Amendment marks a change in the federal system and with the states in the U.S. He makes the excellent point that up until that point, the Bill of Rights and Constitution simply stated what Congress and the federal government could not do. The focus was to regulate the power of the federal government and quell people’s fears that it might become overly-powerful. Moreover, the major concern involved the ability of states to violate the regulations set forth in the Constitution such as establishing religion and disobeying free speech. Foner explains that the 14^th Amendment put the power of defense in the hands of the federal government, and it made them the protectors of equality and justice. This step was essential in American history because it identified the states as the violators. Unfortunately, after reconstruction the federal government would not be able to gain full control over state laws to administer equality and end segregation until a hundred years later.

To add a final point, Foner fails to mention that the reason few people know about reconstruction is because all of the black rights and equality progress made in this time were negated during the Jim Crowe era. Then again, he would probably argue with that statement, saying that reconstruction made governmental strides towards equality, passing the laws that would eventually destroy segregation and discrimination. This may be true, but Foner still doesn’t explain why so few Americans are educated on the reconstruction age.

War Between Neighbors: The Coming of the Civil War

       In his podcast, Edward Ayers proposes the idea of using social history when exploring the Civil War and advocates for his book In the Presence of Mine Enemies: War in the Heart of America. The book focuses on two cities, Stanton, Virginia and Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, when breaking down the events of 1859-1863. Ayer’s vocal point of his lecture is not on the specific events, causes, and effects of the Civil War, but rather on the people and their feelings, thoughts, and hardships. This innovative take on the war introduces new insight into Northerners, Southerners, and African Americans and their opinions toward each other and toward fighting. Ultimately, Ayers is able to take thousands of primary sources and mold them into his book as a unique look at the war.

            Ayers’ goal from the beginning is to take the lives of everyday people cities from the North and South and follow them on their journeys. This may work in depicting a realistic view of what war is like; however, at no point does Ayers take a step back and break down or comment on what is occurring and why. The essential issue is that most of the time, the everyday person just isn’t that interesting. Most of the accounts that Ayers presents in his lecture that are taken out of his book are all similar in that they showed struggle and exertion. Yet, Ayers explains himself that one of the accounts, with a soldier Henry and his wife Lisa, is downright boring. The story simply involves a young husband writing to his wife, sending money, and occasionally receiving packages. The dialogue in the letters shows first hand experiences of war, but it does not give much of a look into the real death and disaster of the Civil War. There may be Civil War primary sources that illustrate the trauma and burden of battle, but it probably won’t be found in a soldier outside of the action writing to his wife.

           Another issue that Ayers avoids a little more than he should is the question of how over a four month period, Virginia persuaded itself to secede from the Union. He emphasizes that in January of 1860, there were practically no votes in favor of secession in Virginia and secession was linked with treason. Then, by April, almost everyone in Virginia was voting for secession. Ayers supplies some of the Confederate justification of secession in presenting Psalm 23, suggesting that it was God’s will to secede. On the other hand, Ayers never actually explains what created such a sudden change of heart in Virginia, whether it was Lincoln’s inaugural address, slavery, or Southern persuasion. Either way, Ayers avoids going into depth about these and other points that involve the reasons and causes of events and occurrences that took place.

            When explaining why the war lasted longer than both sides expected, Professor Ayers refutes the common conception that the Civil War was a modern and industrial Northern society vs. a not modern and agricultural Southern society. He rationalizes that the South was very modern and very powerful, defending his statement with the fact that the South by itself had at the time the fourth largest economy in the world. Therefore, Ayers proposes that it wasn’t at all obvious that the North would win a swift and painless victory. Although it may have been true that the North victory would not be immediate, the North held a clear advantage over the South in many areas. Disregarding Ayers opinion for a moment, the statistics show that the North had the obvious lead in modernization and industrialization over the South. For example, the South had one-ninth the industrial capacity as the North, with around 20,000 factories compared to the Northern 120,000. Moreover, 94% of cloth, 97% of firearms, and over 90% of clothing were all manufactured in the North. The North also had around twice the man-power of the South and superior transportation (twice as much railroad). These statistics make it apparent that the South was nowhere near the industrialization of the North. The South was able to for a brief period maintain control of the Civil War. However, Ayers’ opinion is questionable because the Southern success was not due to a modern, industrial, and powerful Southern society, but instead to superior generals, strategy, and motivation.

            Later in Edward Ayers’ lecture, he refers to author Stephen Gould’s book on evolution and Gould’s ideas that any major change in the any step of the sequence of happenings and events alters the results. Gould uses the Civil War to back up his point, explaining that the South lost the war with a “relentless inevitability” once events occurred as they did. Ayers continues to express that if the Confederates had not obtained early victories, then their campaign would have failed. Thus, with no Emancipation Proclamation, slavery would have been drastically changed in history. Nevertheless, this view on the Civil War and its hypothetical effects could be applied to any situations in any other battles, wars, and major events in history. This “what-if” take on the Civil War simply explains what could have happened. If the colonists had lost the Battle of Saratoga then the British may have succeeded in suppressing the American Revolution. If the atomic bomb had not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then the war with Japan might not have ended for another year or so, extending American casualties. The “if… then” scenarios only create possible situations to inspect and discuss. As interesting as it is to imagine a quick end to the Civil War without the Emancipation Proclamation, this never happened and merely involves theoretical circumstances.

            Overall, Professor Ayers offers an innovative idea in describing the Civil War through first hand experiences. On the other hand, Ayers explains himself that before writing the book, he knew very little about the Civil War. Currently, Ayers is most likely well-educated and informed on the issues the war, but he avoids deep thinking in his lecture. Although his ideas, such as the Southern modernization, can be easily challenged, Ayers provides an inside look at the usually unnoticed struggles, hardships, and opinions of the American Civil War.

John Brown: Heroic freedom-fighter or villain and murderous terrorist?

For any cause, political, religious, or domestic, there are always those that believe in the cause strongly and those that don’t. However, people that are willing to die for their beliefs demonstrate their extreme commitment and dedication. As the Civil War grew closer, the abolitionist movement, originally condemned by Northerners, began to gain support from many anti-slavery Americans. The peak of the movement featured radicals such as John Brown, excessively passionate for their cause, resorting to violence in order to make a statement against slavery. Despite murdering many innocent people, John Brown’s actions took a defying stand against slavery, laid the foundation for the Civil War, and shook the American nation. Though a terrorist and villain to the South, John Brown should ultimately be remembered as a heroic freedom fighter against slavery for the North and the future of America.

At the time of John Brown’s raid of Harper’s Ferry, there were still four million African-Americans in slavery. Four million blacks that were the property of many Southern whites, a concept both unjust and unlawful. John Brown was fabricated as a villain simply because he was one of the first men to take a violent stance for an end to slavery. Yet in the North, he was praised as both a hero and a savior. The Northern support of John Brown is evident in the fact that many Northern politicians were actually funding John Brown’s raid in Virginia. By 1859, slavery was nonexistent in the North and they were searching for methods to gradually extract slavery from the South as well. John Brown is a hero because he made it clear that there would be no more compromising on the existence of slavery and its expansion. Brown also provided the nation a favor by supplying a solution to the sectional tensions that had been raging for decades. At Harper’s Ferry, John Brown expressed the same ideas as Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln’s house divided speech. John made it clear that the nation must choose between slavery and emancipation and asserted that emancipation was the right choice. Conversely, Brown expressed these ideals with violent engagement. Nevertheless, through his heroic deeds, John Brown fueled the Civil War and ultimately put an end to slavery.

On the other hand, if a Southern point of view is taken on John Brown’s murderous actions, then it is valid to state that John Brown was a murderer and a villain. Through his actions, John Brown threatened the Southern way of life. Whether moral or immoral, slavery was the sole powering engine of Southern life, culture, and economy. Furthermore, to challenge Southern slaves was to challenge the South’s existence. Much in the same way that a terrorist attacks what he feels is wrong in a nation, John Brown attacked what he believed to be the unethical ideals of slavery present in the South. Moreover, John Brown killed innocent slaveholders only because they owned slaves, and the South saw this as an excuse for other John Browns in the North to use the same reasoning. However, when evaluating an activist or radical to determine whether they are a villain or a hero, the cause they are advocating against is a step above that of any point of view, North or South.

In spite of John Brown’s destructive and bloodthirsty actions in the South, a step must be taken back to view the causes and why Brown did what he did. The purpose was not to be a psychopathic killer; it was to make a statement about the unjust institution of slavery. Brown’s cause was of equal importance as many other causes of historic freedom fighters. These freedom fighters such as George Washington during the American Revolution and Maximilien Robespierre during the French Revolution both resorted to violence to advocate for their cause of freedom. Furthermore, both are considered freedom fighters that were strongly passionate about personal rights and entitlements for all people. Is John Brown not also one of these freedom fighters that campaigns for his cause? Because John Brown in essence led his own war for freedom, he too is a freedom fighter, strongly passionate for equal rights and liberty.

The North viewed John Brown as a hero who supported Northern politics, culture, and the abolition of slavery. In contrast, the South saw Brown as a terrorist who murdered innocent Southerners and threatened the slave states’ way of life. But to understand which one John Brown really is, one must look past the North and South and towards the why. There is no greater cause to fight for than freedom and equality. John Brown fought for the liberty and free will of slaves and in doing so cemented himself as a heroic figure. By giving hope to slaves in America, John Brown will always be remembered as a freedom fighter and a hero.

To secure their freedom, did slaves have the right to kill?

Morally and ethically, it is difficult to find reason to kill another person. However, the slaves in America were faced with extreme conditions of harsh punishment and cruel treatment. Thus, many slaves found reason to kill in the fight for their freedom. Killing in the fight against slavery was not something new to America or history. Revolts in Haiti, Cuba, and many areas of Latin America had all risen against slavery, where angry slaves sought blood for freedom. But is freedom a justified cause for bloodshed? The importance of freedom is invaluable, and to acquire freedom is to acquire life and humanity.

What seems to be overlooked is that during the 18^th century, the colonists themselves fought in a war to secure their liberty and rights for a new nation. The American Revolution and the idea of slaves killing for freedom are extremely different, but the basic underlying principles are the same. In a sense, these patriots were fighting for their rights to obtain certain freedoms, yet it is seen as a war to create a new nation rather than killing for freedom. “All men are created equal…with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” says the Declaration of Independence. These words from the Declaration were used by colonists as the driving force of freedom to justify killing British soldiers. They also go against the principles of slavery right from the start, as slaves do not possess any of the three rights. If slaves do not possess any of these “unalienable” rights, then why is it that they should be strictly bound to Declaration or Constitution’s laws? Colonial patriots gave themselves the entitlement to kill for equal rights and form the Constitution and Declaration. Therefore, slaves should also have this entitlement to do whatever it takes to achieve equal rights and liberties. Much like the patriots, slaves are simply going against the societal norms in order to achieve “liberty” and “happiness.” To kill in the processes is merely to eliminate those that oppose these ideals and stand in the way.

            The absurd and unjust treatment of slaves provides another reason to secure freedom with blood. At the point where a slave is no longer treated as a human being, there is reason to take a stand. Bacchas, in Demark Vesey’s Rebellion, claimed that he was treated similarly to a horse or a dog. Moreover, many slaves were whipped and beaten into submission, separated from families, and lived and ate in terrible conditions. These occurrences were what drove slaves to thirst for freedom. If slaves-owners had the ability to kill a slave for no reason and with no repercussions, then it seems obvious that slaves have the ability and right to kill a slave-owner for the cause of freedom.

            On the other hand, because it is morally unlawful to kill another person, killing should be used as a last resort to gain freedom. This is because there are clearly other options to achieve freedom such as running away, tricking one’s master, or using civil disobedience. But if all else fails, slaves are justified in the act of murder because of the unethical treatment that they undergo in everyday life. Slaves that continue to be obedient to their master’s are counterproductive and simply justify that blacks are inferior to whites in almost every aspect. If slaves do not free themselves from the confines of their master, they are trapped as slaves for the rest of their lives. Consequently, slaves that seek freedom are forced to escape, and if their masters stand in the way, freedom takes precedent.

             A similar example to the black slaves in America was the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. The slaves in Egypt were also bonded to strict labor and cruel punishment. These slaves may have developed relationships with their masters, good or bad, similarly to slaves in America. According to the Bible and Torah, when it came time for these slaves to secure their freedom, God himself was the one who killed the Egyptians and more specifically the Egyptian children. However, before resorting to slaying other humans, God attempted to use other methods for the Hebrews to attain freedom. He asked politely through Moses and then sent minor plagues in attempt to change the Egyptians mind. Similarly to God’s methods, slaves should also have this right to murder for the cause of freedom, but only after all other methods to gain freedom have been attempted. Despite being the “chosen people,” if God himself condones the right to kill to secure freedom, then it makes a strong case for black slaves to have this right as well.