Argumentation #6 : Violence Isn't an Instinct

   In his novel Native Son, Richard Wright writes “Violence is a personal necessity for the oppressed...It is not a strategy consciously devised. It is the deep, instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality.”This is certainly true for Bigger Thomas, the main character of the novel who views whiteness as an aggressive and hostile force against him and many who find themselves stifled by oppression. But at the same time there are many in oppression who find non-violent ways to protest and fight against the social norms, laws, and bigotry that shackle them.   Write a response in which you support, refute, or qualify Wright's claim that violence is a personal necessity or an instinctive expression of humans being oppressed. Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   Violence is the act of using physical force to potentially hurt, damage or kill someone or something. It is something that, unfortunately, many have had the chance to experience,  from the smallest acts to the greater ones.  Richard Wright claims that violence  is the reaction to people being oppressed, “Violence is a personal necessity for the oppressed...It is not a strategy consciously devised. It is the deep, instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality.”  However, that is not the case. There are thousands, millions, maybe even billions  of people who are being oppressed that do not result in violence. Sometimes there are those individuals that believe violence to be a form of expressing their oppression, but that is not the case for all mankind. 
   There are many ways in which people can respond to oppression, and violence is never the only way. Many people protest, and go with non-violent options. For example, Martin Luther King led a large group of African Americans in non-violent protests, and was successful. He, and many other African Americans were non-violent, although they were being really oppressed. Violence wasn't their first choice to their oppression, making Wright's claim incorrect.   
   Sometimes there can be times where non-violent protests turn violent. Wright said that instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality, but that violent instinct can be taken away. Although sometimes violence can take over, it can be oppressed. If violence were an instinctive act when being denied individual, then why didn't it occur before there was a big movement. Violence Cesar Chavez led a large group of farm workers protesting against being oppressed when it comes to work conditions. Although they tried really hard to keep their non-violence protests, violence at one point did come to be. However, it stopped. Violence can be oppressed, and be taken away all together, 
    Violence is not an "instinctive expression of a human being denied individuality." I'm pretty sure that many wouldn't resort to violence, when their mother is oppressing them. Violence is not our first instinct, we may think terrible things, but it isn't the first thing we resort to, well at least for many of us.

Argumentation #4: Anyone Can Be Successful

Henry Lyman Morehouse first coined the term "Talented Tenth" in 1896, just before the concept became popularized by W.E.B. Dubois. He defined the term as follows: “In the discussion concerning Negro education we should not forget the talented tenth man. An ordinary education may answer for the nine men of mediocrity; but if this is all we offer the talented tenth man, we make a prodigious mistake. The tenth man, with superior natural endowments, symmetrically trained and highly developed, may become a mightier influence, a greater inspiration to others than all the other nine, or nine times nine like them.” Write an response in which you support, refute, or qualify Morehouse's claim that the future success of the African American race in this country is dependent on the higher education (skill, ethics, culture, politics, art, etc.) of the top 10% of the African American population.  Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   Morehouse claims that only 10% of the African American population will be successful in the future.  No one can predict the future. No one can one hundred percent know that a certain person will be successful. The most unexpected person, can be the most successful. Not everyone blooms early. One can guess but not know for sure if someone can be successful. No one knows for sure. Therefore, Morehouse's claim that only 10% of African Americans will be successful, is incorrect.
   Morehouse cannot claim that only 10% will be successful because he doesn't have evidence. Everyone has the opportunity to become successful. Everyone can become successful, meaning that it is highly possible that more than 10% can be successful. How can someone judge the talent of the other, without even letting them have an opportunity to bloom. One can never know for sure that the other 9 can't be just as smart as the "talented tenth." Until there can be evidence to prove Morehouse's point, people should refrain from excluding African Americans from a good education.
   All African Americans can become successful if they are given the opportunity. Forget the talented tenth, for all ten can achieve high goals, if they are given all equal opportunities. We are taught to take the opportunities that are right in front of us, if all African Americans are given the chance they can all succeed. The 54th Massachusetts Regiment, was given the chance to become the first African American regiment. They had the same teachings as any other white soldier, and were able to become great soldiers. If African Americans are given the opportunity, they can succeed just as well as any white man.
     All "Negros" can succeed, anyone can succeed, and Morehouse is just shooting down all of African Americans dreams to be successful in life.

Argumentation #5 Is There A Reason To Give Reparations?

Thomas Sowell, an Economist and Social Theorist has been consistently against the idea of reparations. Sowell said in a 2012 interview: “The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America. Put differently, the terrible fate of their ancestors benefited them. If those who were enslaved were alive, they would deserve huge reparations and their captors would deserve worse punishments than our laws allow. But death has put both beyond our reach. Frustrating as that may be, creating new injustices among the living will not change that.” 

Write an response in which you support, refute, or qualify Sowell's claim that the descendants of slaves have benefited from the fate of their ancestors and that the death of those ancestors has put the idea of reparation beyond our reach.Use examples from your readings, experiences, or knowledge to support your argument.

   It has been discussed many times before if the descendants of slaves deserve reparations. There are many arguments that fight for or against this idea. Thomas Sowell is one who believes that reparations are not needed for the descendants. He believes that "The people made worse off by slavery were those who were enslaved. Their descendants would have been worse off today if born in Africa instead of America." The descendants of slaves did not suffer the slaves past and they don't suffer today, therefore they is no need of reparations on behalf of their ancestors. 
   Descendants of slaves shouldn't push for reparations to those who had nothing to do with slavery itself. The descendants of slave owners today have no responsibility in paying back for the actions of their ancestors. The slaves descendants have no right to claim reparations to the slave masters descendants because slave owner descendants didn't benefit from slavery as slave descendants weren't damaged as their ancestors were. Claiming and giving reparations would make no change as the reparations are given to strangers of the salary itself.  If reparations were to be given it would only be "creating new injustices among the living..." (Thomas Sowell).  
   Slaves suffered, the descendants didn't. Descendants of slaves don't suffer today because they aren't treated unfairly as slaves did about 400-200 years ago. African Americans today have many opportunities to rise and be just as good or better than any other White person in America today. Minorities have many opportunities, maybe sometimes even more than the white population. In order for one to be able to take these opportunities, it is up to the person them self to decide to take action or not, at this point no one can blame the past for discrimination to African Americans today. Hoping for reparations will not get anyone anywhere, for hard work will actually help make a difference. 
   Reparations to the slaves themselves would of been proper. "If those who were enslaved were alive, they would deserve huge reparations and their captors would deserve worse punishments than our laws allow" (Thomas Sowell). Reparations to the salves themselves would of been ideal, and great actions would of been made. However, today slaves are no longer alive and running. The ancestors of slaves and their owners, should of took action into giving reparations, but they didn't. It is too late to give reparations now. African Americans today have been able to rise from slavery and overcome huge discrimination. Discriminations still exists, but it is not as huge as it was before. African Americans have many opportunities in America and have been able to overcome past obstacles and become great leaders of the United States. Reparations are not needed for, African Americans in America today can do fine on their own.