The March on Selma is widely known as a peaceful march to Montgomery, Alabama from Selma, Alabama. The March was a way for African-American people to explain their distaste towards their inability to vote. The African-Americans participated in a peaceful march, not a violent uprising. But, nonetheless, were still attacked by state troopers on the opposite side of Edmund Pettis Bridge. Television "brought the scenes of the bleeding, broken, and unconscious"(Miller 45) to viewers lounging on their couches. This hit home to Americans causing them to act.
The March is an example of a underprivileged group of people dying for the chance to vote. Did everyone in the March act for the right to vote or was it just a social gathering? I cannot answer that question, but I am sure its for both reasons. Black people have been suppressed for so long that eventually the blister of suppression had to pop. This 'pop' was the Selma March. So, when one group is left out and suppressed, that group grows passionate towards a cause; and when one is passionate for a cause then it is when they should be allowed to vote.
"Man ought to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to man ought to be such that vengeance must not be feared" Niccolo Machiavelli
Either Voting Rights to all or Voting Rights to none. There is no in between.
Book I read. The Bridge at Selma by Marilyn Miller.
The March is an example of a underprivileged group of people dying for the chance to vote. Did everyone in the March act for the right to vote or was it just a social gathering? I cannot answer that question, but I am sure its for both reasons. Black people have been suppressed for so long that eventually the blister of suppression had to pop. This 'pop' was the Selma March. So, when one group is left out and suppressed, that group grows passionate towards a cause; and when one is passionate for a cause then it is when they should be allowed to vote.
"Man ought to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to man ought to be such that vengeance must not be feared" Niccolo Machiavelli
Either Voting Rights to all or Voting Rights to none. There is no in between.
Book I read. The Bridge at Selma by Marilyn Miller.
Miller, Marlyin. The Bridge at Selma. New York, NY: Penguin, Print.
1. I would like to see more of a critique of the article in the second paragraph
ReplyDelete2. Make sure you mention title and author.
3. MLA citation at end
10/20 title and bg
35/50 for posting