Skip to content

Tag: 10:30 class

Tyrannicide

Published by Celia Satter on September 7, 2019

To me, tyrannicide on the assassinator’s part is not a beneficial or, for lack of a better word, good action. As Americans and firm believers in democracy, tyrannicide and the “liberating” of another country excites us and makes us feel important and like leaders or creators of freedom. That being said, us as Americans also have the tendency to not necessarily ignore, but push to the side, the customs and ideals of other countries in pursuit of our values and implementing them in other places. I think that in order to fully allow tyrannicide to be committed, one has to fully understand the tyrant’s country and if the results of the tyrannicide would be truly advantageous for that country. Dr Andrade touches on this in his article when he talks about “hardcore utilitarians” and their morals and beliefs. One example of tyrannicide maybe not being advantageous is the post 9/11 wars in the Middle East that have been going on for over a decade, mostly in the name of tyrannicide in order to take out ISIS or ISIL. So many people have died in this “endless war” and in the end, it may not be all that beneficial for the Middle East due to the number of casualties. Obviously it will be beneficial for the ending of these terrorists groups.

Before reading “Distinguishing Tyrannicide”, I thought that there was a fine line between tyrannicide and terrorism, that was easily crossable; however, after reading the article, I believe that there is pretty definable line between the two. The emphasis on taking out the right person and only the right person and the person committing the act is acting in good faith. Despite the broad line between tyrannicide and terrorism, I still feel like the line can become fuzzy in some cases. So to be very sure of the benefits, those involved with tyrannicide should be very aware of the country they are attempting to save to be positive they will save them.

5 Comments

MLK Charisma- 10:30 class

Published by Regenia Miller on September 3, 2019

Within the very first paragraph, Carson lists some characteristics and practices of Dr. King that truly adhere to the concept of “charisma”. Carson wrote, “The fact that he has… his ability to arouse creative tension combined with his inclination to shrink from carrying demonstrations…”. (27) When I read this part of the text, I immediately thought of the discussion that took place during today’s class time about the element of manipulation being part of charisma. Dr. King was able to arouse his supporters, who fought for social justice alongside him, and his adversaries, who constantly sought to destroy his career and/or end his life. However, he also knew when it was the right time and space to take a step back, as he was aware of his own strengths and weaknesses. I believe this is one aspect of leadership that is rarely ever acknowledged, aside from knowing when to allow others to lead. Carson mentioned Dr. King’s tendency to use compromise and be cautious, which could apply to his choice of words and his choice of actions. In other words, Dr. King would think before he spoke or act, instead of contributing impulsively. In another text, Ronald Riggio explicitly mentioned that persons who possess charisma tend to be effective communicators. It’s interesting to read that Carson then uses this same quality to describe Dr. King in his own text. 

Carson goes on to make a strange point about how Dr. King was noticed for his charisma more than his prominent role in the African-American movement. Some people did (and still do) view him as a hero, rather than a dedicated and symbolic figure of the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century. Mainstream education and American culture honor Dr. King as if he was one of only five activists of his time or as if his activism was more important than others. It’s an unsettled subject because we don’t celebrate other activists such as Malcolm X or Reverend Al Sharpton with their own holidays. But is that a result of his charismatic leadership or ppl idolizing him as a hero? On MLK Day, do we honor Dr. King himself or his work? Carson suggests that Dr. King did not carry the weight of the social justice movement, yet he made great contributions to it. Even other movement activists noticed how Dr. King would operate in his gifts of effective strategizing and institutionalizing for the cause at hand. 

Everyone always acknowledges the positive reactions and results of Dr. King’s nonviolent approach to fighting for social justice. Yet, the negative reactions to his approach are never discussed. Carson highlights how King risked his reputation in and relationship with the Black community of his time by urging them to take a nonviolent approach to achieve justice. The reality of it was that not everyone was as patient as he was, and many Black people may have wanted to use their anger to fuel a violent fight, rather than a nonviolent one. 

2 Comments