CMJR 450 - Week 6

Non-violence, Violence, and Terrorism. What kind of rhetorical action produces change?
There are non-violent Activists surrounding the globe today relaying a mission to pursuade change with peaceful rationale using perspectives of the media and public relations together with effective rhetorical speech communication. What is the effective of non-violent rhetorical action and does it, in fact produce change? We saw this action in the sixties in the form of peaceful sit-ins bringing attention to a cause and with a genuinely good effect. In the text (page 273) it is written that "most social movement leaders and members espouse nonviolent means to bring about or resist change for philosophical and pragmatic reasons. They have a profound respect for law and order and struggle with the notion of nonviolent civil disobedience". It is my opinion that non-violent rhetorical action has a power to motivate peaceful action.
Comparitively, violent rhetorical action can produce action in a much different manner. Martin Luther King stated it so beautifully in 1963 (page 274), "We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force". It is most apparent that the violent rhetorical action and acts of the Civil War ended in the freedom of slavery. Is there ever true justification for war? Sadly, the answer is yes. When situations reach a point of intolerable cruelty and unjustice, is it violence that can and will create change. This, in my opinion, is morally justified in the name of freedom.
How do we see Terrorism in the social movements that we are witness to? The events of 9/11 will remain forever in the hearts and minds of the entire world. In the text, (page 299), is reads "terrorism is nothing more than a label applied to violence for political advantage". (page 301) "An action to induce fear and persuasive pressures among audiences other than those attacked". Although difficult to comprehend, our definition is jaded when religious wars are proclaimed. John L. Esposito writes, "Islamic law states that it is a Muslim's duty to wage war not only against those who attack Muslim territory, but also against those who refuse Muslim rule". (page 310) Islam is a "community of believers in a special covenant with God that transcended all other allegiences". (page 310) Is it, therefore, a holy act to invoke terrorism in the name of one's God? Some say yes. I have a very difficult time relenting to such a concept.
Today we are witness to the events of piracy on the high seas. This type of terrorism is for pure monetary gain and cannot be tolerated. Motivation is the key to the understanding of this story that is playing out as I write this paper. It is by their actions that we ask ourselves what message and meaning does piracy generate and communicate to our world as a whole? I believe the answer lies in the poverty and signorance of a young generation of rebels who respond to the suggested power of wealth and indifference. Sadly, there are no winners in this reincarnation of piracy in today's world.
So, what kind of rhetorical action produces change? I believe that non-violent, violent and terrorist rhetoric produce change at some level. As simple as a "cause and effect" type of action brings about change, albeit it good or bad change. This type of rhetorical action has produced change in the world since the beginning of time. As far as our history is written, we are witness to this change. We live our individual lives as a result of those changes.