Violence In A Tale Of Two Cities

Is violence acceptable to combat oppression? Of course, violence is the only true way to tug at the oppressors. If the people who believe what they’re doing is right, then it would be impossible to convince them through pacifism. Violence is the only way to strike the emotions of the oppressors. An example of victory against the oppressor through violence would have to be from a book by Charles Dickens A Tale Of Two Cities. A Tale Of Two Cities lightly touches on the French Revolution, but still plays a big role on the story. In the book, the main characters are mistreated by the upper class, some nobles even get a free pass when doing bad deeds that could put a commoner in jail for years. In fact, one noble even gets away with manslaughter after running over a poor boy with his carriage. But in the end, the commoners and workers rise up and defeat the upper class. They even chop the heads off the current rulers. I made a poster that would resemble a poster that my book's protagonist would have up. I added pictures of the king being executed and peasants revolting. I added motivation text to get people to side with the coup against the king.

Nathuram believed that the only way to stop oppression is by violence, he thought it was childish to assume that one man could free his people from oppression. Gandhi may be a nice guy and all, but he definitely had his faults. When hindus were raped and murdered by muslims during the Noakhali riots Gandhi did absolutely nothing. As a popular figure of the movement, he acted like a wimp, while his people needed him to step in. His failure to act upon these issues caused Pakistan to break away from India. When people of India wanted General Dyer to be charged for leading the massacre of innocent people at Jalianwalla Baugh, Gandhi refused to support his own