Tuesday, September 12, 2006

Beckwith Argument By: Shimarah Mehrotra

There was a racial separation in the South. White southerners believed they were superior to blacks. This ideology was supported by indoctrination from society. However, some blacks refused to conform to societys standards and formed the NAACP. Not everyone supported the rebellion. Some white southerners had the notion it was their duty to stop the rebellion. Among them was Byron de la Beckwith, who took a violent stand against the NAACP by killing evers. This action was fueled by the standards that had influenced Beckwith's moral decisions. Because racial inequality was accepted as the norm, the possibility arose that Beckwith was a pawn, incapable of realizing that what he was doing was wrong. There are three defining qualities of a pawn. The first quality is that the pawn shares a common trait with both the superior and subordinate groups. Secondly, such a person desperately attempts to downplay their inferiority. Lastly, the pawn believes his esteem is rooted in which group he or she belongs to. The person is defined by the group and feels as if it is mandatory to choose a side on which to fight the opponent. Along these same lines is the idea that one can be morally unlucky. This can be interpreted in one of two ways. Either a person is arbitrarily void of good moral decision-making or the person is unlucky enough to have been surrounded by a cynical atmosphere, which penetrates his or her thoughts and practically forces the person to accept the majority's opinions. However, none of these thoughts overrule the fact that everyone has the ability to form a moral conscience-one independent of the standards set by society. Beckwith is no exception to this fact. Although by forming his own standards Beckwith surely would have been rejected by most, if not all, of his white peers, such rebellions would not have been unprecedented. After all, it was one of the independent thinkers whom Beckwith had murdered.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home