60 years ago, Malcolm “X” Little stood in church delivering one of the most impactful speeches ever. Among the main points: violence. Little believed that while African Americans should first attempt to judicially exercise their rights, if continued to be prevented from reaching full equality, African Americans would need to take up arms in a form of self-defense. Adding to his sense of urgency were continued attacks and lynchings on African-Americans by white mobs and terror groups, with the United States government offering little to no protection.
While Little discussed violence in the abstract (in fact, he turned away from actual bloodshed) the ideas he brought up underscore a deeper issue: specifically, the use of violence, however reluctantly, to achieve a goal or champion a cause.
This is not a new concept; for most of history, violence has been the way to assume political power, express political frustration, or generally create change. Julius Caesar was stabbed to death. Alexander Hamilton was fatally shot by Aaron Burr. Preston Brooks beat Charles Sumner within an inch of his life on the senate chamber floor. All of these examples are unique in themselves, but as a whole they illustrate a broader historical theme of ‘might makes right,’ at least for the time being.
Refocus on Little, however, and you’ll see that his choices differed: the goal he set out to achieve was racial equality, something noble and morally correct, not a simple power grab or violent outburst. He also did not attempt to instigate attacks, but rather preferred violent self-defense solely as a last resort. This differentiates him from the common proponent of political violence, and perhaps separates him into his own category.
However, the prevailing belief is that despite “developed” countries experiencing a fraught past, with even civil rights activists forced to reckon with a potential for political violence, “first-world” nations are now above this issue ; the United States is above that. Yet need we look back to less than four years ago, when a violent mob attempted to incite a coup at the capital of the supposed ‘beacon’ of democracy.
While a combination of the U.S National Guard and Capitol Police Officers stopped the insurrection attempt that day, on January 21st, 2025, President Donald Trump pardoned the over 1,500 rioters who a little over four years ago attempted to upend our democracy.
This decision shows that Trump, and anyone who supports his sweeping grants of clemency, view the January 6th attacks as justifiable. Talk to any of these individuals, and they certainly wouldn’t consider January 6th as anywhere in the realm of a coup d’etat carried out in, say, Africa.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask Trump, who called the insurrection “a day of love” where “nothing” was done wrong. And therein lies the most dangerous part of political violence: not the violent actions undertaken, but the justification and reasoning behind these actions.
However, political violence is not merely confined to one end of the spectrum. Take Trump into consideration again, who faced two different attempts on his life in this last election cycle. If either of the would-be assassins had succeeded, the United States would have witnessed the first successful assassination since 1963; however, these attempts joined a growing list of murderous plots in recent elections. While the U.S has made progress, political violence remains a persistent issue.
A key reason behind political violence is quite simple: simply put, force can be met with force, while minds are incredibly hard to change, even in the face of facts, science, and ethics. As a result, political polarization, or large political divides drawn along ideological grounds, has continued to foster and in turn be fostered by conflict.
History teacher Joanna Komitor elaborates on political polarization, sharing, “there are always two main political parties, and the left and the right have different views, and the polarization part is that they’re almost at the extreme, where they’re all in on both sides and unwilling to side more towards a compromise.”
She adds, “I’ve said it to my class, I’ve never understood the left wing and the right wing fighting. It’s the same bird, shouldn’t they essentially try to go in the same direction?”
Unfortunately, this metaphorical bird is being torn in half, with a political polarization playing a huge part. However, while problematic, these divides are not new issues. Go back to the Civil War, where the South felt their way of life, the entirety of their culture, was threatened by the North. The divide became so large that they were compelled to fight a war where, according to Digital History, “over 600,000 died…more than World War I and World War II combined.”
Despite this, the South’s “way of life” involved slavery, which is morally evil. Additionally, every president from Jackson to Lincoln held that states did not have the power to nullify the union; therefore, the South had no right to secede. Right? And does secession even count as political violence?
One thing at a time. According to the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) “Political violence is defined as hostile, aggressive or violent acts motivated by political objectives or a desire to directly or indirectly affect political change or change in governance.”
The UNDRR adds, “As a phenomenon, political violence includes a range of political acts from mass protest, riots, coups, rebellions, uprisings and terrorism to violent acts committed by state and non-state actors, including pogroms, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.”
The United Nations makes clear that rebellions do, in fact, fall under political violence. This means the Confederate States of America were, on top of attempting to violently shatter the union, practicing political violence. While this may seem very different from the attempted assassination of Malala, both fall under the same broad category, demonstrating just how complex this issue is.
Adding nuance is the unfortunate truth that political violence is occasionally necessary to break free from oppression, whether in terms of smaller protests or wholesale uprisings. If, when denied their basic human rights and freedoms, the people of Haiti, France, Mexico, the United States, and numerous other countries had not taken up arms, they would never have established the nations we now recognize.
However, political violence proves to be a double edged sword due to the fact that the governments of countries including Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Chad, and various others are considered dictatorships, theocracies, authoritarian regimes, or something in between. Most if not all of these rulers assumed power through violence, and they have stayed in control by forcefully suppressing any opposition.
Going back to the original query on the secession of several southern states, slavery is an inhumane crime that is illegal in nearly every country and against international law. As the basis for a revolt, it provides not even a sliver of justification. When coupled with the fact the constitution does not allow states to nullify the union, we see that the Confederacy and their decision to secede is legally and ethically invalid. Not everything is as clear-cut though, with even the reasons behind the Civil War still being hotly contested to this year.
Komitor highlights her experiences, adding, “I stick to the facts as I have read them and I try to find multiple sources. I have a lot of anxiety whenever I teach the hotter topics personally because I try to be neutral, because I don’t think it matters what my opinion is in terms of what the students need to learn.”
She adds, “It’s not always easy, and no matter how hard I try somebody somewhere comes back and says that I’m too biased or a parent emails and they want to see my slideshow or check my sources and get the admin involved. At least two times a year I get those conversations, no matter how hard I try, and I’m extremely conscientious about it and not taking sides in my presentation.”
The difficulties Komitor faces in teaching controversial topics reflect the broader challenge of political polarization: even accepted historical truths are subject to intense scrutiny. It is somewhat ironic, then, that the same notable individuals Komitor can be found teaching about in her classroom relate to the current discussion on political violence.
Specifically, any conversation on this complex issues raises a couple of important points; broadly, while some things are objectively wrong (slavery, rape, genocide, the list goes on) can we say it is okay for some people to practice political violence while others can’t? And narrowing in, is the killing of, say, Stalin or Mussolini just as bad as that of Lincoln? And who gets to decide?
In the end, for an action that is supposed to be an end-all, be-all, political violence leaves the world with more questions than answers.
