“Non-Violent Resistance”, M.K. Gandhi

Many individuals in the contemporary society in which we reside in have various opinions in regards to any topics or situations that may occur. One topic in particular is what is just, and unjust? Or even before one asks that, they ask, “What is Justice? ” Single individuals, I believe will differ in their opinions of justice, however, which view of justice is correct? Would that view be an appropriate one for all situations?

Can justice be used, or assumed to be the same in every situation? Should one belief of justice be used as a universal law? My mind begins to boggle when looking at what my belief of justice is, in comparison to what the authors in our course readings have to say about justice. I find myself agreeing with some of what certain authors say nonetheless, I find myself in disagreement with most ideas from the same authors.

To take a step back and to get a clear view, I see myself in strong divergence with the view of the author of “Non-Violent Resistance”, M. K. Gandhi. His implications do not justify, and there are many of his beliefs that I am in disagreement with. Prior to looking at Gandhi’s belief of non-violent resistance, we must understand the meaning of violence and non-violence. Violence being specific forces in any form that are intentionally applied to assault others, bodies, minds or intellectual levels.

It is often an exhibition of anger. Looking at the definition, we must be aware that non-violence is not limited to not doing the act of violence, rather, it is the practice of the ahisma, were not only do you appreciate the co-existence of living or non living beings, but you also contribute and maintain harmony in the total existence by experiencing a oneness, non duality with the existence itself. In the beginning of the article, it reads a cutting from the April number of the east and west.

It states that M. K. Gandhi is neither a saint nor politician. I agree with that statement. He could never be a shrewd or power hungry like a politician would be, neither could he be a saint because he could not be outstandingly devout or a virtuous person throughout every passing second of his life until death. M. K. Gandhi himself did not consider himself a saint: “Now I think that the word saint should be ruled out of present life.

It is too sacred a word to be lightly applied to anybody, much less to one like myself who claims only to be a humble searcher after truth, knows his limitations, makes mistakes, never hesitates to admit them when he makes them, and frankly confesses that he, like a scientist, is making experiments about some ‘of the eternal varieties’ of life, but cannot even claim to be a scientist because he can show no tangible proof of scientific accuracy in his methods or such tangible results of his experiments as modern science demands. Pg. 395) he says.

He was incidentally a politician and occasionally a saint but in my eyes he will always be a nation builder and a contributor to world peace rather than a saint attempting to unite the world. Gandhi had no intentions to be a politician, the power, the title, the office meant nothing to him. He was constructive and objective when it came to politics, not to get power for himself but to create results by remedies implemented by authority.

Circumstances drove him to be a politician, “If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics encircle us today like a coil in a snake from which one cannot get out of, no matter how much one tries. ” (pg. 395) However, he cared, he wanted to build a nation and always kept India in the back of his mind. He wanted life to be saintful, spiritual, and non violent and he discovered the idea of having hartals (direct actions), by non co-operation, ceasing to assist the wrong directly or indirectly.

Hartal is an instrument, a mean or a strike, where people with common concerns are united for the purpose of participating in expressing their concerns with non-violence and non co-operation to authorities with a clear determination to resolve it. He produced results by making authorities implement solutions. I disagree with Gandhi’s idea of Hartals. Non-violence is excellent to an extent but as soon as your target begins to use violence on you, you will be left in a position where the only battle you can fight is one that is using the same weapon as you, non-violence.

If you come against a battle were you are using non-violence, and the opposing team is using violence, they have more power and strength than you, and you are guaranteed to lose. M. K. Gandhi not only supported the non-violent hartals, but he felt there were no actions without a cause and no results without an action. For him causes were behind actions and actions were behind results. That idea perfectly molds his idea of hartal. Hartal is an action with a cause, behind that action is found to create a result.

This direct action of Hartal is based spiritually where it is serving the higher behest of ahisma of doing what is godly right, other wise known as righteous. That in India is known as “Dharm” and some call it Sanatan or Hindu Dharm. This is not equal religion. Hartal has no intentions to harm anyone. It builds up confidence and determination and allows people to feel braced for the struggle ahead. Gandhi feels that it aids people to feel strong and capable to defy the physical might. By doing so, it also eliminates any sense of revenge and redresses the idea of seeking remedies.

For example, the events of Jalianwala Bagh, Champaran and of South East Africa that Gandhi addresses in the essay, all displayed Hartals. M. K. Gandhi felt that any commemoral of such events are to raise temples of peace, “the widows and orphans have been and are being helped, but we cannot bless those souls of those who dies without knowing why. ”(Pg. 395-396) The examples that Gandhi touched on, where Hartals were used as a method of actions are a direct example of why I disagree with his method.

I feel that psychologically Gandhi may be correct, and the Hartals may unite the people and give them the confidence they need, but as for making them strong I feel that physically Hartals were not doing the job. By eliminating a sense of revenge I admit it does help you to concentrate on seeking a remedy, but your life is just as important as any solution being fought for. Having acted with non-violence caused many deaths with mass killing in all those situations. If they were taught to keep strong and peaceful as well as known to act upon violence with the same source they were being attacked by.

The fight would have been both sided rather than one, not only did their non-violent Hartal make them not find a remedy but it also made them lose many lives. There is one part of this article that I strongly, disagree with. When the April number of the East West states “Shall we not now try for a larger symbiosis such as Buddha and Christ preached, and bring the world to breath and prosper together? Mr. Gandhi seemed destined to be the apostle of such a movement. ” (Pg. 394) Gandhi states in the essay that he disagrees with that comment, however, not as strongly as I do.

In context of circumstances, the time, and the environment of Gandhi. He could never be compared with Buddha or Christ. A mean, such as Hartal was appropriate for Gandhi to use, but not necessarily that same mean would be appropriate at another time for similar cause. However it is easy to appreciate the principle of ahisma and spirituality in all three of those great souls. In spite of this in my eyes all three reside at different levels. It is true that they all used direct actions, and Gandhi says, “They would not raise a finger against their enemies, but would gladly surrender themselves rather than the truth for which they lived. Pg. 396)

Gandhi feels he “simply and humbly follow in the footsteps of the great teachers named by my critic. ” (Pg 396) I feel the circumstances when Christ died on the cross and defied the whole empire to be an entirely different time and situation then when Gandhi lived. That is why I feel direct actions at that time may have proven to be for the best but Gandhi’s Hartals in my view proves nothing than a large amount of dead bodies. Gandhi’s law of suffering, interested me the most throughout the essay. He feels that suffering is the result of an action that I agree with.

But he also feels a raise of revolution comes from suffering in individuals or groups. When one can identify that raise of revolution them selves or a figure of a godly man can open your eyes to it. Then the journey of your revolution begins with the direction of that identifier or initiated by yourself. This law of suffering is the only theory of Gandhi’s that I slightly agree with. During the time of slavery in India, Indians suffered for centuries, and our nation builders identified the raise of revolution from time to time.

Amongst those nation builders was M. K. Gandhi. He very effectively amplified the raise; by educating Indians that freedom is “your birth right. ” Gandhi believed that you must have this right with ahisma with applying non-co-operation. India did suffer, but after our raise of revolution, like Gandhi discusses, we were free, and much happier as a nation. Gandhi also feels that one may eliminate their errors that have occurred in the past, but one can never get away from the Law of Suffering. There are many historical events that he goes on to articulate to prove that.

For example, if Yudhister did not suffer, than the greatest psychological book, the Mahabhart would not have been created. Also, if Arjun did not suffer, than there would have been no one to create the inspiring, guiding Geeta. And, of course, Jesus sufficed himself to free a sorrowing world. I do see where Gandhi would believe that suffering does bring a raise of revolution, nevertheless, I don’t feel that every situation has something good coming out of the suffering that took place prior to it. Gandhi then goes on to relate the law of suffering to the Hartals.

He feels that participants in Hartals do suffer, “The purer the suffering, the greater is the progress. Progress is to be measured by the amount of suffering undergone by the sufferer. ”(Pg 397) I feel that No matter how great or how less a person suffers if they raise to that revolution, it will not be better if they suffered more, it would be better depending, on how badly they, themselves want it. M. K. Gandhi then proceeds to further explain non-co-operation. He says that there are progressive steps that are needed while ceasing to assist authority.

Here are just a few that I felt were important: ) To give up titles and recognition of honoring posts. 2) Previous arrangement at larger scale, and must succeed. 3) Totally no support 4) Suspension of taxes. Non-co-operation is a voluntary movement. This movement can only succeed, if the feeling is genuine, and it is strong enough to make people suffer to the utmost. There are different methods that one may contribute to the non-co-operation. Physical sacrifice, money, or labor. I feel that because this movement has no rule of thumb, and all you have to keep is the spirit of spirituality, the success would not be great.

I think that the success depends entirely on disciplined and concentrated non–co-operation. It is dependant on strict obedience to what the instructions are, one needs to be calm, and there has to be absolute freedom form violence. This should only be tried in a calm atmosphere. There should be no anger or want of revenge. Being calm should be strength not a weakness, and people should be knowledgeable, not ignorant. All of these principles are very difficult for one to follow while they are frustrated and in need of something. One of these principles is guaranteed to break in destruct the entire theory.

That is why I do not support it. This non-co-operation should have an environment free from violence, and a spirit of self-sacrifice. When looking at Swedishi, that Gandhi speaks about; it does have a legitimate place in the movement. His idea of sacrificing the liking of foreign goods, not to wear or support a foreign service over the nations products, wanting, and wearing products produced in India, rather than Europe, was good. Having people support the Indian economy, creates patriotism, and builds self-esteem. It makes a commitment to the country. Foe example, as we say here in Canada… “Buy Canadian, be Canadian. ”

M. K. Gandhi, then continues along with his essay, and begins to bring up his belief, that I disagreement with the most. M. K. says without the unity of Hindu-Muslims, India cannot attain her freedom. I extremely differ with him. I feel that India could have easily got her freedom by having a unity amongst the majority of Indians (Hindus). Nothing should be gotten at the cost of the majority or by appeasing the minority. Which is exactly what happened. M. K. was wrong when the Muslims demanded separate countries. Not only did he accept their demands, he persuaded his colleagues to accept the division of India in the name of Religion.

He felt that in the name of religion he was doing right. I feel that Gandhi was wrong with what he believed, in a whole. He said that India could not attain freedom without the unity of Hindu-Muslims, but he was wrong, and he proved that by giving them the support to separate. By him appeasing the Muslims his cost resulted in the division of India. Is justice to have a country separated, because Gandhi wanted to accept a demand in the name of religion? Unity has nothing to do with religion, a common thread of culture, which both Hindus, and Muslims could attain it.

Gandhi’s main belief was non–violence and he himself admits that the Muslims do not believe in it. He denied keeping together the country for the sake of his followers, but gave in to the demands of his non-believers. Gandhi also articulates, that the right of civil disobedience is an inherited right of a citizen. He feels that it is a beautiful form to signify growth, and it is not a discountenance, it leads to strength and purity. I feel that he is true about it not being an approval to death, however a beautiful form, is not what I would describe it to be. It is more like something that is a must, and not a choice.

M. K. Gandhi has a view on justice that I will never entirely or perhaps even remotely agree with. I believe justice to be an old fashion means of retribution. It gets as simple as, the good get rewarded, and the bad get punished. I feel that every individual should act according to their situation is at that time. Nothing can be universal. Justice as defined in Webster’s is the quality of being just; equity; merited reward or punishment; the administration of the law. My definition of justice is very similar to the dictionary definition, and I believe that it works fine in the courts and that it would work fine everywhere.

For example, if someone gives information about a murder, than they should be rewarded with some money. If someone murders someone they should be killed for it. I believe in the death penalty, and I feel that justice is what every individual feels in their heart. If an individual may see someone on death row, they might have compassion for them, however if that was the killer of that individual’s mother, for them justice might be to see them dead. Or maybe not? In conclusion, I feel, M. K. Gandhi caused a disaster by dividing the entire country.

I feel that was not just. As for his viewpoint of non-violence, I feel that there comes a time when you have to watch over yourself or your values, and have to obtain a weapon. If not, you are weak, and the conflicting side, will abuse you, and take advantage of you. Even when it came to India’s freedom, Gandhi’s non-violence practice with hartal did assist, but there were also many revolutionary people who were fighting, by using violence, who gave a very cruel time to the British, and had a great deal to do with their departure of India.

Nothing is universal, nor is it imprinted. I feel that justice should be made at an individual discretion everything is subject to change. What the meaning of justice is changes in the minds of individuals as they encounter different situation. With regards to non-violence as a whole, survival causes violence and weapons, if the big fish never fed off the little fish, how would they perish? If humans never violently killed animals to eat, or even plants, how would we continue to exist?

Measure for Measure Essays: Mercy vs. Justice

Mercy vs. Justice. Allusion to justice = eye for eye, tooth for tooth [measure for measure]; allusion to mercy = let him without sin cast the first stone [esp. sexual sin].

Duke wants to restore the strictness of fornication/adultery laws. He sets up Angelo to do it, while he feigns that he will be away. Instead he remains to check up on Angelo and the town (Vienna). Angelo goes ahead and closes down Overdone’s brothel and the others, and puts Claudio in jail, condemned to die the morrow, for impregnating Juliet.

Isabella, Claudio’s sister and about to enter a nunnery, pleads for Angelo’s mercy on him. Lucio counsels her to be warm to him, and she is just warm enough to inspire Angelo to seduce her: seduction in exchange for Claudio. The Duke, posing as a Friar, overhears her exchange with Claudio in which he counsels her to go through with the act. He enters and sets up a plan: Angelo ought to have married Mariana but didn’t: Mariana therefore will go in Isabella’s place.

Angelo, after the deed, calls even more quickly for Claudio’s head. The Duke (as Friar) puts this off: now Angelo is two steps behind (not knowing about either Mariana or Claudio). The Duke returns, as Duke, and asks for anyone against Angelo to speak. Isabella does: finally it comes out that the Friar was behind Isabella’s suit. The Friar is called for, and so the Duke disappears and comes back as the Friar, but is revealed to be the Duke. The switch is revealed and Angelo must marry Mariana; Claudio is revealed as alive and is pardoned by the Duke. Lucio (a subplot) also gets his deserts.

Morality: mercy wins over justice, and yet there is a strong sense of justice having been done. Symbolically accomplished by the Duke (justice) taking on the habit of “a true friar” (mercy but with sense of justice) starting with I.iii.48.

II.i.17 ff, Angelo on justice without mercy: “‘Tis one thing to be tempted, Escalus,/Another thing to fall. I not deny,/The jury, passing on the prisoner’s life,/May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two/Guiltier than him they try. What’s open made to justice,/That justice seizes: what know the laws/That thieves do pass on thieves?”–this is unmitigated justice, just as II.i.30-31: “Let mine own judgement pattern out my death, [which Angelo is willing to accept once caught, in V.i.371]/And nothing come in partial. Sir, he must die.” And also cf. II.ii.81-83 and V.i.474. The Duke plans to hold Angelo to it in III.ii.260-63 and in V.i.407 ff. (eye for eye, “Measure still for Measure” in line 409).

Escalus explains one aspect of why justice is necessary in II.i.85 ff.: “Pardon is still the nurse of second woe”; Angelo seconds this in II.ii.101 ff: “I show it [pity] most when I show justice;/for then I pity those I do not know,/Which a dismiss’d offence would after gall;/And do him right that, answering one foul wrong/Lives not to act another.” This may be the idea behind Mariana’s statement in V.i.437-38: most men “become much more the better/For being a little bad.”

Lucio: the “go for it” morality, I.iv.77-79 — Lucio counsels a wrong action with the right idea: our fear of adverse consequences might keep us from taking the good action. Same as Duke (as Friar), III.i.209: “Virtue is bold, and goodness never fearful.”

Froth: puts forward notion that he is good, but that an external force draws him to the bad, II.i.110-12: “For mine own part, I never come into any room in a taphouse, but I am drawn in.” But others work from the notion that everyone commits sexual sin: e.g. Pompey, II.i.231 ff, Provost, II.ii.5, Lucio, III.ii.103, even Angelo II.iv.121,123 when trying to seduce Isabella (but Angelo and the Duke think they can cut down on it with deterrents of punishment). Also cf. Isabella’s similar pleas, II.ii.63-66 and II.ii.137 ff. Related to this is the ‘he who is without sin’–the notion that the sins of the judge justify mercy about the sins of the judged, II.ii.176-77–this spoken by Angelo once he falls for Isabella, in passion, (but then cf. II.iv.15-17: “Blood, thou art blood:/Let’s write good angel on the devil’s horn,/’Tis not the devil’s crest”) and spoken more forcefully by the Duke at IV.ii.108 ff., IV.ii.59 ff., and V.i.108 ff. (this last being aligned with reason). Franklin, “On Censure or Backbiting”: he who will always “excuse and palliate the Crimes of others, may rationally be suspected to have some secret darling Vice, which he hopes will be excused him in return,” Lemay 195. Is this not the situation of the Duke, and the reasoning of these others?

The difficultly of remaining without sin “when once our grace we have forgot”: the Pauline words of Angelo “we would, and we would not!” at IV.iv.34-35.

Claudio: the virtue of a necessary sin (see also All’s Well III.vii: “lawful deceit,” “lawful meaning in unlawful act”), III.i.131-133: “What sin you do to save a brother’s life,/Nature dispenses with the deed so far/That it becomes a virtue.” The Duke says as much to Mariana at the end of IV.i: “[fear not (be bold as virtue is bold) and] ’tis no sin,/Sith that the justice of your title to him/Doth flourish the deceit [and indeed the time is ripe]”, and likewise in V.i.533: “Th’offence pardons itself.” And compare Pompey as the “lawful hangman” in IV.ii.

But Isabella disagrees: her morality comes from spirit and truth, III.i.206-08: “I have spirit to do any thing that appears not foul in the truth of my spirit.” She recognizes, as does Angelo, that Claudio ought to be punished, but tempers her justice with mercy.

Social Justice – Measure for Measure, Animal Farm, American History X

Social justice is a topic known all to well in today’s society. Such issues as social heirarchial structure and unjust representatives of citizens of nations are issues in need of attention by those in power. Corruption, lies and greed by those in power however stand in the way of this form of justice from occurring, leaving many with little or no social status open to prejudice on race, religious and sexual grounds.

Outlined by William Shakespeare in Measure for Measure and George Orwell in Animal Farm is the ease in which power can corrupt.

A utopian society is created once a farmer is overthrown from his position in charge of all the animals on “Manor Farm”. A set of rules to govern the citizens of the revolutionary society was decided upon and these were to be the fairest and least controversial rules for the citizens of “Animal Farm” to abide by:

“The Commandments were written on the tarred wall in great white letters that could be read thirty yards away. They ran thus:

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a freind
3. No animal shall wear clothes
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed
5. No animal shall drink alcohol
6. No animal shall kill any other animal
7. All animals are equal.

It was very neatly written, and except that “friend” was written “freind” and one of the “S’s” was the wrong way round, the spelling was correct all the way through. Snowball read it aloud for the benefit of the others. All the animals nodded in complete agreement, and the cleverer ones at once began to learn the Commandments by heart.”

As months passed on Animal Farm, the pigs, who thought they were the dominant force in the running of the animal farm, became more and more in control. Animal Farm, had now become the fairest it would ever be.

Word of what had happened to Manor Farm had spread across all of Ireland and England. Animals all over the country were following in their paths led by pigs Napoleon and Snowball. However, as this was happening, Animal Farm was heading to ruin as the pigs became selfish and ignorant. They would now consider themselves above the laws and commandments they had set, as they believed they had set the way for the new society. To a greater extent, leaders Snowball and Napoleon would control and decide the fate of the farm, setting rations, “In January food fell short. The corn ration was drastically reduced”, deciding hours on the Mill, and even who would live to see another day, as we saw in Chapter 7 when Snowball had been declared a traitor:

The three hens who had been the ringleaders in the attempted rebellion over the eggs now came forward and stated that Snowball had appeared to them in a dream and incited them to disobey Napoleon’s orders. They, too, were slaughtered. Then a goose came forward and confessed to having secreted six ears of corn during the last year’s harvest and eaten them in the night. Then a sheep confessed to having urinated in the drinking poolurged to do this, so she said, by Snowballand two other sheep confessed to having murdered an old ram, an especially devoted follower of Napoleon, by chasing him round and round a bonfire when he was suffering from a cough. They were all slain on the spot. And so the tale of confessions and executions went on, until there was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon’s feet and the air was heavy with the smell of blood, which had been unknown there since the expulsion of Jones.”

The farm which had once been the source of inspiration with a democratic society was now a farm of death, destruction and communism.

This is the impact of social injustice on what was once a just community in a revolutionary society. When power corrupts as happened in Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’, there is no telling where it will end or what damage will be caused. Such social injustice also occurred in William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, wherein a leader corrupted the legal system for his own benefit.

Vienna is being lead by Angelo, a name reflecting ‘bad angel’, and the city has been outraged due to his corrupt ways. The play is based around the court case of Claudio and the injustice delivered to him by the corrupt leader for a crime that some would consider being trivial.

Claudio had made love to his fiance prior to their marriage. At this time in Vienna, this was a crime punishable by death and Angelo was quick to pounce on this fact, sending Claudio to gaol and sentencing him to death. In studies of justice we have learnt that justice depends on the situation and this seems grossly unjust for a couple planning to be wed.

After Claudio is sentenced to death, Shakespeare creates an interesting turn of events showing just how corrupt leadership can be. Once Claudio’s sister, Isabella, a novice nun approaches Angelo to dispute his decision and begs for mercy, he tells her that in order to save her brother, she will have to give up her virginity to him:

“Admit no other way to save his life-
As I subscribe not that, nor any other,
But in the loss of question- that you, his sister,
Finding yourself desired of such a person,
Whose credit with the judge, or own great place,
Could fetch your brother from the manacles
Of the all-binding law, and that there were
No earthly mean to save him, but that either
You must lay down the treasures of your body
To this supposed, or else to let him suffer:
What would you do?”

“As much for my brother as myself:
That is, were I under the terms of death,
Th’impression of keen whips I’d wear as rubies,
And strip myself to death as to a bed
That longing have been sick for, ere I’d yield
My body up to shame.”

“Then your brother must die.”

“And ’twere the cheaper way:
Better it were a brother died at once,
Than a sister by redeeming him
Should die forever.”

This passage shows that the question of Angelo is not whether he is corrupt or not, but how corrupt he is. His hypocritical ways were characteristic of the leader in action. On one hand he was condemning Angelo and Juliet for their sin but on the other was encouraging the exact same sin with Isabella, the signs of true hypocrisy. As we can see in Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure, those in leadership roles often let their responsibilities fall short and the power they obtain influences their duties to their underlying citizens negatively and due to this an injustice may occur.

One’s mind may be distorted and filled with negative opinions when young by those we respect. Racism, prejudice against those of different religions or against those of a different sex, are just a few examples of ideas that are drilled into a young person’s mind by those influencing the youth, especially by one’s parents.

In the film American History X, the ease in which a youth’s mind can be directed is only too present. A respectable young man going by the name of Derek is a teen who holds no racist opinions until after admiring his class teacher’s (Dr. Bob Sweeney) work on black issues and works. His father bluntly tells Derek not to have any respect for those who are not white people of the Protestant faith, sparking the beginning of a racist developmen- producing a man who would kill a black man just for the sake of it. This is made clear when his father is murdered, but nobody knows by who and Derek boldly accuses every black man of being a suspect on national television: “Every problem is race related. Immigration, aids….”.

Not only was Derek now a racist, but his little brother, Danny would blindly follow in his brother’s footsteps. Looking up to Derek as a fatherly figure, Danny believes if Derek says it then it must be true. The Neo-Nazi movement expresses hatred for many cultures and believe in the ‘Ku Klux Klan’ catch cry of white power. Derek is sent to gaol after murdering two black men outside his house who are trying to steal his car. He learnt valuable lessons while carrying out his sentence because he was outnumbered by black men and the white men turned on him. “Yeah, I know your kind. Bad ass pecker wood with an attitude. Let me tell you something, you better watch your ass, cause in this joint, you’re the nigga, not me.”

However, while Derek had learnt these lessons, Danny had not. After writing a school report on Hitler’s Mein Kampf he is placed in a class by himself with Dr. Bob Sweeney and is told to research his older brother on the very day he is released from prison.It is an assignment designed to open Danny’s eyes.

Danny then finds out about his brother’s time in the prison system and Danny still respects Derek as a fatherly figure. He is told of the struggles his brother went through, how he was able to break the shackles of racism through the help of Dr. Sweeney and once again Danny follows in Derek’s footsteps and breaks free from the “Skinhead Tribe”, the nickname for the Neo-Nazi group founded by Derek.

On the morning Danny is to hand in his essay on his older brother to Dr. Sweeney after shedding his racist opinions, he is shot in the toilets by a black boy who he had previously aggravated and who was the brother of one of the black men that Derek had murdered.

Injustice is a strong word and in all three cases I have portrayed here all contain some sort of injustice. Whether it be Animal Farm and their corrupt society run by the communist pigs, Measure for Measure and the hypocritical leader or American History X and the Neo-Nazi society that one was able to associate themselves with, all these are able to relate back to each other in that there was an injustice caused by one to disadvantage the rest of their society.