Sunday, February 7, 2010

What is freedom? One definition it has is "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." I simplify this as escape from unwanted ties. The begining of freedom seems to inherently entail a sort of rebellion or pushing back aganist forces or powers perceived as wrong or sinister. This applies in political, personal and social circles.

We can easily understand political freedom and rebellion. We are surrounded by such a virulent political atmosphere that alot of humanity can easily come to terms with it. It is hard for common people to identify with any ideology that ignores individual death but it is even harder to find many people supporting something that refuses to try and understand or in any way bellitles these struggles. We can draw examples from the civil war in USA, or world war 2 or even various dictators where the 'villains' are committing and supporting terrible atrocities like slavery or genocide or other bad things, but it is quite easy for alot of people to understand or at least sympathize with some of the 'villains" concerns.

We however are plagued to almost always misunderstand and misjudge personal struggles for freedom or personal rebellion. The reasons for this problem are not easy to understand. Is it because of the nature of individual human conscience that we find it hard to 'put ourselves in another person shoes'? Is it beacuse humanity is essentially always in a rat race to exert power and influence that many of us deem alot of this'personal drama' as silly and distracting? Is it part of an instinctive mob psychological mentality? I can't tell, but it is easily visible in practice. If a part of a country wants to break up that is easy to comprehend and rationally argue about, but what if it is a case of an individual wanting more freedom from his family like for example, a young individual rebelling against parental or family ties,a celebrity having an affair or filing a divorce, a young man or woman's choice for sexual freedom in terms of clothing,actions and relationships or maybe it is the case of individual standing in rebellion against a country by moving away or criticizing it or in the case some given politicians escaping it? These scenarios seem alot more misunderstood by common people. There is more hatred, more overbearing moral stands, much more predisposition of thought and mindset against the 'villain' than there is in cases of the larger political factions.

These concerns are usually much higher in cases of social groupings or subcultures. If there are cases of political and individual rebellion, Is it not possible for a collection of people to have concerns that warrant them to Rebel against society? I am not referencing things like public racial and discriminational debate because the aggreable mob gabble are highly politicized and publicized and does not fit the definition i have in mind. I want examine about cases like street and prison gangs,social and religious fringe groups, cultures and subcultures that have sprung up because of these groups of people chosing to take action and not just engage in debate about convictions. Today's black street gangs such as crips,black disciples and bloods might be known alot for drug and crime ties but they begun in the 60's and 70's as groups to protect black communities aganist racial violence, police injustice and promote community interests. The situation is not the very same as those days since civil rights gained the momentum it did and gangbangin' gained the dimensions it has now but there are parallels to this in todays society. Alot of mexica gangs
in Carlifornia are known for their support for immigrant welfare, opposition to deportation(They are sometimes known to hire lawyers and get legal help for these cases), racism and discrimination against Mexicans(which is very much alive), and other various social stand for the Mexican population ,legal and illegal in nature or for legal and illegal immigrants. These actions have been very much eclipsed by the crimes commitied by these societies in the media unsuprisingly. The strange thing however is that it is hard or outrightly impossible to find an understanding or even a little sympathetic position in day to day debate.Unless there are active supporters of these organizations, Most talk of such subjects carries labels similar to "Dumb nigga's feuding" or "Stupid Immigrant Beaners."

Udoubtedly it is possible to for such concerns to be possible in organizations such as Islamic terrorist organization like al-qaeda, Or fundamentally racist and bigotist organization as Aryan Nation,KKK,or even crazy Organizations such as the Nazi Lowrider but these organization seem too overly sinister and evil to warrant anything more than a passing glance.It also quite possible that i am unwarranted to use such examples due to their criminal actions, But is it OK for policemen carrying submachine guns and heavy wepoanry to attack and kill teenagers in carlifornia with nothing more than some knives and a 9 mm in the name of eradicating urban violence and not suffer even the slightest of backlash from American public? Is it alright for carlifornia law system and other states to use the crime in these organizations to unfairly imprison and judge(three strikes,gang profiling,documented police brutality) these people and the general public to be supporting them with little or no effort to understand the situation.

Since nature does not have definitions,lines or boundaries to reference for this,Can we define freedom in a way that accounts for struggles such as these? Is it not possible for an individual to break ties for the sake of freedom in non-traditional forms such as clothing, music, religion, livelihood e.t.c.? Is it not possible for us to recognize a community to seek freedom even while being able to disagree on moral standards, violent action or any harm to society. What of these entities? What is entailed in their freedom and their boundaries?

No comments:

Post a Comment