I found Violence: The Double Standard, to be a difficult read. Zinn’s use of long sentences describing the twin objective between social change and avoidance of violence. However, after spending enough time deciphering his words I found his writing to be very raw and true on most of points. I have never given much thought to the definition of violence until reading Zinn’s piece. Most people’s first thought of violence would be that it’s something physical, it’s the pain we feel at the hands of others rather than the emotional or psychological effects of the act. Zinn also points out how we perceive people differently, “The idea, I believe is based on two failures of vision: one is failure to recognize how much overt violence has characterized our behavior toward other nationalities, other races - outgroups of our society; the other is a failure to recognize the place of violence - both overt and hidden - in whatever important change has occurred in American history.” I like how Zinn uses America as his example because this country, throughout history has used violence to enforce nonviolence. Zinn also talks about the double standard of social change and peace. Social change is not possible without violence, but peace cannot coexist in this situation. If peace is valued over violence, then social change is sacrificed. I find it …show more content…
After years and years of listening to civil rights protesters, student protesters, and anti-war protesters, the American people were fed with with the protesting and as Goings explains, “The students protest at Kent State finally gnawed through the cord of American tolerance, worn thin by over a decade of civil rights, student, and antiwar protests, sit-ins, and clashes with authority.”Although this does not constitute the shootings, policemen had reached their breaking point at willingly opened fire upon undeserving