Do you Believe Terrorism Was a Real Threat in the Early 1920s - Assignment Example

Terrorism in 1920s al Affiliation: Terrorism in 1920s In 1920s, terrorism was not a real threat to the country and the world at large. During those days, countries were trying to liberate themselves from oppressive leadership. The leaders who were in power did not have the limits. The structures of governance were open to misuse, an aspect that exposed the minority groups in the society. This common problem brought various vocal people from the society together in order to fight for their rights. The top leaders were not listening to the needs of the people. The poor continued to be oppressed and their basic rights were violated continuously. As a result, they had to use violent means in order to be recognized. Any peaceful means of seeking justice was ignored, an aspect that irritated them further. However, it’s clear to understand the reason why some people in the society were fed up with violent instigators. This is because in many cases, thousands of people were killed every time there was a confrontation with the state (Watson, 2007). Furthermore, new reforms were being initiated as the political parties were becoming stronger and vocal concerning the needs of the people. Vanzetti was not a martyr. On the contrary he was an activist who fought very hard in order for the government to listen to the oppressed. He sacrificed himself to fight for other people’s right in order to enhance the equality levels and change the government working structures so as to give people more powers to govern themselves. In 1920, there were no real issues to instigate terrorism. The current religious ideologies which have been instrumental in radicalizing people thereby, forcing them to commit the acts of terrorisms were not in existence. Moreover, majority of people were very poor and vulnerable. Therefore, their major focus was on how to liberate themselves from oppressive rule. The immigrants, African Americans, and the poor wanted to see a government that was focused towards their agendas. In addition, they wanted equality especially in the distribution of the resources. The mindset of the people was that they can champion for their rights through the use of the existing legal structures and ensuring that they elect responsible leaders who were development oriented. Many of the leaders who were in power used Vanzetti means to get in power. However, once they get into leadership positions, they forget the demises that people are going through. Therefore, people were fed up with these strategies because they were used as stepping stone to power by the activists. The government was using its powers against the innocent citizens. The leaders wanted to clinch on power through the use of every available means. Therefore, they were opposed to changes. As a result, they restricted people and gagged all channels that could be used to air the grievances of the people. For instance, in 1919, labor unions were not allowed to strike. This agitated the employees who were playing a significant role in ensuring that the operations of the governments were running smoothly. These forms of intimidation hardened the people making majority of them to use any means possible to ensure that there was change for the betterment of the current and future generations that were to follow. However, the claim by the government that these measures were taken to curb the threat posed by terrorism were baseless and only an excuse to extent its oppression to the people. This was also a strategy to silence the leaders of these groups who were associated with terrorism activities. Nevertheless, at this time, terrorism was just a notion but not a reality (Tejada, 2012). This is because there were more hurting issues that people focused on rather than religion and social differences. Many people had not experienced the acts of terrorism before. Therefore, the government was using the term terrorism in its propaganda strategy in order to suppress the opposition. The radicals were becoming more vocal. When 70,000 radicals joined the Communist Party after 1919 march, there was a great threat to the leadership of the country (Vanzetti, and Sacco, 2014). The government had to come up with an effective campaign to win the hearts of the people. This gave rise to the notion that the measures that were being taken by the authority was in an attempt to protect the people against the acts of the terrorists. Both Sacco and Vanzetti were only radicals but not terrorist. Their acts had no criminal connections. The evidence given to the court concerning the murder trials was flimsy. Instead, their prosecution was based on their political beliefs which advocated for violent overthrow of capitalism. With one third of the American people at that time being immigrants, their popularity was giving the government a scare. Therefore, it had to come up with a plot of silencing them (Tejada, 2012). Therefore, there was no connection between the two with the murder or any form of terrorism. Both Sacco and Vanzetti were close followers of Galleani. This was a radical Italian anarchist, who instigated several bombing incidents against the public officials. A close associate of Galleani had also blown himself up while planting a bomb in Attorney Generals house. The relationship between these two and Galleani made the government officials to assume that they might get access to the weapons of mass destructions. Their trials were marred by prejudice against Italians, immigrants, and racial beliefs (Laqueur, 2001). The evidence used in the court was ambiguous and the whole trial process was a sham. Therefore, the picture that the government and the court system tried to create that this was a case against terrorists was not true. These were people who were willing to use all available means to liberate the people especially the immigrants who were being deported from harsh treatment by both the locals and authority. Civil liberties were not well outlined. People did not know the best strategies to use in order to agitate for their rights. Therefore, they always supported people that they thought that they would liberate them from poor governance and mistreatment from the government. They did not understand their limits when trying to attract the attention of the government concerning the real issues that were affecting the people on the ground. Today, there are well outlined structures that can be used by human activists to push their agendas. Therefore, even when there are Racial Profiling and recent killings of African American men by the police and other circumstances, people have the freedom to demonstrate (Chaliand, Blin, Schneider, Pulver, and Browner, 2007). This was the case in Fergusson. When the local population felt that they have genuine grievances and the government was listening, they went to the street because they know that the constitution protects them and give them the liberty to demonstrate. However, although there have been several cases when the state has violated some rules, the people have the power to sue the administration and ask for compensation. In 1920s such rules were not in existence. People did not know their rights. Therefore, the elite were trying to mobilize the rest of population in order for the whole agenda of liberty to get some momentum (Bortman, 2005). Therefore, they did not have any mentality to link with terrorists. Therefore, the perception by some leaders that the country was under the threat of terrorism was ungrounded and not based on facts. The radicals were posing a threat to the security and stability of the country. They were turning towards violent means in order to get attention from the relevant authority. However, these were people who were loyal to the country and who could not be easily manipulated by external forces to destroy the country. Although their increased pressure was a threat to the peace of the natives, they had an important point that they were trying to drive. Therefore, denying them the opportunity to be heard was not the right way to handle the issues (Hanhimäki and Blumenau, 2013). On the contrary the government could have listened to their grievances without intimidating their leaders and using negative propaganda in order to make them unpopular. In conclusion, the agitation for better rights, living conditions, and governance cannot be equated to terrorism. Although Sacco and Vanzetti used violent means to drive their agendas, they were not in any way linked to the terrorist. As a result, at that time, there was no threat of terrorism that was facing the country. Works Cited Bortman, E. (2005). Sacco & Vanzetti. Beverly, MA: Commonwealth Editions. Chaliand, G., A. Blin, E. D. Schneider, K. Pulver, and J. Browner. ( 2007). The history of terrorism: From antiquity to al Qaeda. Berkeley: University of California Press. Hanhimäki, J. M., and B. Blumenau. (2013). An International History of Terrorism: Western and Non-Western Experiences. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Laqueur, W. (2001). A history of terrorism. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Tejada, S. M. (2012). In search of Sacco and Vanzetti: Double lives, troubled times, and the Massachusetts murder case that shook the world. Boston: Northeastern University Press. Vanzetti, B., and N. Sacco. (2014). The letters of sacco and vanzetti. New York: Penguin Books. Watson, B. (2007). Sacco and Vanzetti: The men, the murders, and the judgment of mankind. New York: Viking. Read More