One of the connections I’ve seen between a number of the texts we’ve read is the struggle of balancing one’s value of their morals versus finding “safety” by allowing whatever injustices they see the system causing continue. This is most evident in the trials of the Chicago Eight and Catonsville Nine. The relative safety one would find by not participating in any sort of protest is different in each of the readings we’ve done, but nonetheless these people made the decision that their morals were more valuable to them then allowing the system to continue in its discriminatory ways which affected many, not just them.
The Catonsville Nine set out to make a statement in their acts. I think this is evident in the fact that they decided to be tried together despite playing vastly different roles in the act of defiance. What was important to them was making the statement that they felt the Vietnam War and the killings that came with it was wrong. They could have easily done nothing, let the war rage on, and not have faced the jail time they did. Morally, they felt the need to make a statement. The same can be said about Huey Newton. The “safety” he would have found is different than that of the Catonsville Nine, but he still chose to be outspoken against the system and make himself a known target. Had he not said anything he wouldn’t have seen his name on thousands of pages of FBI reports. Perhaps he wouldn’t have been noticed by the police officer who pulled him over, leading to him being hospitalized and beat. He could’ve accepted the injustices handed to him by the system, but chose to speak out for the ultimate safety of himself and others. I’ve personally found these acts and the other acts we’ve read about whether it be the Chicago Eight or MLK’s works to be courageous.
This idea of safety is interesting to me because I think a lot of it depends on the who is setting out to make a change. People who decide to put themselves out there in order to make a difference certainly put themselves at risk, but whoever is taking that risk changes the whole nature of the situation. When someone is in the oppressed group, they understand that whether or not they put themselves out there, there are still concerns about safety in everyday life. However, they are also at greater risk than someone from the not-oppressed group when they make a stand. Therefore, when it comes to the oppressed, the decision is between high risk for a better future or low to moderate risk for the foreseen future.