Andrew Burford

Mrs. Kane
Period 7
Causes and Consequences of Social Injustice
People oppress others in socially unjust ways for their own benefit and it always causes
the rebellion of the oppressed group of people. There are many examples in both the texts we've
read and past history of people oppressing other people. There is also abundant evidence of
oppressors acting how they act for their own personal benefit and of oppressed people rebelling
after enough time has passed.
To start, oppressors always seek personal benefit. This is extremely clear in
Animal Farm when the pigs oppressed all of the other animals. Even the pigs themselves
admitted the only reason they are doing what they are doing is to benefit themselves. As Squealer
explained, "Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health" (page 28). He later
tried to twist the facts and convince the animals that pigs only wanted better health so they could
help run Animal Farm for the benefit of others. But there is ample evidence to suggest the pigs
weren't really interested in the benefit of their fellow farm animals. It becomes extremely
obvious when, "There was a pile of corpses lying before Napoleon's feet and the air was heavy
with the smell of blood (page 64). Mr. Jones was another character in the novel that unjustly
treated his animals for his own benefit. Not only did he enjoy the empowering feeling of
whipping helpless animals, he also thought it would make them work harder so he could have
more food to sell for more money. One could argue that if social injustice provides each
individual with the most personal benefit, we should all be acting in socially unjust ways.

However, this is incorrect because the most beneficial course of action for us is not always social
injustice. If we wanted to rob millions of dollars from a bank, it wouldn't benefit us because we
would end up going to jail and the money would be taken away.
Secondly, oppressed people always end up rebelling because of what oppressors do to
them. In A Tale of Two Cities, rich aristocrats were constantly oppressing the lowly peasant
class. When the Marquis killed Gaspard's child, Defarge said, "It is better for the poor little
plaything to die so, than to live. It has died in a moment without pain. Could it have lived an
hour as happily? (page 145). This grim realization that death is the best escape from the life the
peasants lived was proven true when Marquis yelled at Gaspard after his son was killed. He said,
"I would ride over any of you very willingly, and exterminate you from the earth (page 146).
When your country is controlled by rich aristocrats like the Marquis, death is probably a better
alternative. So there is no doubt the peasants were being very cruelly oppressed. So they did
what all oppressed people end up doing: they rebelled. As Dickens puts it, "There could have
been no such Revolution, if all laws, forms, and ceremonies, had not first been so monstrously
abused, that the suicidal vengeance of the Revolution was to scatter them all to the winds" (page
409). As you can see, revolution is the consequence of all oppression.
Lastly, some people believe that revolution is not always the result of oppression.
However, in every text we have read this year, oppression results in some form of uprising or
revolution. Even in All Quiet on the Western Front, the soldiers who were oppressed by
Himmelstoss eventually fought back in a rebellious manner. They ended up beating him up in a
bed sheet. As Paul described: "It was a wonderful picture: Himmelstoss on the ground; Haie
bending over him with a fiendish grin and his mouth open with bloodlust, Himmelstoss's head on
his knees; then the convulsed striped drawers, the knock knees, executing at every blow most

original movements in the lowered breeches, and towering over them like a woodcutter the
indefatigable Tjaden (page 53). Some also believe that people do not always commit acts of
social injustice for their own benefit. One could argue that soldiers such as Paul were forced to
act in socially unjust ways by their country leaders. Propaganda lead them to unjustly kill foreign
soldiers. Not only were Paul's murderous actions not beneficial to him, they actually caused him
to feel extreme guilt. This is incorrect though, because Paul actually received the most personal
benefit by killing that foreign soldier. If he hadn't killed the soldier, then he himself would be
killed. So Paul made a subconscious and instinctive decision that he would gain more benefit by
continuing his life and living with the crushing guilt than he would by dying. He may not have
wanted to commit the social injustice of murder, but he knew deep down that it offered him more
benefit than death. Also, by murdering the soldier, he had honored his country. If he had decided
to flee and abandon the army, he also could have been punished by his country, which is another
thing he wanted to avoid for his own benefit.
In conclusion, oppressors seek personal benefit at the detriment of others, and
social injustice is always ended with a rebellion or uprising. Every book we have read this year
supports this. The only time this appears false is when people appear to act socially unjust
against their will because someone else is forcing them to do it. But if a person has the ability to
refrain from an act of social injustice (even if the consequence is death) yet they still do it, it
means they feel the guilt is not as bad as the repercussion they could receive by resisting. So it is
more beneficial for them to commit an act of social injustice. As you can see, in every scenario
of social injustice possible, people act for the most personal benefit. And given enough time,
oppressed people will always rebel in some way.