Ghandi is often credited for his most famous line: “an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind” his intention behind the quote is to criticize how society deals with people who they deem cruel with similar or equal cruelty, making us no better than who we originally sought to condemn. Another play on this idea is, “you can’t solve violence with violence”. Over the years Ghandi’s quote and pacifist ideals have been criticized by many people. Gandhi argues that using this form of retribution doubles the amount of suffering, violence and anger in the world and the value of human life should be prioritized. While the people who disagree with him argue that consequences are needed for people to realize that their actions have a heavy weight on them. In these two pieces of media, we’ll see which argues for which side.

In the play Orthello written and directed by William Shakespear, Orthello’s justification behind his secret engagement with Desdemona is because her father (Brabantio) is prejudiced and would never accept their love. Now I’m not saying that the primary reason why Orthello engaged with Desdamona is to get back at Brabantio for believing lowly of him, but I can reason why Orthello purposely didn’t tell Brabantio and didn’t respect him as a father was because he (Brabantio) didn’t respect Orthello as a good candidate for his daughter. In other words, Brabantio was met with equal or similar cruelty that he showed Orthello. In the play this was accepted, Orthello was never scrutinized or dealt with the consequences for this particular act, in fact, his engagement continued to be a peaceful (although short) relationship (until the end). Outsiders that viewed the play even argued that it was the morally correct thing to do to Brabantio. 

In the song Shoes by Lupe Fiasco a lyric stood out to me, 

“White kid at the front let me go first ’cause I was black

Said it was only right

He was used to havin’ head starts his entire life

Maybe it was time to step aside like trilobites” 

There’s a double meaning to these couple of stanzas. Lupe fiasco is painting a scenario in your head where a white child gives up the front spot to Lupe because of the color of his skin, reason being, the historical racism between people of color and whites. The kid is trying to express that because people of color, like Lupe fiasco, have been met with oppression, and whites (him) should be met with the same or equal oppression for “justice” to be served, therefore giving up one of his privileges (front seat). The double meaning that Lupe is trying to express is that yes, to few this might be justice but it’s not equality. Lupe is trying to question the audience, which of the two matters most? My view on the song highlights how destructive ‘justice” or “revenge” can be. In this situation there is no winner, the two races will only take turns being oppressed and it creates this endless cycle. 

In conclusion, we’ve seen 2 wildly different pieces of media that argue for both sides of why an eye for an eye is either justice or revenge. While the way society condemns the people they deem cruel can be viewed in a harsh light, it can also be justified depending on the crimes of the person. Given the perspectives of both, it’s your turn to draw a conclusion on the piece and figure out where you stand.