Weapons of the Weak
Feelin': Reflective
Hummin': The Band by D12
"...beneath the surface of symbolic and ritual compliance, there is an undercurrent of ideological resistance."
Weapons of the weak according to James Scott, a historian writing about peasant uprisings, are explained as the assaults of the unready opponent to "tease" his greatly sized enemy as a show of his insurgence, yet subtly so, that the enemy does not take up measures to expel the troublesome flea.
Let's take a dormant volcano for an example. From the outside, the volcano would seem fine and stable, but inside, unknown to all, a great surging of molten lava is just waiting to be released. A still incompetent warrior who posseses crude, unsophisticated weapons , but contains a great and noble cause, can be likened to this.
The theory explains the actions of those vandals or "closet rebels." Many of us, when compelled to do something we hate or despise use the weapons of the weak. Yes, grumbling, answering back, gossiping, slander, slamming the door and all minor displays of rebellion are aptly called WEAPONS OF THE WEAK. These actions are the beginnings of a vengeance not yet ready for war. These minor acts are subtle, seemingly harmless, calculated hits that if taken forgranted and allowed time to ferment will become a sudden attack.
Weapons of the weak are tell-tale signs, little pieces of the giant puzzle that doesn't call for much attention, hence are often left undetected. But given a period of time and the right reinforcements, these doings will build up to a large-scale rebellion. It is like a soldier wanting to fight, but he knows that the minute his giant enemy sees him as a possible threat, the giant would wipe him out in an instant. So the soldier expresses his anger and resistance in ways that are pestering, yet not aggravating enough for his enemy to "waste his time" dealing with.
NO, at least, not YET.
One of my classmates asked, isn't it undignified to fight when the enemy is unaware of your plans? Many would say fight with unblemished honor and be ready to die for your cause. But instances may vary. My brilliant History teacher, Sir Dave replied by saying it depends on your philosophy, meaning if you know you're totally defenseless, it's actually stupid, though admirable, to place yourself in imminent danger.
Ultimately, ask the question, what good would it do your cause if you're dead?
If it inspires your fellow men, good and well. But if you're just added to the number of those who died without so much as a flinch from the enemy, then it was an attempt wasted.
Hmmm. Good point.
So, instead of fighting a lost battle, you wait, gathering your forces patiently until your army is big enough to slay the oblivious enemy, who without so much as an inkling that his little opponent has grown up to be a formidable adversary. Yes, these are the tactics of the weak; to hide for the time being and regain much needed strength in order to fight (with the objective to win) for another day.
Is this cowardice, or intelligence?
