Homework Help

Do you believe the (Fight) Rumble was worth The Cause? Why??Do you believe the (Fight)...

user profile pic

sunkistiet | Student | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 8, 2009 at 3:50 PM via web

dislike 2 like
Do you believe the (Fight) Rumble was worth The Cause? Why??

Do you believe the (Fight) Rumble was worth The Cause? Why??

8 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

kwoo1213 | College Teacher | (Level 2) Educator

Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:06 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

This is a good discussion board question.  The Socs and the Greasers, unfortunately, disliked each other without knowing much about each other.  They were "born" into their social classes.  They did not normally associate with one another since they were in these different social classes.  They were told not to associate with each other, at times, and it was just a "given" that they did not mingle with each other.  In rare cases, such as with Pony Boy, did they speak at length with one another.  Each group did not really view each other as individuals.

In my opinion, physical fights do not solve problems.  The "rumble" between the two groups did not really serve a purpose except to release aggression and tension between the two groups and people got hurt, which is not a positive outcome.  The two groups seem destined to treat each other in the same fashion:

In sum, the portrayal of class that Hinton makes simply outlines the facts. There is no attempt to suggest a way of bringing the classes together. Nor is there a criticism of either side, because both sides are at fault. The only optimism this novel offers is that members of the two sides can learn to understand one another, even if they still fight. In the end, greasers will be greasers and Socs will be Socs. (eNotes)

 

user profile pic

ashleeh | Student, Grade 9 | eNotes Newbie

Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:21 AM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

I disagree with what you said about how you said "physical fights don't solve problems."

I think in this, the rumble, that they wern't trying to fix any problems. It's in they're nature to fight with each other, its what they do. And before, in the movie, when Dallas is in the hospital he said "We have to win that fight tonight, man. We'll do it for Johnny." Theres another reason why they thought they had to win. Because they blame the Soc for everything.

user profile pic

marilynn07 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Associate Educator

Posted April 27, 2009 at 11:40 AM (Answer #4)

dislike 0 like

To a certain extent, yes it was worth the trouble. The soc's had it all, including the courts.  There really was no recourse to the greasers except to fight it out and establish a winner.

This shows that if a group of people are oppressed beyond bearing will have to establish their rights or willingness to resist oppression through violent or non-violent means.

The American Revolution is an example of establishing independence through revolution and warfare.

The Indian Revolution is an example of establishing independence through protest and non-violent resistance.

 

 

user profile pic

little-alice | Student, Undergraduate | Salutatorian

Posted January 12, 2010 at 2:34 PM (Answer #5)

dislike 0 like

As Dally said:

 “We’ll do it for Johnny”

I also pictured some Soc like Randy for example saying:

 “We’ll do it for Bob”

The two social groups did it for their members of the killing, Greasers for Johnny (the Killer) and Bob (The killed).

Now, I personally think that Rumbles and jumps are just as used in the sixties as the year 2010. In-fact, my ex-boyfriend, got killed in a rumble two weeks after we broke up.

Yes and No, is my answer; yes, they could’ve done it differently, but, no. Many of the boys like Steve and Two-Bit found fun in punching guys in their faces.

Another point is that the Socs agreed to:

“Play it your way”   

As Cherry said, as in; no weapons, fist for fist. They are fighting fair. Like the Greasers like.

user profile pic

ask996 | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Senior Educator

Posted October 26, 2010 at 4:25 AM (Answer #6)

dislike 0 like

The rumble was not worth it. Once again, the boys gave in to the stereotype of what was expected of them. Could they have chose differently and had more pride and self respect? Eventually, but every time they give in to the "gang" mentality, they sink a little lower.

user profile pic

kiwi | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Educator

Posted August 6, 2011 at 10:56 AM (Answer #8)

dislike 0 like

I think that the fight was as much to let offsteam and to vent their frustrations as to establish any sort of position between the two gangs. We find that there are clear 'rules' to the rumble - no weapons on this occasion - which suggests the boys see this as much as a workout as a battle. They would be playing baseball in a different neighbourhood.

user profile pic

hilahmarca | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Associate Educator

Posted August 27, 2011 at 4:06 PM (Answer #9)

dislike 0 like

Poster number 4 presents an interesting viewpoint, but I feel she falls short with the parallels between the rumble and the American Revolution.  The colonists had a clear goal and vision in the revolution; it wasn't just to beat up the British, as was the goal of the Greasers in the rumble.  The colonists looked beyond the fighting, when they sat down and established the Declaration of Indedpendence.  They said by winning this fight, we will bring about our own society with laws we want to live by.  Therefore, it was worthwhile.  The Greasers won their rumble, but then returned back to their same substandard ways of life.  It would have been like if General Cornwallis surrendered to George Washington, and then Washington in turn paid him a hefty tax for some of his tea.

user profile pic

ik9744 | TA , Grade 9 | Valedictorian

Posted July 29, 2014 at 12:30 PM (Answer #10)

dislike 0 like

No, violence doesn't solve anything. Also many of the people got hurt.

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes