History is full of violent revolution. Usually, revolutions begin in a non-violent way, but eventually end up becoming violent. Only a few social movements have remained non-violent throughout. The question for the week is:
When is it permissible for non-violent protests to turn violent? Is it ever appropriate?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/12/mills.egypt.selma/index.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Violence is not the answer. In the famous words of Ghandi "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" or , "I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life."
ReplyDeleteI don't think that it is appropriate to fight back because then it makes you no better than they are. And then whatever you are fighting for no one will take you seriously anymore because of acting in such ways. So there for there is no reason to get violent, just let God handle all of your troubles.
Violence is never the answer.....did not work with the Nazis.....did not work with the Black Panthers.....did not work with the Ku Klux Klan.....just DOES NOT WORK! It only progresses and intensifies the situations to more bloodiness. There were some Blacks who became "militant" in the Black Panthers organization and began fighting back at Whites in the same way the KKK did. Did that help to make things better? NO! That only caused more discord and hatred amongst people.
ReplyDeleteIf there is to be any resistance it should be peaceful. People should be able to look at a situation and say, "Huh.....this is stupid.....maybe they have a point," but if we point our guns in their faces with theirs in ours, we will all get shot. However, if one party is calm and reasonable, it is extremely hard to want to pull the trigger. Peace is the way.....God says so Himself (and let's face it, He's never wrong). Peace.....reasoning.....sympathizing.....theseare the things that make a difference in the world.....not violence.
Also looked how well peaceful civil disobedience worked for Mohandis Gandhi and King.....they had it going on. :)
ReplyDeleteI think that violence is not the best answer when people have problems but I think is understandable because people only react that way when they feel like if they dont have other options to change their situation.Is easy to say that violence is not the best answer because we are not in their shoes but I wonder if we would say the same if we were facing problems like the problem that people in Egypt have.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is never a time for violence. Its stupid and people do it on impulse. There's no reason for it. All it does is cause a bigger problem.
ReplyDeleteLooking back in history, there was many times that violence won out. Like, how about the World Wars that the United States of America fought? We took the initiative to fight back and make up for losses and we won. Moreover, is it really considered violence? It was a form of self-defense and pushing the offensive away from our shores.
ReplyDeleteConsidering all that, in World War II, was the dropping of the atomic bomb necessary? We could have done peaceful negotiations, kept the lives of millions of Japanese, and end the war a Hero and not a villain to humanity. In correspondence to the article, it was the Civil Rights movement that prevailed by the acceptance of the dangers while returning peace.
So, what works better? I think violence can end it faster, but it brings on the risk of enemy reinforcement and bad credit to those who are fighting physically for what they believe in. A peaceful negotiation, even though it may take days, weeks, months, or even years, will always seem to be stronger. In addition, I feel that it puts a stalemate to both sides, sending one into attrition.
These are just a few of my rambled thoughts.
Both violence and non-violence have worked down through the years of history. Sure we would like to solve things without detroying lives but at times it must happen. Even in the non-voilent approch people still die. However it is sad that we put a genral who has taken several thousand of lives on the same status as a person who chooses peace.
ReplyDeleteI feel that a non-violent approach to things is always better than a violent one. I think that they are more respectable. If Martin Luther King had chosen to shoot any white person who tried to stop him from gaining equal rights, would that have done any good? Probably not. People would have become even more afraid and spiteful of blacks. It wouldn't have made the great impression that it has made on people. A non-violent protest touches people. Everyone wants the "innocent people who haven't done anything wrong" to win, not the ones that go out and shoot everyone.
ReplyDeleteI do not think violence is the best option, but however I do think that some people may only respond to violence. You may need to be firm and a little more assertive with some people.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me mad because there is never a right answer for violence, people need to realize that it just causes more problems and that violence only makes matters worse, they just do it because they think it will fix things but never does.
ReplyDelete