An Argument For Non Violence

In the 1960s, many of the colonial nations of Africa were gaining independence. The ANC was encouraged and campaigned for democracy in South Africa. They were mild campaigns at first, but as the government became more hostile, so did ANC protests. In November 1961, a military branch of the party was organized with Mandela as its head. It authorized the limited use of arms and sabotage against the government, which got the government’s attention—and its anger! Mandela went into hiding in 1964, he was captured, tried, and sentenced to life imprisonment. It was a sad day for black South Africa.

While when discussing the history of the world’s power forces, violence makes for stimulating discussion, other tactics were put to good use, one of these alternatives being non-violence. With the guidance of three worldwide heroes - Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela - with contagious optimism and high spirits, it became apparent just how much of a difference could be made carried out through non-violent terms. Mankind was introduced to another way to resolve major problems just as effectively, if not more, than violence could.

Society has been subjected to many violent acts over the course of its history. Although violence is immoral and wrong, somehow people everyday condone and commit violence for countless reasons. Many Hollywood films glorify mindless violence to their advantage and captivate audiences through its entertaining shock value and rake large box office profits. Car chases, crashes and glorified gladiator sword fights are all familiar scenes in which violence is portrayed in an unrealistic glamorised manner.

“We affirm the philosophical or religious ideal of nonviolence as the foundation of our purpose, the pre-supposition of our faith, and the manner of our action” (371), is the mission statement of the organization Student Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) that clearly portrays its philosophy of nonviolence in the struggle against racial injustice and inequality. Nonviolence is one of the most important philosophies that is most relevant today in many cases and also remains important in the struggle against the racial injustice and inequality. Organizations of African-Americans today still believe in nonviolence as the way of facing the racial injustice and inequality. They take their action against the racial injustice and inequality by following the rules and regulations rather committing any violent crime. And, I

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

Violence is preventable and extremely imperative for us to detect the early signs of it. We need to take all prevention strategies for an account. For example, primary, secondary, and tertiary preventions are an appropriate approach for this matter. Dating violence is the topic that is going to be discussed in this reading. I decided to write about this topic because many people are in the dark when it comes to dating violence, and the substantial effects of it. Allow me the opportunity to expand your horizon on this particular topic. There have been quite a few cases where women press charges on their significant other after being battered in unhealthy relationships. I always hear about situations like this through the media never in real life. It’s sad to say that a very close friend of mind was one of those women in a vicious relationship.

Between 1787 and 1877, violent and non-violent action both had an effect in changing the American society. During 1787 to 1816, violent actions were proved to be more useful in enacting changes. On the other hand, violence did not proof its usefulness in helping the advancement of society during Reconstruction period from 1861 to 1877. In Early Republic when the country was unstable because of internal and external conflicts, violent actions were necessary and had the upper hand in succeeding in building the nation. On the other hand, during Reconstruction, unity was the main goal of the process in which violent actions held very little positive effects to aid the purpose. In different period of times, violent and non-violent actions had different,

n this article “Maybe Violence Is The Answer?”, Michael Harriot discussed on the killing of Terrance Crutcher being brutally killed by police officer Betty Shelby. After Crutcher's death there were lots of riots and protests in Tulsa Oklahoma. Shelby was charged with manslaughter for the murder of Crutcher. Thousands of miles away from Tulsa Oklahoma in Charlotte North was another killing where cop kills a black person. Keith Lamont Scott was the other black gunned down by a white cop.

Over the last thirty years, significant scholars of American (particularly southern) lynching such as George C. Wright, W. Fitzhugh Brundage, Stewart E. Tolnay and E. M. Beck, Christopher Waldrep, William D. Carrigan, Amy Louise Wood, and Manfred Berg have written at length about the social structure and cultural context of the collective violence, much of it racially motivated, that plagued the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century United States. With the exception of Wright's and Waldrep's work, lynching scholarship (including my own) has tended to focus more on the structure and context of lynching violence than on its impact on African American communities. Focusing on the violence itself as well as those who perpetrated it, scholars

After watching those two videos, I strongly believe in non-violence resistance. In order for a social movement to have a greater impact on society, it is better not to use violence. As the book says, if the cost of making some concessions are so threatening to elites, however, that they may decide to fight hard and even violently against a movement for years or even decades (Luders 2010). Relating to this quote, Martin Luther King said that even if black people use violence, they will end up losing the battle because either they will be arrested, or they will be killed. Just as Martin Luther King, I am a strong believer in non-violence resistance. I believe it will have a bigger impact and influence on the opponent. The use of violence hinders

The adversarial process protects people from harm and violence because of how the system itself is set up. Thus, the law cannot hurt the plaintiffs and defendants more than it can help them because there is an entire process that includes jurors, lawyers, and witnesses who ensure one person does not have too much power to harm them in the first place. Think of the law as a contract between the people and the government on how to live together. If we break a law, we are accepting the consequences that are made to protect the general public. The law is actually supposed to help solve the inequality and violence that happen in our modern world. For example, someone who ends up in the court system is usually believed to have violated someone else’s rights or broken rules in which we agree to live by in this society. The judge, lawyers, and members from the community help decide whether or not the defendant receives any penalties. We need the system to aid the community, therefore when we find an inequality or loophole in the system, we work as a community to change it.

Many people want to use violence to get their point across and hoping that it would solve their problems. Those who use non-violence hope that with time, the problem would be solved. The future of protest with the use of violence will cause more chaos rather good. That path is the path that should be avoided. The future of non-violent protest has more results than

I have never seen a reason or understood why people have to use violence as a way to get a point across and make people notice them more. They should be mature enough to be calm and have peaceful marches instead of using violence. I feel that it is not fair for all United States citizens to be put at risk by people who don’t agree with white power and who go out of their way to violently protest. It upsets me that people go straight to violence instead of coming up with a better way to publicly protest what they think is better for them. It is not right that they are treating our police officers in a disrespecting way by hurting them. It is not fair for our police officers to get treated with disrespect when trying to protect citizens of the United States. I do not agree with how they decide to get a point across. Using violence is never necessary, but still they choose to use it. It is not okay for them to break other people’s property when protesting in public. I do not think that this should be tolerated any more and we need to find a way to stop this nonsense. In my opinion, I would still disagree with what they believe, but I wish they would stop using violence as an answer and have peaceful educated campaigns or marches so that people can get a good chance to hear what they want to stop. To me it is hard to understand them when they are making a big deal out of their protests.

The books Child of the Dark by Carolina Maria de Jesus and Testimony by Victor Montejo describes the lives of two individuals from different societies. In both of these societies there was much hardship and violence. The two main characters who wrote these books describe life through their point of view and explains the hardship and challenges they had living in a society filled with violence.

Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Rather than having violent movements and harming citizens, it is better to peacefully resist. Once a violence is used, the resistance to the law becomes nulled. People tend to not follow a violence protester. Once a violent riot starts, chaos is everywhere. People forget what they are truly fighting for. They unconsciously run away with the fear of getting harmed and dare not to go back. A peaceful resistance on the other hand leads citizens to join and support. People are able to see what they are fighting for and their real intentions. They are able to stand and cause no problem to people passing by as they are showing their support through silent voices. Many famous activists and leaders are for nonviolence. Mahatma Gandhi, a primary leader of India’s independence