Argument Against Non-Violence

The history of violence in the world is well documented. However it is also possible to use non-violence to bring about change. This DBQ will look at two countries where a non-violent movement was successful.

“The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world” (Arendt pg 80). Violence is contagious, like a disease, which will destroy nations and our morals as human beings. Each individual has his or her own definition of violence and when it is acceptable or ethical to use it. Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Benjamin, and Hannah Arendt are among the many that wrote about the different facets of violence, in what cases it is ethical, the role we as individuals play in this violent society and the political aspects behind our violence.

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.

Mankind has long accepted violence as a fair means to achieve equality. In human history, the most thorough changes are brought in by the most radical overthrow of the old structure, knocking down the walls that separated the silent majority from the minority, sweeping aside the commands of the oppressors, tearing down the chains of oppression that once trapped them away from their inherent rights of freedom, in an effort to achieve justice for themselves and their countries. Revolutions in particular illustrated that the groups that desire reform but are willing to compromise for stability, take longer to implement changes, while the groups that are more devoted to revolutionary change and are often unafraid to use violence, could implement

Non-violence is a peaceful strategy people used in the 1900’s to revolt against the government. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, and Mohandas Gandhi had the most success in changing the way we live today. How did they get nonviolence to work? Well they were very disobedient, disciplined, and determined to make a change in society.

In our world today we are constantly surrounded by an environment tainted by bloodshed. Pursuing the path of peace is not always easy, but rather than wielding a gun and coercing one another, a person should be able to rely on their resilience and determination for the change they seek. First and foremost is to unify a whole group with a singular purpose, isolated attacks make a cause seem unorganized therefore it will not be taken seriously ( Source E).The message must be clear and concise, by having everyone knit together demonstrates how a large majority is seeking reform, further strengthening the argument. In foregoing violence, your words must become the weapon that you refuse to pick up, being able to convey your demands

In the history of mankind, there has been multiple cases of violent and nonviolent opposition. The question is which of these is more appealing than the other. In violent protest, citizens protest against their opposition with violence such as; rioting, vandalizing, arson, assault, and many other forms of violence. In nonviolent protest citizens will protest their opposition peacefully through calm and non-violent protest. This is also known as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the most efficient form of protest in a society.

Civil rights activist, Cesar Chavez, in his article, argues that nonviolence is more powerful than violence. Chavez’s purpose is to prove that violence is never the answer and we should all receive justice using nonviolence. He adopts certain appeals in order to describe to similar feelings in farm workers. In Chavez’s article, he uses rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos to describe the importance nonviolence has over violence.

Throughout history, there have been many unfair rules all over the world. There are people who like the rules and people who dislike the rules. Sometimes everybody dislikes the rule and wants change in them. Whenever there is a request of change of the government, the people find many solutions/methods to make the change. One of the solutions is protesting and this method is commonly used for a change. There are two types of protests, violence, and nonviolence. One example of a violent protest is the Birmingham Civil Rights Protest in 1963 and an example of a nonviolent protest is Gandhi’s nonviolent protest for independence. It is believable that nonviolent protest if the most effective way to protest for society because it leaves a great

Cesar Chavez begins his article by relating MLK’s life to power and how nonviolence brings to bear in this world. Chavez demonstrates his argument that resistance is an effective strategy to create change with the use of logos. He explains that people are so convinced that nonviolence is more powerful than violence. “Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral causes. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive and that is of crucial importance to win any contest.” (13-14) This appeal to logos by showing if people resort to violence then it can get escalated or be total destruction. Nonviolence has the opposite effect. If we respond with nonviolence, we attract others support and it helps us to grow. Chavez uses logos to show that non violence resistance will help resolve problems.

To achieve peace by disobeying the law seems counter-intuitive. The structures of society support the morals of a nation, but still with human nature comes the possibility of unjust laws and discrimination. Civil leaders such as Gandhi, Thoreau, and Martin Luther King Jr., preached and lived the necessity of civil disobedience and peaceful protest. Nowadays, organizing a movement is relatively easy, but with every assembly there appears to be a select few who radicalize and incite violence. When peaceful resistance is maintained throughout the entirety of the movement, then there will be positive outcomes. Unlike the armed militants of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge whose message of violence and chaos was rejected by

The comparison of violence to nonviolence highlights Chavez’s argument that nonviolence is the only way to achieve positive results. Chavez characterizes violence as a temporary solution in which “people suffer.” This description of violence as a last resort that results out of frustration is in stark contrast to Chavez’s characterization of nonviolence. Nonviolence stems from oppression. It is exercised as a form of self-determination

Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.

Violence is an option that is heavily debated when taking action. It can often result in complete chaos and not accomplish the original purpose of the action. Nonviolent direct action is another option that is contemplated. It involves the use of direct action without violent force to get the point of the action known. Examples of nonviolent direct action would include strikes and protests. The use of such action is often best implemented in human experience that involve discrimination. Differences in race, gender, or religious affiliation can often cause discrimination. Individuals in minority groups are seen as unequal to the majority and can be easily be discriminated against. To promote change, minority groups often take actions. The action can either involve violence or exclude it. Violent force can degrade the appearance of the individuals and create more anger between the two opposing sides. The use of non-violent direct action shows more humility of those who are being discriminated against. Others being to understand the issue without creating chaos.

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