Non Violence Definition

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.

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.

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.

All things considered one must devoted to their belief of nonviolence and be willing to suffer without retaliation (Source C), they can not fall victim to anger and fight back, for it would destroy the very principle of the cause. To become a truly successful campaign it should not be run on the basis of humiliating or besting the opponent, rather one should seek friendship and a better understanding of another (Source B). A nonviolent protester should not become bitter of the circumstances the opponent might bestow upon them but rather have open arms and eye for a better future ahead. The central idea of a nonviolent campaign is being able to make changes and spreading peace and love without the use of violence; by pursuing upon this path

In the Twentieth Century, the great influential liberty movement leaders Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr. all used peaceable to bring modification to their particular countries. The modifications they were all fighting for, being against racial discrimination and inequality. Gandhi and King were fighting against racism in India and America, with Mandela; he was battling the apartheid in South Africa. What made nonresistance work was the personality of the leaders to encourage the people who wanted to protest without fighting back, the peaceful protests, and civil disobedience. In order for non-violence to work, people have to be non-violent. Each of these leaders were so convincing that they convinced even hostile

Oppression and injustice have wrecked havoc on humankind for all of recorded history, and the methods people have used to battle these have varied greatly. Whether it be through world wars or marches through city streets, the attempt to achieve social change has been long and perpetual, persistent and challenging. When people’s lives are threatened, they may feel the need to act violently while others argue that non-violence is the only way to bring about lasting change. Non-violence is the preferable method of achieving social change, but violence is justifiable while it is preceded by nonviolent means, is meant to protect the security or way of life of a group, and has reasonable targets that affect opposers.

Nonviolence is the use of peaceful methods instead of force, to bring political or social change. However, practicing nonviolence is much more difficult than this short definition. Also, people may argue that why just using force against force? If using violence is more efficient, why bother to use nonviolence? Furthermore, using violence is more easy and direct, but nonviolence requires more strategy and effort to really make progress. The truth is, using force against force rarely worked, and it’s never really brought political and social improvement to reach the positive peace in the society. In the World War II, the United State dropped two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima Japan, and lead to many unnecessary deaths and nuclear radiation for many years after the explosion. Then, if not using force to return, what should we do to deal with the extreme violence? What is the most efficient nonviolence method to do when you face a brutality?

Non-violent direct action can also be used for political purposes. Protestors can often be found outside of government buildings demanding change. It also works well in this aspect because it can be more powerful than the use of violence. The destruction and anguish are generally what is heard about not what the purpose it when violence is used. Non-violent action is superior at getting the issues

Nonviolence is the the use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change. Some conflicts can be solved without violence to make a bigger change. One conflict that I have to try and solve is “Every day a person slaps a defenseless guy in the school hallways.”

The best way to bring about change is through non-violence because violence is going to take you nowhere. Sometimes fighting for what is right could be best for you and your community.In the article Ghandi did not want us fighting at all. He, Gandhi just wanted what was best for us , so he tried doing what was actually best for us. An example would be when Gandhi asked parents to remove children from British-run schools.Still, Gandhi never supported violent means. He believed peaceful protests worked better. Meanwhile when, Martin Luther King, Jr. fought discriminatory laws. He led a bus boycott in Montgomery. He led boycotts against Alabama

Throughout the centuries, nonviolence has been more effective than violence. Nonviolence is still as effective in today’s world as it was in the past. Violence should never be the answer, because nonviolence is just as effective if not more effective.

Violence. It's all everyone ever talks about nowadays. It's on the news, it's on TV, it's everywhere. But how were people's lives affected by this? Why? Why does violence occur? What can we do as a community to prevent this much damage from occurring?

1.The definition of non violence is a peaceful time with no hate or anger.I think that the practice of non violence is unsuccessful because many people have tried to be non violent and there is always something or someone who can still trigger it.Millions have tried it even countries after world war 1 and it still did not work.A person who is violent has that one thing that triggers it such as anger toward another person.I have never met anyone that is that extreme violent and i do not think the practice of non violence works or helps.The people that practice non violence sometimes fake their success because they don’t want people thinking that they are a terrible person and they live on that way.People think that some people are cured by the

My definition of violence is, physical or verbal behavior that is intended to cause pain and destruction. When comparing the competing definitions of violence with my own, I think my definition fits very well with the rest. After carefully reviewing the different definitions of violence and politics I found three different themes that go hand and hand with the two terms. My first theme is about the pursuit of power. With politics, people of hierarchy tend to have a need for higher power over others to make them feel satisfied. While with violence, the person enforcing violence tends to want power over the person they are trying to physically harm or dominate. My second theme is social manipulation and verbal abuse. I think these two correlate

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