Non-Violent Civil Resistance Movements

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.

Current nonviolent resistance includes the Jeans Revolution in Belarus, the "Jasmine" Revolution in Tunisia, and the fight of the Cuban dissidents. Many movements which promote philosophies of nonviolence or pacifism have pragmatically adopted the methods of nonviolent action as an effective way to achieve social or political goals. They employ nonviolent resistance tactics such as: information warfare, picketing, marches, vigils, leafletting, samizdat, magnitizdat, satyagraha, protest art, protest music and poetry, community education and consciousness raising, lobbying, tax resistance, civil disobedience, boycotts or sanctions, legal/diplomatic wrestling, underground railroads, principled refusal of awards/honours, and general strikes. Nonviolent action differs from pacifism by potentially being proactive and interventionist.A great deal of work has addressed the factors that lead to violent mobilization, but less attention has been paid to understanding why disputes become violent or nonviolent, comparing these two as strategic choices relative to conventional

All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

Peaceful resistance positively impacts a free society, particularly in a Democracy such as the United States. Abraham Lincoln famously described our national foundation as a “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, and for such a statement to be true, it is necessary that voices of US citizens be heard.

Cesar Chavez, published an article explaining ways nonviolent resistance has a greater effect than violent resistance. In this article Chavez aims to validate that nonviolent resistance more effective than using violent options. Throughout the article he uses different type of rhetorical choices. Two of the choices he decided to use was an ethical appeal and emotional appeal. He adopts a motivational tone in order to aid a conveying the message to his adult or young adult audience.

With America’s history of people fighting for their rights, we have become accustomed to the idea that activism needs to be extreme; to cause riots, have aggression, and for people to be put in jail to make a point. We have created an image that there needs to be a fierce willingness to fight, in order for activism to be effective. As Malcolm Gladwell describes in “Why the Revolution Should not be Tweeted”, he reminds us of what ‘real’ activism is and how other generations have risked their lives to make a difference, in both their lives and the future of America. He does not think that activists can be considered true activists if they are non-violent when protesting for their rights. However, Gladwell should consider that protesting

Chavez uses many persuasive elements in his article to get the readers to support nonviolent resistance instead of using violence to fight for what they believe in. He uses the big idea of passion to represent what he believes in, and what he is passionate about. This is important because it helps the reader in also being passionate about what Chavez believes in, and shows how using nonviolent resistance can be more effective than using

Repetition used in this article, opposing violence and praising nonviolence, such as “... at the expense of violence, victory would come at the expense of injury and perhaps death.” (Lines 67-68) and “... The boycott, as Gandhi taught, is the most nearly perfect instrument of nonviolent change…” (Lines 61-63), are found in many parts of the article, in fact, the whole article is filled with arguments that promotes nonviolence and discourage violence. Repetition of Chavez’s idea makes his message very clear to the readers and along with the logical facts he provides, it convinces the readers that “nonviolence is more powerful than violence.” (Line 12-13).

Nonviolent movements are widespread across America, but very little are effective enough to create monumental change or to have a lasting impact. In their article "Waging Nonviolence: What makes nonviolent movements explode", Mark and Paul Engler explore what makes nonviolent protests powerful enough to force change. Written in December 2014, the article uses modern and historic examples of protest movements, with the main focus on the Occupy Wall Street movement, to create the context as to what each of the methods discussed has accomplished. Using the main example of Occupy Wall Street, the article showcases two major points, disruption and sacrifice, that nonviolent protest movements utilize in order to have the greatest effect, as well as how those two points work together to create lasting impacts. Disruption relies on interrupting everyday life and preventing business from occurring, while sacrifice focuses on what people are willing to risk and give up in order to see the change they wish for. In their article, the Engler’s propose that while these two methods of protest can be effective, protests rarely become large enough to actually create any change, even if they are combined, simply because the major businesses, corporations, and organizations that are being protested hold incredible amounts of political power and therefore are able to very easily shut down protests with police forces. This argument, that protests are inevitably going to fail, is very realistic

Protests have long been an essential part of American life, employed to to draw attention to critical issues,events, and injustices. Ranging from peaceful marches to powerful acts of civil disobedience, not only in the United States but in Central American countries such as Nicaragua. This being said, civil protests and peaceful demonstrations were not necessarily more successful in exuding change than pieces of legislation but moreso acted as a catalyst for social change, leading towards legislation that would positively impact those who protested. The concept of civil disobedience and peaceful demonstration acting as a catalyst can be examined mainly through the protests during the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and the Sandinista

Research Paper During the Revolutionary War, Thomas Jefferson said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It is inferred that he believed that revolution could only be triumphant if there were violence and sacrifices. Many would argue that a solution can be attained through peace and non-violent practices. The theory of civil disobedience coincides with the concept of non-violent protesting.

Peaceful resistance is a major part of American history, from the American Revolution to the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement to the Travel Ban protests of today. These instances of peaceful resistance shape American society for the better, as the voices of minorities are heard and unjust laws are ended. Peaceful resistance does positively impact a free society, as supported by Henry Thoreau, demonstrated by the 1960 Civil Rights Movement, and anticipated by protests of today.

Peaceful resistance, though controversial, is a positive force in our free society, battling this lingering injustice. It is a way in which we can make our voices heard without risking injury to any part of our country.

In his article,”How Nonviolence Protects the State,” Peter Gelderloo makes the assertion that non-violence is ineffective, racist, statist, patriarchal, strategically inferior, and deluded. These tenets are important to grasp with examining the ways in which a movement functions and formulating an opinion in regards to how they should function. The debate in and of itself form of violence when we frame it as an attempt to try and perpetuate a standard that allows one to tell others how they should demand their liberation. In an effort to unpack the disqualifiers that are attributed to Gelderloo, non-violence is often upheld by white, cisgendered, men who descend from a legacy that is violent so to put an emphasis on the fact that resistance should be non-violent is inherently racist, patriarchal, and strategically reasserts

In this essay there will be discussed how Mr M’s choices of passive resistance to bring change. According to TheFreeDictionary, passive resistance is described as non-cooperation or noncompliance with the laws or directives of an authority, particularly of a government or occupying power, as a form of protest against injustice. This will be proven by Mr M’s acts and choices.