Nonviolence Is Better Than 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.

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.

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

The Civil Rights Movement brought many accomplishments to African Americans such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The key issues that African Americans fought for were voting rights, integration and racial equality. They were tired of the discrimination and humiliation they received as a result of the segregation laws imposed on them. “State laws mandated racial separation in schools, parks, playgrounds, restaurants, hotels, public transportation, theaters, restrooms and so on” (Blumberg 40). Lawsuits had been tried to gain rights such as the unsuccessful Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and the successful Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Although, the Brown v. Board of Education of

Harassed, beaten, jailed. Three great leaders fought for their rights through thick and thin, without physically hurting the opposition; these men were Gandhi, Mandela, and King. Here they each faced the problem of inequality and achieved their goal peacefully moreover without harm to their oppressors. They drew attention to their respective plights and converted others to help their cause. Nonviolence implies that the participants will protest without the use of harm to their opponents notwithstanding of what harm falls upon them; they will not even raise a hand to protect themselves from said harm. Nonviolence works because King, Gandhi, and Mandela applied economic pressure, performed civil disobedience, and appealed to conscience; which

The greatest argument against peaceful resistance is the idea that it creates lawlessness. As stated by Morris Leibman in an article on Foundation for Economic Education, “No society whether free or tyrannical can give its citizens the ‘right’ to break the law. There can be no law to which obedience is optional, no command to which the state attaches

Peaceful Resistance has had its place in many societies around the world for centuries. Examples of this powerful political tool exist from the Roman Plebeians refusing to work in order to bring change to the harsh Roman consul to the notorious Indian Independence movement led by Mohandas Gandhi. Peaceful Resistance is not only effective through its influential and compelling tactics, but it is absolutely necessary when those in power refuse to acknowledge the issues in front of them. In order to advance anything, attention has to be brought to the issue at hand. Without people willing to be peacefully passionate, there will be no LASTING change. Laws are put in place to protect people, however when that protection discriminates or takes away

In my opinion, violent means to achieve an end are only justifiable when all other conceivable options have been tried or have become impractical. Trying to affect change by starting out with violence tends to alienate the populace, the very people you want to convince to support your cause. Even within non-violent protests or actions affecting things like the local economy, you risk alienating people from your cause. For instance if the fire service refuses to attend the scene of a fire unless they receive better wages, the people who pay their wages may turn against them. Resistance from slaves was often seen as a threat, and because owners and overseers relied on violence for control, fighting

To accept Gene Sharp’s argument that the techniques of nonviolent action are more effective than the violence of military action, we must first comprehend Gene Sharps interpretation of what military action is. Gene Sharp defines military action, when he states “Military action is based largely on the idea that the most effective way of defeating an enemy is by inflicting heavy destruction on his armies, military equipment, transport system, and cities.” Sharp accuses weapons for being the reason society accepts military action as the most effective means of defeating an enemy, for that weapons are designed to murder or destroy with maximal efficiency. Sharps belief, that any prospective replacements for war in the aegis of freedom must involve possessing and utilizing strength, colliding and testing an invaders military ability and power, and conducting efficient combat, can be achieved through nonviolent action. The techniques of nonviolent action follow Sharps credentials for being a substitute of war, by wielding power, confronting and engaging an invader’s military might, and waging an effective fight. For that, when performing a method of nonviolent action by declining aid and cooperation to a ruler’s power, it makes it impossible for a ruler to exercise authority over the population. A ruler can only successfully possess complete power, with public conformity over the people he or she rules. This ultimately constitutes nonviolent action as the most suitable

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

Back before the Civil War, people wanted to know which way is better to free slaves,

All religions called for nonviolent principles that are based on peaceful strategies to reach goals. Nonviolence seeks understanding and justice instead of riot or tumult. In fact, the first time for someone to use this method was in India by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948), he believed that he can stand against the British and bring independence to India using civil disobedience. Also, Anwar El Sadat used the non violence method with Israel when he signed the “ peace” agreement in order to avoid a war. Therefor, the non violence technique is very effective which lead Luther king Jr. to call upon Gandhi's method and make use of it to attain equality between black and white people. In my opinion, applying the non violence method is truly

nonviolence and civil disobedience. He once said “nonviolence is the greatest force at disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of men.”

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