Nonviolence: The Cause Of Non Violence

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.

From the invention of the wheel to the first car human beings have continued to innovate throughout history. However, humanities greatest developments and advancements could not have happened without certain individual’s and their contributions. One of the most controversial issues that society has faced is the idea of independence and racial equality. These individuals would change the course of history with their fight for racial equality and independence. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr set a precedent for equality and independence for all people that left a lasting impact on the world. But, if they were alive today although they would find that the current state of equality significantly improved from their lives they would want even more advancement in the struggle for equality for all.

Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice not people. I believe that means we can defeat injustice and speak out without having to hurt others in the process. There is so much violence in the world and we need to take a step forward as a community, nation, and one world. We will not survive in a world of violence. In fact, we will destroy ourselves and there IS something you can do about it. Something our communities could do is compare and contrast violence and nonviolence.

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

However, as Terry Beitzel points out, Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence is not solely based on his understanding of the virtue of courage. Rather, Gandhi makes a normative commitment to nonviolence on the basis that it has epistemological value. Beitzel writes:

Martin Luther King Jr. is looked up as a hero and a role model because of his use of nonviolence. Around the world, many people were using violence to solve their problems, but King, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi, decided that the problem around segregation in the United States would not be solved with guns but with words of harmony. This article, published by Cesar Chavez conveys the powerful effect nonviolence has in resolving conflicts by using comparisons, historical evidence, and powerful vocabulary.

It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.

The contemporary scholar of political perspective on passive protest Gene Sharp views that nonviolent struggle may reflect a moral commitment to pacifism by leaders or activists in a movement such as Martin Luther King Jr and Mohandas Gandhi.

In the words of Mahatma Ghandi, "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for, but no causes that I am prepared to kill for" (Knapp 1). A strong believer in civil disobedience, and the refusal to obey unjust laws, Ghandi engaged in many forms of passive resistance, which eventually brought about much political change in India. Leaders who fought for change in other parts of the world, such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Nelson Mandela, also believed that non violent tactics were the most effective way to bring about lasting change. On the other hand, many extremist organizations feel strongly that the change they are seeking needs to have broad attention, and to come about quickly. As a result, they pursue violent action as they feel

generations of extreme violence from the state, and logical decisions about what kind of actions require political result.

The definition of non-violence is using peaceful ways to get a solution and not use force. It can be used in many different ways whether it is a protest like how Martin Luther King, Jr led his non-violent protest during the fight for the african americans civil rights. i believe in vietnam a buddhist monk peacefully sat down and and burned himself to death to bring attention to how the government in south vietnam controlled the people. Which lead to a turn in the way many think. Or how i mentioned earlier when MLK,Jr first started out he asked all the people as he led the Montgomery bus boycott to peacefully not ride the busses and to just walk and although the boycott lasted for over a year they accomplished what they wanted and desegregated

When oppression, repression, and suppression is all there is in a society, citizens have the right and must revolt against such tyranny, and they do, but often they counteract violence with more violence. Often, they retaliate with the same principle of injustice that creates enmity and separation from truth, harmony and justice. And much more often, they ignore the evil and corruption that now conquers their hearts, making them the new tyrants. Yet, Mahatma Gandhi, a humble man whose weapon was more powerful than all the guns and man’s power combined, showed us that non-violence is the most effective weapon to combat violence and transform enmity into friendship and hate into love, and ultimately find a truthful justice within a society.

Yes, nonviolence can be more dangerous than violence to a ruling class. Although the results in both situations will be very different. Using violence may bring the result they want but it would only be put in place because of fear. Less people could be hurt because it would bring the message they are trying to send faster but it will be taken the wrong way. People from both sides will be killed and the British people in India would not understand what they were doing was an injustice that should be corrected. It would instead be seen as a hateful act brought upon the brutal Indians. They would end up building a tense, hateful relationship with each other that will last for a long time. The British will be justified in using physical force

I feel that it is important that when it comes to protesting and the different practices nonviolent and violent people should first know and have understanding behind it. The academic study of non-violence was inspired by Mohandas Gandhi, who gained

I don’t believe Jesus is an advocate for either nonviolence or violence. In Matthew 15:11 Jesus says that it’s not what you eat or drink that messes you up but it’s what you say that shows how you really feel. That is what defiles you, your words not your ingestion. As the child of God, Jesus tried to avoid violence, but that does not say he was a nonviolent activist. In Matthew 5:39 the one of the most common scriptures “But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” This verse tell us that if someone slaps you on one cheek turn to him the other. This is not about self-defense, it is the way Jesus prohibited escalation of violence, and it is not a response to the violent assault.