Violence Vs Acquiescence Analysis

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

Numerous times, protests start off as untroubling. In fact, they are beneficial to a certain extent, for they “provide a vent to society and also allow governments to understand better the issues their citizens are facing” (UN News Centre 2012). However, often these protests cross this blurry line and are rendered violent, causing danger to the American people. A recent example of a protest transforming into a riot was the Anti- Trump protest in Portland. These protests started off as being peaceful and allowed the protesters to express their opinions on the issue. However, the protesters eventually became so invested in the matter that it quickly mutated into a riot with people smashing windows, kicking cars, and vandalizing buildings (USA TODAY 2016) .This rapid change from peace to violence is a result of the blurry line between what is considered peaceful and what is considered violent. Due to the few restrictions on both the right to petition and assemble, what is perceived as violent is open to interpretation. More specifically, the protesters may not have deemed that kicking cars and smashing windows was violent; thus, they proceeded with these clearly dangerous activities anyways. Since the unlimited nature of both of these rights leaves a massive gray area in regards to what is

Learned helplessness is when a human or animal realizes they have no control over something that is happening to them, such as pain, so they give up all attempts at stopping it (Myers, 2014). In another example in the video about a study on rats, after being subjected to electricity and having no way to get rid of it, the rats

What has America come to? Although the articles, “We’re No.1(1)!” written by Thomas Friedman, and the article “Violence is Who We Are,” by Steven Crichley, have different overall subjects, they have a similar arguments. The world isn’t as great as it used to be, we are lacking good leadership, and we happily invite wrong doings into our lives.

Between 1787 and 1877, violent and non-violent action both had an effect in changing the American society. During 1787 to 1816, violent actions were proved to be more useful in enacting changes. On the other hand, violence did not proof its usefulness in helping the advancement of society during Reconstruction period from 1861 to 1877. In Early Republic when the country was unstable because of internal and external conflicts, violent actions were necessary and had the upper hand in succeeding in building the nation. On the other hand, during Reconstruction, unity was the main goal of the process in which violent actions held very little positive effects to aid the purpose. In different period of times, violent and non-violent actions had different,

People in the U.S get mistreated contently because of racism. One of these acts are, the protest control. Not only african americans but people of various races are being punished , arrested and even kill because of there protesting despite it being peaceful. By law any form of protesting is allowed as long as it is peaceful the police are only allowed to take action when the peace is broken. Instances when protesters were harm when participating in a peaceful protest is,

Protests riots in the United States has proven to an issue for both the country’s financial strength and the unity of the nation. With the presence of social injustices, combined with the increased impact of social media propaganda, protests riots are beginning to reach an all time high. Protest riots destroy individual communities and businesses, jeopardizes the safety of others and taints the protest’s cause by resorting to civil disobedience. Action must be done in order to prevent these random acts of violence from continuing after every social hot topic. The goal is not to prevent citizens from protesting; in fact, this should be encouraged. The goal is to change the way the protests are handled from both the citizens and authority perspectives, in order to prevent these protests from escalating into something dangerous.

Yet, civil disobedience is still denounced by many. Opponents point to its potential to uproot social and political tensions and create a rebellion. The Nazi Party, Ku Klux Klan, and French Revolution are all brought up as evidence to the destructive qualities begun by peaceful civil disobedience. In a particularly eloquent explanation, Liebman argues that many movements championing civil disobedience seek to exaggerate social and political tensions in the hopes of initiating a type wild passion and resulting action from supporters, often resulting in countless others being subject to humiliation, torture, and even death. However, what Liebman forgets is the differentiation between peaceful and violent acts of civil disobedience. The violent examples of civil disobedience listed above root their seeds in a radical minority of the population seeking ways to subjugate the majority by any means available. Conversely, peaceful acts of civil disobedience never seek to bring harm to anyone, they simply wish to change society for the

It is through these acts of violence that societal change is achieved and order restored.

The form of protesting that Hayden chose to propagate, while effective, had both short and long term consequences. In the short term, Hayden’s “the ends justify the means” approach did help create significant awareness of and opposition to the Vietnam War, and inspired similar protests in many European countries. However, the increasing violence and hate only served to polarize the movement and opposition, weakening the public’s support. Such radicalization and violence are not exclusive to Hayden. Many modern day movements seem to derive some of the ideologies and methods from these earlier protests. Just like Hayden, they typically involve a small vocal minority that split off from the main group. The splinter group then commits violence and hatred, claiming to be for the movement. In actuality, these groups only increase the pushback against these movements and create controversy. Examples of this phenomenon include the current year’s violence against police officers in the name of Black Lives Matter. Many of these aggressive forms of protest, including Hayden’s, only propagate hate and prefer quick fix “band-aid” solutions over more long-term societal

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

Violent protest is divisive - it turns citizens away from seeing reason in your stance, costs taxpayers money for police protection and control and drives people strongly to one side or the other of the issues protested. The reason that protests are often seen as dangerous is because they can turn sour as the result of people using this power and ability to demonstrate as a reason to injure and destroy, often without any connection to the original protested topic. Protesters have been known to break shop windows, throw bricks at cars and even injure or kill one another in extreme situations. Peacekeepers attempting to protect the citizens and prevent escalation are often vilified and presented as brutalizing peaceful protesters.

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

However, in some cases, it becomes hard to protest peacefully and they try to force their way. When violence and force are used, the result is the death of members and property. This goes against our point that peace and human right movements are good and they help sensitize people and bring change to the society (Taylor, n. p.). For example, during the anti-colonial human right movement, many people lost life and property as they tried to force their way out. Moreover, during voting right movement people lost life and property while others were forced to run to other countries. Even though the change they were fighting for came to be, they had lost a