Look around did Bush or Obama sit down and talk stuff over with Saddam? NO. They used violence to get change. Look at Libya and all the other revolutions. Violence is the only answer people. Wake up or become a slave. Violence gets attention plain and simple. You think people are going to be scared of a peaceful protest.
The root of the word means more than just hurting other things, it is Latin for strength, and we are strong human beings. So it is logical that we be violent in our lives, in a way that is in harmony with nature, striving for love, truth, and justice, and not evil, greed, and bullying!
Civil rights activist James Lawson believed that the “nonviolent approach was never really accepted” by African-Americans in the South. While Lawson has a point, violence was not the only means of a solution within the civil rights movement – non-violence played a role, too, even if it has been overly promoted within the established narrative today as the only thing that contributed to the downfall of widespread white supremacy in the United States. Contrary to what both sides argue, the roles that violent and nonviolent dissent both had throughout the battle for civil rights were important for different reasons – both accomplished things in different ways and in different places (violence being more effective in the South, with passive nonviolent dissent being more effective in the more liberal North). Violent dissenters, specifically black militants, were often “dismissed as ineffective rebels who alienated whites with Black Power rhetoric and violence,” (Hill 6) while nonviolent dissenters, such as Martin Luther King Jr. Are seen as what really affected progress. This viewpoint is clearly incorrect as both were integral in winning over separate parts of American society in order to truly bring about change – the picture is not quite so black and white. In many cases, violence has been the catalyst that was required to bring about progress. I believe that there is no separate dichotomy of violence or nonviolence that came into play when white supremacy was finally defeated, but I also believe that the role of violence has often been perceived as negligible, which is not the case at all, as the benefits that violence has reaped in this matter is undeniable. While nonviolence set the building blocks upon which progress was to be built, violence is what allowed for the building of progress to actually happen. Ultimately, both of these approaches were necessary and built off of each other in order to remedy racial inequality. If there was no battle for national legislation that would “remove the civil barriers of segregation and discrimination,” (Hill 3) then violence would have been construed as mindless, while if there was no reactionary violence at all, then nobody in the South would have respected the federal legislation in place.
You can march till your feet hurt. You can rally until the end of time, only violence brings change, because without it all you get is silence. Those in power are for ever using violence on anyone that steps out of line, sometimes its persuasive and sometimes its in your face but its always violent. Without the violent side no one will hear you. But violence must be if it is to work in the favor of society surgically done. What must be destroy must be specific and it must hurt those who have the most to loose. Violence for the sake of destruction is meaningless and brings no change.
The definition of insanity doing the same thing (voting) over and over and over and over again expecting a different result you will never get. Grow a pair America !! Our real leaders and representatives the founding fathers revolted for far less than the garbage we put up with. This country is full of govt boot licking loyalist cowards and I am ashamed to be an American in this oxy moron "free country" !!
Despite the commonly held belief that peaceful protests bring about change, such as Ghandi, King or even the suffragettes, the reality is that all of these movements or causes included violence to some degree. There has never been a large scale social change brought about by peaceful protest of demonstration. Granted that peaceful protests such as the million man march should happen along side more 'direct action' movements in order to give a cause some balance and voice of reason, but weather we like it or not, history has taught us that large scale change in civilization has always been violent. Protesting passionately for your cause yet believing you can do it peacefully is why those in authority and the state laugh at our peaceful attempts of bringing about change (because they KNOW it will do nothing) and why they are coming down harder and harder on protests. I live in London, and its incredibly clever the way they don't so much make protesting illegal, but keep it as contained, watched policed as physically possible, that and they make it very hard for people to get to protests (they close of all but one street leading to the protests) and will disperse protests at the first sign of trouble. I fear that the United Kingdom is one of the worst places to protest or bring about social or political change in the developed western world.
Violence against people I am against, but violence against private property, institutions that marginalize and the police I am all for. The police are a tool of the state to maintain a monopoly of violence on the general population. Government institutions like the Hall of Records found in every city are used to intervene in the way people interact in commerce. Private property represents the a class within society that view themselves as a privileged class in society.
More things have been changed throughout history by violence then peaceful protest has ever done. The people on the other side point too Gandhi and King and say "well they did it, so it must work all the time". This stupid, naive and shows ignorance of History.
Look at the Libyan uprisings, or the what the Syrian protests have turned into. They both started out with protests, but the protesters where attacked by the Government causing countless deaths.
The only way regimes like that can fall is through revolution.
Violence is an integral part of change. Violence brings with it a resistance against it. Gandhi, Martin Luther King jr, nor the founding fathers of the U.S.A. would have fought back if not approached with violence.
In one form or another violence must be present to cause change. Whether an aggressor/oppressor uses violent means or the resisting force fights back with violence, it is always a predominant factor in change.
There are many scenarios that violence should be used, like if they about to kill you and you have the chance to attack them than that is when it should be used but not for voting or stupid reasons like that. It is just uncalled for, no use for it.
Any cause, no matter how sound, how noble, how righteous, forfeits it's right to be heard, understood and hopefully acted upon when the proponents of that cause resort to acts of violence perpetrated against the innocent. The leaders of such a cause then become just common criminals who use violence as a method of control or to gain headlines for their said cause.
Violence can be a dreadful thing that most people avoid, however is sometimes required to solve big problems. Look at hunger strikes and bus and train strikes. These were successful even without violence. Of course violence sometimes can be the answer, but not the most efficient choice even at the best of times.
There have been countless cases, such as the Solidarity movement in Poland, Springtime in Prague, the non-violent protests led by Gandhi, Cesar Chavez's hunger strikes, etc. in which peaceful action has led to lasting change. Violence is undoubtedly sometimes the only choice, but it is not always and in all cases the only choice.
Regimes can be forced to change when:
* Peaceful protests en masse drive democratic states to change. This occurs in democratic nations all the time, even when elections are few and far apart.
* Mass resistance and labor strikes can force even oppressive states to change. This led Poland to democracy against the Soviets, and it led to change in India with Gandhi.
* People leaving a country en masse, in essence voting with their feet, can force governments to change. When too many people leave, the country cannot function.
* Peaceful resistance does not work when those in power have no problem killing those who disagree, who organize any type of protest or who strike. See North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe for modern examples of this.
While violence may be necessary to bring change to a totalitarian government (such as Libya or Syria), Gandhi has shown that non-violent protest can be very effective in countries that pride themselves on their respect for their own citizens. People that want to use violence usually are just frustrated that the majority of people do not agree with their own views.
Had the patriots of the revolutionary war had sit-ins and boycotts, they probably would have been shot.
Throughout history, non-violent resistance has often been a catalyst for change. The civil rights movement in the United States, for example, successfully used non-violent tactics, like sit-ins, to change Jim Crow laws. In India, Gandhi pioneered non-violent tactics, as well. Given these two successes, it is clear that violence is not required to cause change.
No, I disagree that violence is required to cause change, because violence often results in more trouble and does not solve anything. Violence rarely, if ever, solves a problem, and actually tends to result in more problems and issues. Talking and compromising is a far better solution to cause change. Change can be obtained with compromising or avoiding situations where violence can happen. Violence only causes more and more violence and, in the end, people get hurt and no change occurs.
There are plenty of examples in history that show that violence is not necessary in order for change. One of the most famous examples is Gandhi in India whose non-violent civil disobedience movement was able to push for independence from the British empire. Another example is Martin Luther King Jr. in the United States who was able to push for civil rights without ever resorting to violence.
It's not necessary to achieve change. Usually compromising or ignoring the problem or argument is the best way to deal with stuff. I'm usually an aggressive person, but to this specific question, I don't think it's necessary. Maybe in some cases, it's a bit different, but usually if you conduct violence, the person who received whatever hate you were sending fights back or gets revenge in a different way, which totally takes focus off of the argument. So no, I do not think it is necessary to achieve change. For example MLK. He campaigned and made a change in the world without ever resorting to violence. Violence is not necessary. It is just fun.