Violent revolution is a just response to oppression due to the fact that they are being oppressed so that that means that they only have this as an option peacefully solutions should been tried first but those almost never work so violent tends to be the only option, Not to mention when peaceful protest is tried it slaughters the people who are revolting and you might say “violent also killed them” yeah but it gets stuff done, I fully om for peaceful protest but if it only ends in people dying then you have only one option then you have to revolt
Violence and nonviolence are differentiated by the oppressor, making it a meaningless distinction
Sebastian 2015 Sebastian, Simone (Simone Sebastian is deputy America editor on the National Desk. She previously worked as an editor for The Washington Post's Wonkblog and Outlook sections. Prior to working at The Post, Simone covered the energy industry for the Houston Chronicle and public education for the San Francisco Chronicle and the Columbus Dispatch.) “Don’t criticize Black Lives Matter for provoking violence. The civil rights movement did, too.” The Washington Post 10/1/2015 cut 6/25/2018 MS
Black Lives Matter protests have produced one spectacle after another. Peaceful demonstrations in Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., were followed by riots in which police and activists clashed. Many Americans, weaned on tales of how 20th-century civil rights leaders used nonviolent resistance, criticize today’s advocates for “extreme” tactics and accuse them of inciting violence. Even Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, called BLM’s methods inappropriate. Mike Huckabee said [MLK] the civil rights leader would be “appalled” by BLM’s strategy: To address racial injustice, “you don’t do it by magnifying the problems,” he said.
But magnifying the problems was King’s key strategy, and he received the same admonishments. Protesters who marched in the streets of America’s most staunchly racist cities and towns were attacked by police dogs, their clothing was tattered by high-pressure fire hoses, and their lives were taken by police officers’ bullets. Alarmed by what they saw, eight liberal, white clergymen wrote a public statement in 1963, calling King’s movement foolish and counterproductive. They sympathized with his cause but said his actions were too aggressive, too disruptive and drove people to violent uprising. The clergymen urged black Americans to reject King’s leadership and adopt peaceful means to achieve racial equality. King’s “nonviolent” movement, they said, was anything but.
Abdurraqib 2017 Abdurraqib, Hanif (Poet. Writer. | Poetry editor @MuzzleMagazine | Author of The Crown Ain't Worth Much & They Can’t Kill Us Until They Kill Us. | Ohioan) “By the end of his life, Martin Luther King realized the validity of violence” Timeline 6/15/2018 cut 6/25/2018 MS
Beyond the misattributed quotes and bad memes and poor logic made in his name, the real tragedy of King’s legacy is that the white people who so frequently invoke it in the name of peace do so with a fundamental perversion of his message. Nonviolence — as it is discussed and fetishized in proximity to the poor and/or marginalized — is so often only dragged out in response to any uprising of those people. The riot is a language, yes, but the response to a riot is also its own language; a language of doublespeak. The call is for peace and love, but the true demand is for complete silence altogether. An NFL player takes a knee without speaking, and is threatened and hated, called a violent thug and a racist. For those of certain skin colors, no protest can be peaceful enough.
Valuable leadership skills include the ability to delegate, inspire and communicate effectively. Bahsar Al-Assad has none of those skills, Therfore he should not be a leader. He kills his own people, and this is not only happening in Syria, it is also happening in China, Mexico,etc. These people fighting back arent just fighting back for no reason. Something major has to happens to upset the people therefore, they respond. A whole country dosnt wake up one day and say we are going to be voilent towards our goverment. Their leaders are the reason they are fighting back. They have the right to fight for what they believe, especially if their leaders already broke out into violence. Thank you now i stand for questioning.
Oppression is violent in whatever form. So violent revolutions in response to oppression are not unjust, and in fact should probably be expected in most cases. It is not the best way to effect change. Oppressors tend to be better equipped and better organized and able to crush a rebellion, so more peaceful, indirect means are probably better. Please, violent revolutions cause a lot of collateral damage. But justice? It's a just and natural response to oppression.
When a group of people are oppressed for a long period of time, they can either become cowed and lose their will, or they can become angry, and stay angry. There will come a point where the oppressors add one more indignity, and at that point the people explode because they have had enough. Everything they have held in while being oppressed comes out and the result is a violent revolution. Yes, it is a just response. I don't know of any successful non-violent revolutions.
I also believe that violent revolutions are not needed to combat oppression. You just need to know what you want, and to make sure you get it. It is true sometimes violence seems it is the only way to revolt successfully, but it is not always required. Some cases, rare cases, do require violence, or even a war to solve.
Lololololol has djoai sjof fjsdo fjaos fsjn s s s s sssssssssssss 613958890943564 613958890943564 613958890943564 613958890943564 613958890943564 613958890943564 613958890943564613958890943564 613958890943564
No, They Aren't I do not believe violent revolutions are a just response to oppression, however they are often the only way to get justice quickly. Non-violent revolutions don't bring much impact for the most part so they are not viable answers sometimes. Violence is bad, we can all agree with that, but it does offer power.
Oppression is a matter of perspective. The word oppression itself doesn't even have a negative intent, it merely means to control. The connotation it has come to represent is something entirely different. Oppression needs not be present for a violent revolution. Sometimes the violent revolution is carried out by those that would be the oppressors. This comes in the form of a military coups such as what happened in Egypt. The people may just not like some foreign policy decisions. The military has the power to take over any country.
I do not believe violent revolutions are a just response to oppression, however they are often the only way to get justice quickly. Non-violent revolutions don't bring much impact for the most part so they are not viable answers sometimes. Violence is bad, we can all agree with that, but it does offer power.