Since the founding of America, people have always resisted unconstitutional laws. There are two main ways that people did this, violently and non-violently. I believe that violent protests, while sometimes necessary, negatively affect our society while non-violent protests positively affect it. Violent protests ended up with bloody riots and in two extreme cases, war, but only took little time for change and ended up with both sides seeing issues clearly. Non-violent protests on the other hand, positively impact a free society because they unite the people, influence the best possible change, and encourages future change.
Violent protests often create two separate groups. Either you are with or against the movement; and if you're in the crossfire, you are forced to choose a side. Non-violent protests start out with a small group of people, that convince more and more people over time that they should join in the protest too. This continues until there are so many people
…show more content…
Violent protests force change to happen fairly quickly, but not good change. Change from these types of protests are normally bare minimum laws that can be altered and bent. A perfect example of this includes the 14th and 15th Amendments. These amendments were brought up by Civil War, and even though on paper they looked great, they were practically meaningless in the South until after the Civil Rights Movement. The non-violent Civil Rights Movement is a great example of how peaceful protesting can bring change that is not just on paper, but actually implemented. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in employment and businesses of public accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It also increased African American voter turnout significantly. These changes are still evident and can be seen today. Not only that, but these non-violent protests have influenced more present
A Civil Rights leader and a member of a religious organization, Cesar Chaves in his article “He Showed Us the Way” (1978) suggest that the correct way to protest is through a non-violent protest than a violent one, because many people would rather see a problem be solved without violence than with violence. Causing mayhem to property or/and livestock is defying the message that he is trying to put out to the world, also why would someone join a protest if the protesters are just harming or destroying innocent people’s property or/and livestock.
When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
If something isn’t right, there is a way to fix it. Violence of course is never the answer therefore, non-violent protests were started. Non-Violent protesting had a slow start then it spread around the world when it hit media attention. Non-violent protest also had more effectiveness than violent protests. Non-Violent protests may have taken a while, but the results were successful.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
Conclusion: Nonviolent protest are more effective than violent protest in effort to bring about social change.
If a person want a peaceful protest, then sit at home and use social media to protest and wait for change. However, violent protest raises awareness and get the issue resolved much quicker than just holding hands and chanting. Violent Protest shows the anger and frustration of the person or people. It also shows how people are willing to risk their life by standing by something they believe in. When violence is used during a protest it gets the point across much quicker. Violence cannot be ignored and it forces the authorities or whomever to take notice.
There are Henry David Thoreau’s refusal to pay taxes in abhorrence of the U.S.’s institution of slavery, Mahatma Gandhi’s 240 mile walk protesting British rule and taxation over India, John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s ‘bed-ins’ against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr.’s commitment to the principle that, in his words, “the choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.” These examples range from gestures designed to bring awareness and attract popular support to actions directed pointedly against an opposing force. Not all of these protests were entirely successful, though many, such as Gandhi’s, instigated great change. It remains to be seen whether many of today’s protests, be they march, rally, traffic blockage, boycott, or something else entirely will accomplish what they wish. The real question here not whether past, present, or future protests succeed, however, for there is value in taking a stance in victory or failure. Neither is the issue truly whether the beliefs driving that stance are right or wrong- people should have the right to believe and protest what they want. By definition, civil disobedience and ‘peaceful’ protesting do not directly harm others. So in the end, does peaceful protesting positively or negatively impact society? Can it truly create positive
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because if there isn't, how will people hear the voices of the oppressed and mistreated? Peaceful resistance comes a long way in trying to advance the rights and customs of the oppressed today. For example, The Salt March of 1930 was based on the Salt Act of 1882, which excluded the people the India from producing or getting salt, only British officials. Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of this protest. According to an article by time.com, it says that "The protest continued until Gandhi was granted bargaining rights at a negotiation in London. India didn’t see freedom until 1947, but the salt satyagraha (his brand of civil disobedience) established Gandhi as a force to be reckoned with and set a powerful precedent for future nonviolent protestors, including Martin Luther King Jr.(Sarah Begley,2015)" This means the salt march was a start for India's independence. Also, Gandhi's brand of civil disobedience set precedents for future nonviolent protests. Another Example of how peaceful protests
Protesting is an efficient way to send a message to a targeted audience. By protesting on a large scale, you can gain attention from bystanders and government. As people start to take notice, they can join your cause, and as more people join you movement, the more government attention it raises towards your motive. Protests against police brutality are happening everywhere in the United States, even in professional sports like football.
From the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the Civil Rights Movement and the Pro-Life Movement of the 1960s, to the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street Movement of current times, “those struggling against unjust laws have engaged in acts of deliberate, open disobedience to government power to uphold higher principles regarding human rights and social justice” (DeForrest, 1998, p. 653) through nonviolent protests. Perhaps the most well-known of the non-violent protests are those associated with the Civil Rights movement. The movement was felt across the south, yet Birmingham, Alabama was known for its unequal treatment of blacks and became the focus of the Civil Rights Movement. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, African-Americans in Birmingham, began daily demonstrations and sit-ins to protest discrimination at lunch counters and in public facilities. These demonstrations were organized to draw attention to the injustices in the city. The demonstrations resulted in the arrest of protesters, including Martin Luther King. After King was arrested in Birmingham for taking part in a peaceful march to draw attention to the way that African-Americans were being treated there, their lack of voter rights, and the extreme injustice they faced in Alabama he wrote his now famous “Letter from Birmingham.”
Should an instrument of God be subjected to the cruel punishment of his corrupt government? Should he obediently condone this gruesome treatment? Or rather than…should he consciously decide to take a stance against this maltreatment? For this creature has inherited the essence of his Creator’s benevolent and intuitive nature during his creation, he possesses the very strength to advocate his beliefs; the very wisdom to enlighten victims robbed of their wonder; and the very courage to construct a better society than the relentless reality that unravels before him. Any morally just citizen should support civil disobedience as retaliation against their tyrannical government.
Nonviolent protests such as Gandhi’s Indian independence movement (from Britain) have shown to be highly more effective than violent protest.一Even Though, Gandhi was assassinated, his movement was a success and his legacy lived on; he’s much like King in that way.一 In fact, two women, Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan did a study on the effectiveness and success rates of nonviolent and violent protest in comparison to each other and wrote a book titled “Why Civil Resistance Works”. The book provides statistics that show that nonviolent protest are a lot more successful than violent protest. Chenoweth and Stephan analyze these statistics alongside results from case studies in different countries. Once they conclude that nonviolent protests are more effective, they proceed to analyze the reason why. They came to the deduced that one reason nonviolent protests are more successful is that more people feel inclined to participate in nonviolent protest because they are not risking their lives or obstructing their values. Another reason they believed nonviolent protests are more successful is that a government is less likely to retaliate against a nonviolent protest because they would lose international support based on conflict of morality. Also, a government overthrown sans violence is more likely to become democratic whereas a government overthrown
The anti-Trump protesters also angered Americans as the violence fundamentally protested the peaceful transition of power that is paramount in our republic. Taking to the streets and blocking them, threatening voters, and assaulting others did not help protesters. Had all of these people chosen more collegial and sophisticated approaches, the situations may have fared better, if not for the outcomes themselves, then for the perception of the causes. History will always remember the actions of large movements, and as such, the movements should conduct themselves in a sensible manner. REPERCUSSION OF VIOLENCE VS. PEACEFUL MEANS During the 1960’s violent protests swept Soviet states as the populations of the Union demanded independence. These protests were quickly put down by Nikita Khrushchev, the General Secretary of the USSR. These protesters were not tear-gassed. They were not detained. They were set upon by Red Army tanks and shot in the streets. The use of violence bore violence. The argument that a peaceful protest would have met the same reaction is simply false, as when the peaceful protests did occur, Khrushchev allowed them to take place and ignored them
Peaceful protests are not only positive as means of effecting change, but they are absolutely integral to the functioning of a free society. Peaceful protests are a way to express concerns, which is necessary in order to fix whatever is inefficient in government. Without expression of concerns, there is no way for the governing body to know what is not working for the people of the country, so they cannot fix what they are unaware of. The key word is "peaceful" -- there is nothing wrong with a protest as long as it remains peaceful. Once violence comes about, the protest has negative effects. However, as long as there is no violence involved in a protest, the protest cannot have any largely negative effects. Protesting begins as a means of