In the Dalai Lama’s Five Point Peace Plan, he described it as a "first step towards a lasting solution"(qtd. dalailama.com). This initial “step” towards change and a resolution is taken during the organization of any resistance movement. A resistance movement is specifically defined as an organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability. A resistance movement may seek to achieve and obtain its goals through either the use of nonviolent resistance or the use of armed force, violence. I look to shed light on two important resistance movements that have often accepted violence as a pragmatic political strategy, as well as two other equally significant resistance movements that, in contrast, insist on a nonviolent strategy of action.
Our initial focus sets upon a resistance movement that seeks to achieve and obtain its goals through the use of armed force and violence. The Irish Republican Army was an Irish republican revolutionary military organization that waged a guerrilla campaign against British rule in Ireland in the Irish War of Independence of 1919. The IRA’s main goal was to use armed force to drive British rule out of Ireland and to achieve an independent republic with the political help and leadership of Sinn Féin, seeking the reunification of Ireland. The Irish War of Independence was a vicious and gory affair, with violence and acts of great ruthlessness on both sides. The British sent hundreds of World War I veterans to assist the Royal Irish Constabulary, Ireland's armed police force from the early nineteenth century until 1922, to face the forces of the IRA. The IRA fought a guerrilla war aga...
... middle of paper ...
...wer is fighting for rights from a higher power. In these cases, non-violence would be the smarter method of protest and resistance, seeing as the lesser powers would need more power to succeed in carrying out the action of counter violence, as explained by Susanne Kappeler in the textbook.
In conclusion, resistance movements vary in issue, leadership, opponents, demographics and strategies. Attention was drawn to two important resistance movements that have often accepted violence as a pragmatic political strategy, as well as two other equally significant resistance movements that, in contrast, insist on a nonviolent strategy of action. In the discussion of the four focal resistance movements rings the common idea of a lesser power against a higher power, and the nonviolent method of resistance is the overall superior method to take steps towards a lasting solution.
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
As Dr. King stated in Letter from A Birmingham Jail, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. I must confess that I am not afraid of the word, tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive tension that is necessary for growth. The purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” Such as in the case of the 1969 student site-in against the Vietnam W...
Although most people would find violence a necessity to gaining what they want, Caesar Chavez recognizes the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Violence is the instinctive reaction people have to a variety of situations. This was often the case with opposing views people had during the Civil Rights Era. In a magazine of religious organization the author Chavez emphasizes how nonviolent resistance will earn them equal rights with little to no bloodshed through the use of several rhetorical devices.
The following essay will attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of civil disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on 'Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest?' and Habermas's paper on 'Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State.' An outline of both Dworkin's and Habermas's approach will be given , further discussion will then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. Firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more general context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a 'vital and protected form of political communication in modern constitutional democracies' and further the 'civil disobedience has a legitimate if informal place in the political culture of the community.' Civil disobedience can basically be broken down into two methods, either intentionally violating the law and thus incurring arrest (persuasive), or using the power of the masses to make prosecution too costly to pursue (non persuasive).
There are many features of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience according to Rawls must be political in nature; agents engaged in civil disobedience must be appealing to a “common conception of justice”. It is aimed at changing the law, thus, it is a method requiring political engagement. The goal of this is to bring the law into conformity with the theory of justice. In order to make it a particularly clear case of rejecting the ou...
resistance, we need not submit to any wrong, nor need we resort to violence in order to right a
The most familiar type of nonviolence in our time is that of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King Jr. and fellow civil rights activists practice this in the 1960's. King preached that those oppressed must never fall to the level of the oppressors and result to physical violence. King believed in nonviolent protest such as marches, sit-ins and freedom rides. He felt that "if repressed emotions do not come out in these nonviolent ways, they will come out in ominous expressions of violence. This is not a threat; it is a fact of history" (King, preface). He considered these acti...
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. (King, Jr., 1963)
Mob violence was a persuasive feature of the Revolutionary War in every port city, particularly Boston. These mobs, which were often described as motley crews, were central to protests and ultimately played a dominant role in significant events leading up to the American Revolution. Throughout the years, leading up to the American Revolution, many Americans were growing tired of British rule and thus begun to want to break free from Britain and earn their own independence. Some of these Americans, out of anger, madness, and in defense of their rights, began terrorizing towns, sometimes even to the point of paralysis highlighting grievances and concerns that the common man couldn’t say with mere words. These groups would then be absorbed into a greater organization called the Sons of Liberty. With the use of violence and political strategy , these radicals defending their rights, struck terror into anyone opposing them but also carried out communal objectives ultimately pushing for change which was a central theme for the American Revolution. It will be proved that these men through their actions not only were the driving force behind resistance but also proved to be the men who steered America toward revolution.
applies the principles of civil disobedience in his procedure of a nonviolent campaign. According to him, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 262). The first step, which is “collection of the facts,” clarify whether the matter requires civil disobedience from the society (King 262). The second step, “negotiation,” is the step where civil disobedience is practiced in a formal way; to change an unjust law, both sides come to an agreement that respects each other’s demand, (King 262). Should the second step fail, comes the “self-purification,” in which the nonconformists question their willingness to endure the consequences without any retaliation that follow enactment of civil disobedience (King 262). The fourth and the last step, “direct action,” is to execute it; coordinated actions such as protests or strikes to pressure no one, but the inexpedient government to conform to them, and advocate their movement, and thus persuade others to promote the same belief (King 262). This procedure along with principles of civil disobedience is one justifiable campaign that systematically attains its objective. King not only presents, but inspires one of the most peaceful ways to void unjust
One striking fact of violent and nonviolent campaigns is that the frequency of both has grown throughout the years. Both had been steadily increasing since the 1900s and both had a sharp decline after 2006. However, the frequency of violent campaig...
The literature on social studies enjoys a wide range of social movement’s definitions (Christiansen 2009). This diversity of such a definition is due to the fact that theorists tend to define the term of a social movement depending on their particular theoretical formulation (Diani 1992). Therefore, this section will first consider definitions proposed by group of scholars that represent four major trends in social movements analysis. These trends are as follow, the ‘Collective Behavior Perspective’ (Turner and Killian), the ‘Resource Mobilization Theory’ (RMT) (ZaId and McCarthy); the ‘Political Process Perspective (Tilly); and the ‘New Social Movements Approach’ (NSMs) (Touraine, Melucci). Then, a definition by Della Porta and Diani is selected as this definition has been centered on the most important characteristics of the social movements and oft-cited by researchers.
“Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.” It is believed that any individual who advocates or takes part in a revolution dreams to change not only the world but the ‘man’ itself. These revolutionists dream not only of transforming social structures, institutions, and the system of government but also produce a profound, radical and independent ‘man’.2 With the development of these ideologies, certain methods are partaken in achieving their desired goal. Some will seek the path of pacifism while others proponent a violent revolution when achieving these ideology. Growing up we have been taught that violence cannot solve any problems it only makes it worse. But can one claim that these violent desired to bring revolution to be unethical? If so, imagine how Cuba would be like if it wasn’t for the 26th of July Movement; how colored people would be treated without Malcolm X’s attitude toward racism.
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.
The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy. " Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. American Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, Summer 1998. Web. The Web.