The proposed statement according to Victor Hugo that “No army can withstand the force of an idea whose time has come” can be applied to many strong ideas in order exemplify their presence, strength, and influence they can have. Ideas can, without a doubt, have a long lasting and very powerful impact in such a way that can shape our future and write our history. However, the idea of nonviolence in this context is an idea that appears to be more wishful thinking than a force that “no army can withstand”, or reshape how the world works. To have nonviolence is to have absolute peace and complete rest among nations. To have nonviolence is to have a world that works much differently than the one we live in today. That being said the wishful idea …show more content…
This factor is the state of having a “quasi” peace among nations which leads to nations and individuals to feel a sense of peace with constantly having the fear of violence and war as a possibility. The Deterrence theory is one example of this quasi peace among nations. Deterrence theory is not nearly as preferable as the non-violence observable between two democracies, “at best, it tells them how to maintain a hostile and dangerous relationship” (Jervis, pg. 6). Deterrence theory is an unrestful form of peace and fails to achieve full positive peace between nations. Jervis explains that, “deterrence theory is not alone in failing to address seriously the question of how, and how much, as state can change the intentions of an adversary” (pg. 6). With all this in mind, deterrence theory addresses a conflict between two states at a dangerous time and forms an unrestful peace with no sure confirmation of non-violence. In addition to deterrence theory there is also another factor that adds to this “quasi” form of non-violence. Ethnic fear is something that can spread through an entire nation at a time of war or at the end of war and cause much distress and lead to intense violence. “As groups …show more content…
This last factor is the systems that are in place that promote non-violence and the extent to which these systems take in order to control this peace. Democratic peace, in theory, represents two nations that are democratic with the absence of war between them as well as the norms and culture within these nations that promote peaceful political disputes (Layne, pg. 3). Where the systems differ from the democratic nations is that the democratic peace theory and the systems to keep democracies at peace are simply theories. These theories are just theories unless carried out by the nations that uphold them. That being said it is the nations that contribute to the forceful expansion of non-violence by using violence on non-democratic nations. It is not the theories or ideas of democratic peace that promote such interventions. However, some systems to control peace and non-violence are more intrusive. The problem with these security systems are that they are just as unsure and unrestful as the deterrence theory. Betts writes, “the problem for security policy is to predict threats and to devise means for coping with them, yet it is especially reckless at the moment to invest
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr wrote a letter to fellow clergymen after being arrested for civil disobedience in Birmingham, Alabama. I agree with his statements towards the differences between just and unjust laws. A just law is one that abides by the law of God and the moral law. An example of this is when the majority party puts a law into place and are willing to follow that law along with the minority. On contrary, an unjust law is not put into place for the sake of the majority and the minority. An unjust law seems unfair to the group that is least likely to be represented. These laws are not made for everyone that's why Dr. Martin Luther King didn't have a problem with breaking unjust laws because they were just that, unjust. Unjust means not behaving according to what is morally right and fair. He says that there is a difference between law, just and unjust and with morality (good and bad). Dr. King also says that it's
In Chavez's argument, he explained the importance of nonviolence during the Civil Rights Movement. He used Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s movement as an example of successful protest using nonviolence. Although Dr. King's example proved to be effective, after he died, several members of the movement resorted to violence which caused the death of thousands of Americans. Chavez argued nonviolence is the only way to protest violence in order to attract support for his cause: the farm workers' movement. Chavez's rhetorical choices, through his tone and allusion to history, effectively influenced farmers to protest without violence.
Rodney King a black man who lived in Las Vegas was severely beaten by four white police officers. The officers were brought into court and tried on charges of assault. The officers were acquitted of the assault charges. Immediately protestors took to the streets, to express their angry over the judge’s decision. Protestors found the ruling to be unfair and was fed up with the ill-treatment. The violent protest turned into a riot. A lot of damage occurred; over 50 people were killed, over 2,300 people injured, 8,000 arrests and estimated over $1 billion in property damage. The riots exposed the police abuse, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity. If it was not for the violent protestors no light would have been shed on the way black were being
This section seeks to introduce the reader to the issue of Civil Disobedience and Electronic Civil Disobedience in general. The first section provides a brief background on the issue of Civil Disobedience in general and in the Malaysian context, and the question of anarchy that arises with it. The problems regarding Klang Valley youth participation in Civil Disobedience and Electronic Civil Disobedience will be discussed in the problem statement. Key terms and concepts used in the research will also be defined, as will aims, objectives, research questions, as well as the scope and limitations of the research. The research will use phenomenological and positivistic approaches (survey, observation, literature review) to collect the data. Finally, the possible significances and contributions this research might have for the country will be briefly discussed.
Mohandas K. Gandhi, a great Indian philosopher, wrote the essay “My Faith in Nonviolence”. His essay focuses on the use of nonviolence means on overthrowing the British rule of India. Gandhi’s main claim on this essay is that love is the higher law of life and that “every problem lends itself to solution” (p. 203) , if we followed that law.
Many people choose to use violence in their own ways to achieve the goals they have set upon themselves. But are there situations where violent disobedience is ever justified? You might be thinking, what is violent disobedience? Violent disobedience is the act of breaking a rule placed upon oneself, ready to accept any punishment that is to come to thee. You could violently disobey anyone such as the police, your parents, and even yourself. I believe only in certain situations one should be allowed to violently disobey an order give to him or her. No matter, one must accept ones hardships with outstanding stoicism to be able to succeed in controlling your actions for the greater good.
Throughout human history, violence, for the most part, has been a perpetual struggle we’ve faced. It does not discriminate against location, color, or creed, and it has an impact, lasting or not, on each of us at some point during our lives. Living in a Western country, many of us have become accustomed to the idea that true violence only lives in the ravaged lands of warring countries or the dilapidated streets of rundown neighborhoods, but in truth it can be found anywhere. Community center’s, schools, churches, and even the most secluded towns all encounter violence, though sometimes behind closed doors, everyone is vulnerable to it. But what prompts it to occur exactly? Violence itself stems from the causality of several different factors,
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.”
It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Letter from a Birmingham Jail gave the people an insight into the mind and his unwillingness to give up on his dream for better life and respect for ‘Negroes’. However, it was not just his mentality we have an insight on but also his philosophy, his mantra. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a devoted Christian and refused to use cruel, demeaning words and unnecessary violence to get his points across to the people. He fought against the injustices brought on upon the black people by the ‘white power’ in Birmingham. Letter from a Birmingham Jail also gave insight into his personality and character. Throughout the letter, he never used cruel words, he never used words that could be taken offensively by the people who he was protesting against, in some cases, what he says can be taken light-heartedly and jokingly, and he always talked with respect. He even apologized to the reader, the ‘white power’, and asked for forgiveness from his God. Dr. King’s philosophy, his commitment to the cause, and his unyielding determination for his dream for the future generations made him a hero among the masses, an unforgettable icon for the Civil Rights Movement. His message, no matter what it was or where, shook the very chains that ‘white power’ still had around the black people. His words added weight to the opposite side of the balance beam, giving strength and weight to the black people. His gospel of freedom through nonviolence was the pillar, the foundation of the Civil Rights Movement and the mantra for people struggling for justice throughout the South. Nevertheless, I ask you, in today’s society, is his message still significant? Is there a way to move people to fight with you without using force? The answer will ...
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Gandhi), welcome to the world of non-violence, not similar to ‘disney land’ but merely a small philosophical village coated in white, decorated with crystals and abundant in doves; white resembling peace, crystals for clarity and pure spirit and doves for .. I don’t know, I guess I have been driven by my imagination.
When analyzing causes of wars, realists focus on the systems level of analysis. To realists, the state and individual level are not contributing factors to wars, and they are not significant when analyzing causes. Defensive realists focus more on the use of aggression for security purposes, whereas offensive realism argues that states deal with anarchy and their own insecurities by being the strongest state. I argue that defensive realism relates more to World War I and II because it appears as though the states created alliances and utilized balance-of-power politics in order to stop certain states from growing too large and too powerful rather than to become more powerful than other states. The realism research paradigm also believes in the type of power known as relative power. Although realism focuses primarily on power, it does not mean that liberals do not. They simply look at power differently than realists do. Relative power is a type of power where states wants to have more power than those states that surround them. Liberals do not think that relative power is the way that states compete for
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in his book Diplomacy will be examined, and then a critique of those arguments will be offered through a just war theorist perspective.
The democratic peace theory stems from the generally optimistic liberal tradition which advocates that something can be done rectify the effects of an anarchical system, especially when it comes to war or conflict. For democratic peace theorists, the international system should be one in which there is cooperation and mutual benefits of the states are taken into consideration. The theory depends on liberal ideologies of civil liberties, democratic institutions and fairly elected governments and claims that liberal democracies are different from other systems of government as they do not conflict with other democracies due to the very nature of the liberal thinking and the pacifying role that democracy itself plays. According to the theory, the thought process behind democracies abstaining from war is that...