The ideology of nonviolence has come to play a major role in political struggles in the United States of America and, indeed, in nations around the world. Almost every organization seeking radical change in the USA has been targeted by organizers for the nonviolence movement. Organizations like Earth First!, which originally did not subscribe to the ideology of nonviolence, have since then adopted that ideology or at least its set of rules for protest and civil disobedience. Yet nonviolence activists have put little energy into bringing their creed to establishment, reactionary, or openly violent organizations.
In this essay it will be argued that nonviolence encourages violence by the state and corporations. The ideology of nonviolence creates
…show more content…
Since the goal is a non-violent society, (even if other goals are included such as economic justice, national self-determination, etc.), only nonviolent actions can be used in struggles to change society. Thus one may argue (politely), publish, vote, and assemble in protest. At the extreme edge of Nonviolence ideology lies the Holy Grail: non-violent civil disobedience.
Nonviolence has but one prescription for all social diseases. It prescribes Gandhi-brand aspirin for everything from a headache to terminal cancer. But the social diseases of the real world are complex, not simple.
To gain a proper perspective on what political tools are best used to cure which social diseases you need to be well-informed of the nature of society and of the variety of political tools that are available. It should not surprise anyone that given the complex (and advanced) natures of our social diseases, a one-size fits all political solution is not likely to
…show more content…
You cannot pretend that aspects of reality do not exist just because there is nowhere to put them in your ideological box. It does not matter whether your ideology is Nonviolence, or Marxism, or Free-Market Capitalism; reality will do what it wants to do. So let us examine some aspects of reality. The goal to keep in mind is the minimization of global violence (the total amount of violence against humans on earth. Preferably including economic violence and even threats of violence).
The failure to oppose violence encourages or allows violence, and the effectiveness of opposition directly correlates with the level of discouragement of violence. But the opposition needed to stop the rape of a woman may vary greatly according to circumstances (particularly, the personality and experience of the rapist). Such situations can be only of metaphorical use in analyzing the opposition needed to stop a sugar corporation from bribing presidents and congressmen to order the US Army to murder 2 million peasants in order to take their land (as happened when the US grabbed the Philippines in
¬¬¬Though most American people claim to seek peace, the United States remains entwined with both love and hate for violence. Regardless of background or personal beliefs, the vast majority of Americans enjoy at least one activity that promotes violence whether it be professional fighting or simply playing gory video games. Everything is all well and good until this obsession with violence causes increased frequency of real world crimes. In the article, “Is American Nonviolence Possible” Todd May proposes a less standard, more ethical, fix to the problem at hand. The majority of the arguments brought up make an appeal to the pathos of the reader with a very philosophical overall tone.
In Cesar Chavez’s article “He Showed us the Way”, Chavez talks about Martin Luther King’s practices, how he stands with his nonviolent teachings and how king believed hate cannot driven out hate. Chavez explains how being nonviolent helped many members of the Civil Rights Movement get what they wanted. Throughout the article, Chavez uses religious and historical allusion, to show how nonviolence can be the best route to achieve what they want.
Chavez also states that non violence lets you “stay on the offensive” which also exemplifies the significance of a nonviolent movement. He also is morally appealing to his religious audience by discussing those who are “truly concerned” about a movement, will stick to nonviolence and not turn to the side of violence. This then forces the audience to feel relation to the good people, as they view themselves as a good person, and thusly side with nonviolence. He also uses powerful word choices to exemplify the superiority of nonviolence that connect with his American audience such as “democracy” and “freedom.” He then contrasts this with the “most vicious type of oppression,” violence. Chavez wants the working farmers to unite and protest, yet he wants them to do it peacefully, yet he is aware that “we are not blind to feelings of frustration,” and how they must search and achieve “balance” to achieve their goals. His powerful descriptions of nonviolence as a “nearly perfect instrument” contrasted with “those who espouse violence exploit people,” strengthens the support gained from the reader by the moral guilt of violence. Chavez’s compelling and forceful diction further provokes the reader and illuminates the upside of nonviolence and the harsh consequences and cons of violence, which increases the motivation to join the working farmers movement and unify behind a nonviolent
In Cesar Chavez’s article, he uses many rhetorical devices to help give the reader a better understanding of how important nonviolence vs violence is. Chavez explains how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi have endowed reasons of nonviolence worth following.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
“I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek. I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.”
Cesar Chavez in an excerpt from an article published in the magazine of a religious organization asserted that nonviolence is a more effective method of resistance than violence. Chavez supports his assertion by introducing a poignant juxtaposition of violence and peaceful methods, then he employs an effectual allusion to a past peaceful civil rights leader, and finally he presents a compelling logical appeal to the audience about the consequences of violent retaliation. The author’s purpose is to persuade the audience to protest injustice through peaceful methods in order to avoid physical harm and gain public support. The author utilizes an urgent tone for all of society, specifically members of the farm worker’s movement.
Conclusion: Nonviolent protest are more effective than violent protest in effort to bring about social change.
In the article, published on the tenth anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Cesar Chavez invokes the ideas of Dr. King and advocates for nonviolent resistance. Utilizing a determined tone throughout, he asserts that nonviolence will accomplish the goals of civil rights activists. By using contrasting diction to distinguish nonviolent action and violent action, he is able to reason for nonviolent virtues. With the use of rhetorical strategies, Chavez is able to drive his argument for nonviolent resistance. Chavez begins by recalling the power of nonviolence as demonstrated by Dr. King, who lived and taught essential ingredients for active nonviolence until the day he died.
Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated nonviolence to suppress oppression in his essay, “The Power of Nonviolent Action.” King's factual and reasoned approach is intended to win his adversaries over by appealing to their consciences. King realized that the best strategy to liberate African-Americans and gain them justice was to use nonviolent forms of resistance. He wanted to eliminate the use of violence as a means to manage and establish cooperative ways of interacting. Moreover, King states that the “oppressed people must organize themselves into a militant and nonviolent mass movement” in order to achieve the goal of integration. The oppressed must “convince the oppressors that all he seeks is justice, for both himself and the white man” (King, 345). Furthermore, King agreed with Gandhi that if a law is unjust, it is the duty of the oppressed to break the law, and do what they believe to be right. Once a law is broken, the person must be willing to accept the ...
Non-violence. Many people confuse this term with pacifism. Pacifism is defined as the belief that any violence, including war, is unjustifiable under any circumstances. Non-violence is defined as the use of peaceful means, not force, to bring about political or social change. The difference between the two are fairly simple to see when we define them side by side. Pacifism states that war is unjustifiable, however, it does not specify that Pacifism shows any inclination toward preventing war. Compare this to non-violence, which states that issues should only be solved in peaceful means. In this comparison, it would appear that Pacifism allows war, whereas non-violence tries to completely eradicate or avoid it. Now that we have clarified the
First, there is Martin Luther King Jr. who practices nonviolence. He does not believe violence to be an effective approach for long-lasting change. In fact, he states in his Nobel Prize Lecture that, “[he is] not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results (King, 4).” The key phrase is “momentary results” which means that violence only solves a problem for a certain amount of time. His example includes how violence won independence for nations. However, no set peace is achieved by it. King regards it as temporary peace. In fact, he states that it creates more complex, unresolved issues, with a never-ending series of self-destruction. He claims that, “It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers (King, 4).” All of those claims just portray destruction in itself. There seemingly lacks a positive ring. Instead, he preaches nonviolence because it concerns the majority of the people and their goals concerns the peace and harmony of the community. His nonviolent approaches include persuasion with the use of words. However, if that fails...
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 non-violent philosophy was not a movement of pacifism to Martin Luther King, it was one of action. Absolute strength was apparent in its practice, but how? The student movement caused many of its’ participants to be severely beaten, chastised, and arrested, only to continue while never fighting back. Why were they doing this? King felt the answer was that through their actions they would awaken not only the majority, but more importantly the minority to the need for equal rights. Apathy had set in among both groups causing them to accept the current state of affairs, and like the great “gadfly” Socrates, King and the students were forcing both groups to wake up and open their eyes.