Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of nonviolent resistance
Effectiveness of nonviolence
Effectiveness of nonviolence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Pros and cons of nonviolent resistance
Final Examination It has been said that war is a continuation of policy by other means, as we have seen over the past semester there exists a vast variety of ways for these other means to be carried out. With every form of warfare examined there has been one striking similarity amongst the group, all types of warfare aim to bring about some form of change. Whether that be a societal, political, or economic change all designs of warfare aim to bring about a number of these changes. Nonviolent resistance may not be the first to mind when the term warfare is discussed, though given some inspection it can be reasonable to think of it in this way. Just like the other forms of warfare, nonviolent resistance too shares the common goal to produce a change by some other means. In fact, over the course of history this form of warfare has achieved far greater success when pitted against dictatorships than violent warfare ever would have. The workings of a nonviolent struggle are in many ways more complex that those of violent warfare. A nonviolent struggle requires a great deal more planning, commitment, and discipline to be I whole-heartedly agree with Mr. Sharp and am convinced that nonviolent resistance is a form of warfare. The past has shown us that a nonviolent struggle is a justifiable form of attack when faced with an overbearing dictatorship as an enemy. The resistance has the same intentions a violent campaign would have, just a different way to complete the objective. Both as discussed wish to create some economic, political, or social change in their society. A nonviolent resistance most often thought of for toppling a dictatorship is the only choice an oppressed people have to fight back. This being said there is no way to think of nonviolent resistance as anything other than
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
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.
...y shocks most of people who hear and see it, encouraging and moving others who also suffer. In instance, Elena screamed at Longoria to show she would not give them any information about resistances and Antonio when Longoria was about to killing her (Tobar 148). Elena sacrificed her life to protect Antonio and her friends who fought against the Guatemalan government without using any violence when she faced Longoria who tried to kill her. She showed it was important not to be daunted by fear and to keep fighting for justice. Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance as a means of seeking peace and gaining independence for the Republic of India from Britain. Justice should be served by means in the name of justice. Nonviolent resistance is a powerful way to fight against the cycle of violence and work towards the realization of a peaceful world.
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.
Keller, H. (1916, January). Strike Against War. Speech Presented at Carnegie Hall, New York City, New York.
Nonviolent protesters goal is for everyone to receive true “justice” no matter what race, color, religion, if you’re rich or poor; that everyone will be equal (31). Cesar develops his argument about nonviolent resistance by using “Justice” as a powerful word in the nonviolent fight. The people who don’t use violence; their victories are when people receive equal treatment. He develops his argument by describing what the people want. Nonviolent supporters are the key reason why nonviolence is the only true answer to solving a problem because, the supporters are sympathetic people who understand the problems others
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.
The purpose of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s was for blacks to achieve rights equal to those of whites. While this was the common goal, there were differences in the methods used to achieve them—the nonviolent and violent approach. People such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for the use of nonviolence. On the other hand, people such as Stokely Carmichael supported the use of violence to achieve these aforementioned goals. While the ideas behind Carmichael’s interpretation of Black Power—such as unity and self-pride—are essential, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s nonviolent approach is most effective for the task.
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
...able to showcase the great power that nonviolence could have on the world and how by using methods such as that one would be more successful than if one used violence. As Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
In Martin Luther King’s essay “The Ways of Meeting Oppression” and in the text “Nonviolence”, the term nonviolence is explained as a technique for social struggle. On the other hand, in the reading “The Black Panther Party for Self- Defense” it is stated that this social struggle doesn’t always carry the same meaning with the term nonviolence. As I agree with Black Panther’s idea, in my essay, I am going to discuss the extent that the black panthers’ resort to violence is justifiable.
Utilizing paradox, Chavez describes the effectiveness of nonviolent protest to his audience. Recalling the achievements of MLK, Chavez claims that King “learned how to successfully fight hatred and violence with the unstoppable power of nonviolence.” This quote demonstrates
His allusions to the teachings of Dr. King and Gandhi's work accomplish historical proof that nonviolence is powerful and effective. Likewise, he pairs this with a logical appeal by using, again, direct sentences that are short yet powerful in meaning. Chavez says “people suffer from violence”. Examine history.” He again calls on history to make a logical argument on why nonviolent resistance is most successful.
War is a hard thing to describe. It has benefits that can only be reaped through its respective means. Means that, while necessary, are harsh and unforgiving. William James, the author of “The Moral Equivalent of War”, speaks only of the benefits to be had and not of the horrors and sacrifices found in the turbulent times of war. James bears the title of a pacifist, but he heralds war as a necessity for society to exist. In the end of his article, James presents a “war against nature” that would, in his opinion, stand in war’s stead in bringing the proper characteristics to our people. However, my stance is that of opposition to James and his views. I believe that war, while beneficial in various ways, is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs.