Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Argument for non violent protesting
Nonviolent protests
Nonviolent protests
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
people might say that peaceful protests negatively impacts society because it wastes time, and it never works. For example, on January 21,2017, there was a women's march on washington in repsonse to donald trump's win. They exercised their first amendment rights and statements to let him know women have rights. Donald Trump was recognized for his comments about women. The women rights movement caused people to have a different perspective about them. But, i don't believe that peaceful protests negatively effect society because According to data compiled by Erica Chenoweth at the University of Denver and Jeremy Pressman at the University of Connecticut, at least 3.3 million people participated in over 500 Women's marches across the US. That is a huge turnout for solidarity for women. The effect of the marches probably will be there will be more women's
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.
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.”
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
Assess the significance of popular protest in challenging authority and its success in bringing about change in the years 1880-1992.
The peaceful resistance of laws positively affects society as a whole. Throughout history, many men have shown this remark to be true. From the likes of Henry David Thoreau, to Martin Luther King Jr., to Mahatma Gandhi, the world has learned civil disobedience does work and positively affects everyone as a whole.
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
The United States of America was founded and has been built on the principles of freedom. From the very beginning, the nation has been working towards equality for all. As such, it allows for peaceful protestation of laws that are considered to be unfair or wrong by some. Thus, peaceful resistance to laws has a positive impact upon a free society.
The first amendment guarantees Americans the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances and the right to peaceably assemble. Any peaceful petition or resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. The United States is a free nation in which people are guaranteed the right to express their own opinions. Peaceful protests are a way in which Americans can resist laws in which they don’t support or believe to be fair. Anyone participating in civil disobedience understands they may be breaking the law, but they accept the punishment they may face for their actions, rather than fighting it.
There are some negatives to peaceful demonstration. The problems occur when certain people within the group or society decide to take the resistance to extremes. This creates a negative reputation even for the people who demonstate
Peaceful resistance such as protests and marches benefit a free society because it allows the voices of the minority to be heard. For example, President Trump’s recent ban on refugees and visitors from seven Islamic
Protests are used to make a point and try to make the voices of minorities heard. Some minorities get out of hand and begin breaking laws. This could negatively impact the free society we live in because it may end up causing officials to pass laws which are stricter. Stricter laws could potentially limit the freedoms of everybody living in the country. Freedoms should not be limited just because some people cannot accept the fact that we have officials who represent and make decisions for us.
Throughout history there has been many examples of injustices faced by many groups of people and it grows to become frustrating and intolerant at times. Groups have had to fight to receive their equal rights many either violently or peacefully, but both actions have been viewed as wrong. Therefore, I view that peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society. When society pins you down from the day you are born and doesn't give you a chance to fight back then we begin to see the hierarchy that society has and how many people are at times born into certain ranks or positions in life and that scale does end up shaping people's beliefs as they grow up. With peaceful resistance what is shown is an ability to be strong and brave to
I believe that peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society as long as there’s reasonable justification for the peaceful resistance. Three possible reasons why there would be a need for peaceful resistance against laws would be if it interferes with the people’s first amendment, if its goal is to create social or lawful change, or if a large group of people do not agree with the lawmakers’ decision for not keeping the people and their rights in mind.
I believe that peacefully resisting the law negatively impacts our society. Any resistance to the law can turn violent very fast, even if it is 'peaceful' resisting of the law. The laws of the United States of America are in place to protect us and allow us to have freedom. When people begin to resist and fight against these laws, our freedom and safety becomes jeopardized. America, the land of the free, is a place for people to be able to have freedom and feel safe over the time period of their lives, but this cannot happen when people are disobeying or opposing the law.
I would say that peaceful resistance to laws does not impact a free society positively, nor negatively. There have been many examples of resistances in the modern day, and there are some that are peaceful, as well as some that are not. A good example of one peaceful protest is when you look on television and you see athletes using some element, whether raising fists or wearing "Black Lives Matter" shirts, to show the public how they, too, are protesting issues in today's society. An example of a violent protest would be in Charlotte, when people were aggressively storming the streets, vandalizing as they went. For one, it is a right as an American to have free speech, which is to express your thoughts in any way that does not involve violence. As long as the resistance is purely