Much of what the NAACP, and eventually Dr. Martin Luther King, stood for was protest without the use of violence. Would you agree that this is the most effective way to win support for a cause? Can you think of a situation where protest must be violent?
58 comments:
Non-violent protest is the best way to solve a problem. Violence shows immaturity, and it hurts people. It can even hurt yourself. A lot of people might say that violence is necessary, like when two countries aren't getting along. However, it is unnecessary, for with proper negotiating two countries can avoid war. It's very possible to avoid violence, those who say you can't haven't really tried. Protest never needs to be violent.
While violence can cause fear, being nonviolent will make people respect you. Being violent will not give you support, because people will be too frightened of you to want to help your cause. When two people, two groups, or even two nations have rivalries, you can substitute nonviolence for violence and get much better results. Peaceful discussions are better choices than wars or fights.
Where i think it is necessary is when the people who hate you are using violence against you. I mean you cannot let them beat you or kill you if they are that harmful. So in ways it is necessary to use violence when it is necessary. I know i used that word alot
I do not think that violence is the best way to win a cause but it isn't the most respectful thing to do. I think that if Martin Luther King Jr. fought his cause with violence he wouldn't have been as respected as he was. There isn't a situation where a protest must be violent, but like I said earlier it might get the point across faster for a short protest. For a long protest to gain allies you should use a non violent approach.
Non-violent protests are the most effective. While violence causes fear, there is still something to hold against you. Also, people don't want to support something that is based on fear. Violence doesn't need to happen for your cause to earn more money. A protest never needs to be violent. Dr. King did the right thing about preparing a speech and not preparing his weapons.
A non-violent protest is the best way to protest, like boycott. When you boycott you make people feel bad that not using something thats make life easier. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott the blacks of Alabama walked instead of using buses. This protest was affective and that other liked this work to. In the case of violence and self-protection you should use violence to protect your self.
I do agree that this is the most effective way to win support for a cause because violence is never the answer. Violence causes people to get hurt, and then they would not support them. I do not think violence is ever needed unless it is the protect yourself or another from getting hurt. Dr. Martin Luther King was very brave not using violence, and in the end I think this really made a difference. Being nonviolent will also gain many peoples respect, and support for a cause. There is not a situation that I can think of that would need to be violent in order to get the support needed.
i think that non violence is more effective in some waysbut in others ou will need to use violence. some ways to use non violence when your protesting for a job or going on stike. in others some people are just too convinced that no matter what they wont do anything for you so then you have to frighten them into doing what you want.
I think that violence may be necessary to prove a point or your cause but, when your protesting I don't think there should be violence involved. Protest is more for chanting and marching with signs till they lissen even if it doesn't really make any damage. But I think even if its not the right thing to do the way to go with trying to support your cause is to use some sort of violence to make them lissen to what you have to say.
Non- Violent protest is the best way to protest because with a non-violent protest people can get people to know what they are saying without having to hurt or kill other people. All protest should and easily could be non-violent. Sometimes on the news you hear that this many people were hurt in a protest over people wanting to be payed more for their job. Would you rather hurt someone or even kill someone or would you rather get the extra $100 dollars on your pay check every week. Some people can get hurt and can have a disability for the rest of their life.
"Violence doesn't pay"
I agree that non-violence is the most effective way to win support for a cause. Non-violence shows that you are not looking to start a fight, and you believe in peace. If you use violence, people will be afraid of you, which will lead to hatred and more conflict. Words are always more effective and have a greater impact on people than violence. It takes more strength to not fight back when others are fighting against you than fighting back when someone is fighting against you. I do not think that there is a situation where violence cannot be avoided; if you really believe in something, then you can find a way to avoid violence.
A non-violent protest is the right way to get your point across rather than using violence to do speak your mind. I think people should take a less violent route to expressing themselves, but saying that i think that you have to have a really patent character and strong thoughts to be succsessfull l with protesting without any violence at all. I think that a nonviolence mindset it the right way to protest, but it might not be the most affective unless your a very strong character.
I do agree that the most effective way is without violence. Violence can get out of hand and cause injury. I can not think of a time violence was necessary you can still get your point across without being violent towards people.
Non-violent protest is the best way to win over support because most of the time people will fear you when you are violent and sometimes it is know as terrorism. the reason it is more important is because most of the time you will get arrested and go to jail and people won't see you the same way. I think that violence can always be avoided and if you say you can then you are doing the wrong thing.
I do agree that non-violence is the most effective way to win support for a cause because it shows strength and will power to hold back. The message that is emitted through non-violence is that they care for a cause so much they would not hurt anyone, but allow themselves to get hurt. The people who watch the news would see people acting violent against a group of peacemakers, and therefore respect the non-violent group, and feel sorry for them, resulting with the peacemakers receiving respect. A protest must be violent if tyranny is present, and they would not listen to peaceful actions, but would if there was violence.
This is the most effective way to protest simply because it does not include violence and hurtfulness, but it shows what people will be willing to do for what they want while controlling themselves. A situation that may have to involve violence is war, while protesting against what another country is doing inside their borders.
Non-violence is the most effective protest. If there is no violence you will win more respect. You will seem like a nice person. I can't think of a time when there should be violence, but it doesn't always work out that way. If you are violent, it shows that you are willing to hurt people to get what you want.
A non-violent protest is definitely the best way to solve problems between people. When violence is brought into the picture, innocent people often get hurt and it brings out the worst in people. When a non-violent protest occurs, it usually always gets more done then when a violent protest or a war occurs. Violence can also cause fear, and nervousness to those that just hear about what's going on. Violence can always be avoided and when it is the situation always ends better.
I agree, nonviolent is always the way to go. If you use violence in most situations it usually makes the issue twenty times worse than it already is. Anyone can cross there point if they just work hard at it. I honestly can not think of a situation when violence is needed.
Non- violent protests are the best ways to protest issues that you see in the government and other aspects in your life. Violent protests sometimes make the protest more about fighting than getting the message across. The non violent protests make the people really listen to the message your trying to send and also gives them faith that they can negotiate and speak with you in a controlled manner. I don't believe that any protest really need to be violent.
Personally I think that the best way in a situation like this is to be non violent. You can get a lot more accomplished with non-violence then you would if you were violent. Dr. King had a famous quote by the saying of "At the center of non-violence stands the principle of love". This to me is a very true statement, and it should be followed for years to come.
The NAACP and Dr. King primarily used nonviolent protest. I believe this is the best way to protest in most cases. A group of people is naturally just a unit of violent, provokable, dangerous animals. If any sort of physical threat is created by another party, they will abandon all thoughts of diplomacy and use force to fight back. A peaceful protest causes no immediate physical threat or panic, and options are much clearer to whoever is being “attacked”. They are much more likely to see it your way, and come to a compromise. However, there are some situations where violence is necessary. Sometimes you are not the one protesting, but the one being protested against. There are many people who aren’t intelligent enough, or just don’t want to protest peacefully. In this scenario, it is almost necessary to fight fire with fire. (this proves my first point, only from a different point of view)
I agree with the comment because it gave African Americans a great relationship with with the white community. For the most part it eliminated racism and did away with discrimination. Non-violent protest worked great for the NAACP.
yes, nonviolent protests are the best way to stand up for what you believe in. Violence is never the answer and will only lead to war. Martin luther king jr. is a perfect example, he stood up for the rights of African Americans by performing speech's and non-violent protests. Yet he was very successful.
I agree that non-violent protest is the most effective way to get your point across. Anything you do can be held against you, so by focusing all of your efforts into your original goal, people are more likely to listen. Violence is more of a distraction and a hindrance to your cause, but many people resort to it because they can no longer control their temper. Violence should only be used as a last resort, such as a Coup de Grace. One should only use it when there is no other choice but to overthrow a corrupt government/body (a revolution!).
I agree that non-violence is the most effective way to protest and to win support. The reason why is because that I don't think that violence solves any conflicts whatever that conflict may be. You won't get very far if you hurt someone, they wouldn't cooperate and compromise with you.
I agree that non violence is always the way to go because violence will only make things harder for you and the people you are being violent towards. This will just be like a step in the wrong direction. The only time that i think violence is required is when a country is at war with another one. This is because if one country has intentions of being violent you cant just let them harm your country.
I think violence is never really good. It brings you in even harder situations and it hurts people for sure. It doesn't solve anything and it just creates new problems. I can't think of a case were violence would ever be good, and i just think that the people who support violent protest don't get the main reason of protesting.
Non violence is probably the best way to protest in most situations. For example, during time of the civil right movement. Some times there are time where there must be violence as a last resort. As and example when another country attacks the U.S I believe that is an exception to non- violence.
No, I think Dr. King and the NAACP was leading the African American's in the right direction. If the colored people had used violence, it would've given the whites the "well he hit me first" excuse and harsher judgment in court cases. They needed people out in the world fighting, not in jail cells wasting time. It is effective over time. Patience is a very strong and powerful will. It is power in its own way. It shows more power to avoid violence than to bend to its draw. Being violent may give you more publicity, but once your in jail, your voice, and actions, will no longer be heard. It's best to have no violence at all, if it can be helped.
I do agree that non-violent protest is the most effective way to win support for a cause. Non-Violence proves that you are not trying to pick a fight, and you are a strong supporter of crafting words to shape the beliefs of other people. If you start to use violence, people will not look up to you nor respect you, however, they will be afraid of you. Words are always the way to protest when you are trying to send a message across. An example of where protest must be violent is when two or more nations are not getting along. Sometimes when the dispute becomes so awful, that no words or speeches can change anyone's minds, the two countries go to war. It is very hard to avoid using violence throughout world issues because some people just feel the need to get rid of whatever is standing in there way rather than standing up and fighting for what they believe in.
Non-violent protest is definitely the best way to gain support for any cause especially if those you are protesting against react with violence. If people see armed men attacking helpless protesters they will almost certainly take the side of the protesters. Non-violent protest also sends a very positive message about your cause. if you prove you are determined for all things you do to remain peaceful many people will support you because peace is always the beter option. The only time when violent protest may be necessary is if say the country is under the rule of a dictator who when his subjects show signs of unrest startsto arrest and kill people on a whim then violent protest may be necessary.
I do agree that non violence is he most affective way. If you use violence, you may kill someone and go to jail. Then what are you gonna do? Your gonna be locked up in jail for the rest of your life. You wont have anyone to protest to about anything. In the war there is violence, but that doesn't nessaceraly mean its the right thing to do. I respect that men and women are giving up their lives to save ours, but I really do hope that there is another way other than war. Other than that I don't believe that there is any other way.
Non violent protest are much more safer and better for you and others. An example of a non-violent protest is a boycott which is a peaceful way of getting what you would like. I feel that there is no situation to where you would need to use violence. There is always a way to give your point out with out being violent.
Nonviolence is the best way to win support because violence is brought out by hatred and only creates more hatred. The KKK was a group which ran on hatred, and it used many violent tactics. Nonviolent protesting is especially effective if the people going against you use violence. It is NEVER necessary to use violence because violence creates more conflict.
Non-violence is a powerful tool for social protest. It shows that you know what you know what you're doing and that you have self-control. I think that it also proves that the person is smart, because they can fight for what they believe in without hurting others. Two wrongs do not make a right, even if it is your right. I feel that protest never needs to be violent, but if peoples lives were at stake, violence might be the necessary option.
During the 1920's to 1950's America was country of racism and discrimination towards black people. White people would unfairly treat blacks and hurt them sometimes. policemen were also racist against blacks so if a white person said that a negro was trespassing on his property the negro would definitely of gotter arrested. Non-violent protest was the best way in this circumstance because if the black people would of used violence against whites they would have gotten much worse arrests and Jail time. the only time that violent protes would be better is when they needed to strike fear into the lives f the whites.
I agree that this is most effective in this situation, for example, with the racial descrimination going on during that time, if you were violent you would be put in jail for life, mainly because the are african american. I do not think there is a time for violence. I believe everything can be solved. Violence is for people want immediate change, but that's not possible it takes time and effort to make a change for the better of the society.
Non violent protests are definitely most effective. In this situation, even if it was tempting for African Americans to use violence it was not necessary. Non violence protests were more effective because it shows maturity and self discipline. If African Americans needed more respect from whites and being violent towards them would not help them. I cannot think of a situation where violence is needed.
Yes, a non violent protest is the most effective way. It is the most effective way because the other side will actually listen to what you have to say. If it is a violent protest, then other will just hear lots of yelling and they'll think you're crazy. All the violence will make it look like you want power, but can't just talk about it calmly. Violence is not necessary and should be involved. No, protest should never be violent.
Violence is not the most affective way to persuade people into liking your ideas, because it will make them scared, they will think less about the topic and more about the bullying. For example, Dr. MLK never used violence and he swayed many people to his beliefs, being a great spokesman could have had something to do with it too.
Being violence is not the best way to solve anything. It can just lead to more problems. Violence causes people to get hurt in many ways. Being Non-volent can gain more support for the cause, like Martin Luther King did. Dr. Martin Luther King did a good thing by not using violence, and by not using violence it made a difference.
Non-violence is the best way to protest because if violence is used then many people will not agree with you. If you begin to hurt people to prove a point they will not follow you and people will look down on you. Non-violence is much harder to use but it is the most effective way to protest because people will look at your dedication to your cause and be inspired.
I feel this is the most effective way to support a cause because it allows you to get your point across without starting a war. If violence was used in such situations that Dr. Martin Luther King and the NAACP were in, whites would think that blacks did not deserve equality if they were violent even if whites were already being violent. I feel violence is only necessary if it is used as self-defence.
Non-violent protest is the best way to go because if you do not fight back people will fell made for you and help you. An example of this is if a police man is betting on you bystanders will fell bade for you and help the cause for freedom. However if the violence is threatening your life and nobody is helping you then you might need to fight back.
Non violence protests are the best way to protest for many reasons. One no one gets hurt in anyway. Second it avoids a huge mob to break out and get the NAACP a bad reputation. And third more people will respect you if you are non violent. Those are why non violence protests are the best way to protest
I think that in this case non-violent protest is the best way for the black people to get their rights because if they fought violently with the whites them America would've been destroyed by war. Also this would have kill many people for no reason. There is no situation where I think it is necessary to be violent because that would be like adding gasoline to a fire to make it be huge. Violence isn't really good for any situations expect when you do it to protect others or yourself.
I agree that is the most effective way to support a cause. If you really want to fight for what you believe in there is no reason to fight anyone. Violence leads to more violence which does nothing to the societyor for yourself. I can't think of a valid reason that a protest can and should be violent. If it needs to be violent that just means that you just want to get things your way as fast as possible. Non violence really means that you will go to any extent to get what you want no matter what the wait and without having to cause chaos.
I do agree that this is the best way to win support and reach a solution. Being violent will not get you very far because all it does is hurt others. In the NAACP's case, people were fighting to be treated equally. African Americans were very upset and the solution was not to make others upset too. By protesting non-violently, you are able to make a point, while still being mature and professional. I can think of many situations where I have had to use this method. When ever I argue with my parents about going out somewhere or getting more responsibility and privileges, yelling never gets me anywhere. But when I am calm and collected, it usually prevents a fight and eventually helps me out.
I completely agree with this because if you are going to be violent then it almost shows that you are frustrated with your protest and that you want to let your anger out on someone. They were also right because if the blacks had violently protested then the whites would've had more of reason to shoot hoses at them and be twice as violent which would escalate things where they didn't need to be. I cant really think of a time where this protesting needs to be violent because if you think about it the blacks did get what they wanted sooner or later they got what they wanted. Also if your not violent it might be easier to get your way since you are much more respectful and not harmful.
A non-violent protest is a brilliant way to show that you want something to change. Usually during a violent protest it is evident that those protesting are panicking.Non-violent protest is the perfect way to say that you are serious about your opinions but you are not willing to hurt anybody to get your point across.I would say that the only time you should use violence is when you do not have a lot of time to get your point across.
I agree. I think that non-violent protests can solve a lot of things. Using your words it a much stronger way of showing what you are fighting for, at what you believe in. If two countries are at war then yes maybe violence is a better way to solve things since they wont listen to what you have to say. For protests if you use violence. it won't get you anywheree
Non-violent protest is the most sensible, but not always the best way to solve a problem. It all really depends on the situation that you are in and what you want to do. For example, here in America we have mostly non-violent protests because we know that we will be acknowledged by the government. However, in less developed countries like Egypt, where the president is corrupt, they need to protest violently like they are doing right now t make a point, because unless they are causing problems in some way, the government will not listen to them.
I think for this situation, non-violence was the best tactic MLK junior could do. It made the whites appear very harsh and violent and made people more sympathetic to the black cause. One example of a situation where violence is necessary, is when you are being picked on for being weak. a show of violence IS necessary to show that you are not weak.
well, as a pacifist I don't believe that violence is the best way to handle situations, war and fighting does not show who won, just whose left. there are very few situations where violence is the best way to go. for instance in Egypt right now, what was originally just plain protesting has become violent fighting and thrown the situation into a much worse state than needed. so I believe that king's and the NAACP's non-violents policy was the best way to go
I believe a non-violent protest is the most effective way to protest. It is because if you use violence in your protests you will be most likely feared, and you don't really want that, you want to be respected. It's always better to be respected then feared. Maybe in some protests you have to use violence, like in a war or something. It should not be like the first thing you do though, you should first try to protest in your case and if the other side starts to show violence i believe you should show as much violence as their showing.
The best way to protest is to use non-violence. Violence shows signs of immaturity and gives a reason for someone to get you in trouble while non-violence shows courage and honor. Also by using non-violence techniques you will always have people to back you up because they will not be afraid.
Inspired by Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to take a non violent approach to protesting. Non violence happens to be a powerful tool in social protesting. Violence never gets a person anywhere. In most cases violence makes things much worse and shows a lack of maturity. Sometimes it must be used such as cases where the effort of non violence accomplishes nothing. Non violence however shows that you are well presented and have self control. In most cases it is the most effective and should be the preferred way to handle issues.
Post a Comment