An incident sparked huge controversy in the Hudson River Valley , near Albany New York. It was the Anti Rent movement where tenants in New York decided to revolt against their patroon leaders which were landlords performing feudalism. The landlords were making laws and and doing what they pleases to the tenants and finally they became fed up and decided to take matters into their own hands. This shocked and caught landlords by surprise and had no Idea what to do. These landlords were high in society aristocratic men so when they were in trouble the government and local officials had no choice but to back them up. The police and government challenged the tenants made what the were doing illegal and imprisoned many of the movement’s leaders. The consensus was that they could not just use force to get what they wanted but needed to take a diplomatic approach, and that is exactly what they did.…
All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.…
Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela all achieved a revolution and independence in their countries through non-violence. The reason this worked is because the non-violent people would be beaten and killed for doing nothing wrong, this made the attackers look like idiots for killing defenseless people. This would make the attackers realize what they’re doing and they would grant the country independence. The documents provided could be situated into four categories: civil disobedience, self-control, willingness to accept punishment, and embracing the enemy.…
Although, there are many methods of non-violence, people choose to be violent in this world. My personal experience with violence is a personal conflict that I had seen when I was in Nepal (civil war) I used saw six to ten deaths every day, neighbors used carried dead bodies by my doorway. I live with these scary minutes in my mind. Gandhi said “Nonviolence cannot act…
Nonviolent resistance is the practice of achieving socio-political goals without the use of violence. An advocate of this practice was Mahatma Gandhi, who through his use of civil disobedience, gained independence from the British in India. Gandhi defined this form of civil resistance as Satyagraha, which meant to respectfully disagree with one’s government. There have been many nonviolent resistance movements following Gandhi’s that have used the same strategy of civil disobedience. One such event was the Singing Revolution in the Baltic States, which was used to release those countries from the control of the Soviet Union. In this particular movement, Gandhi’s use of Satyagraha proved to be effective due to the success of the Baltic States regaining their independence from the Soviets without any bloodshed.…
Mahatma Gandhi, Indian nationalist, and the man credited with liberating India from British rule led a campaign of non-violent, civil disobedience that made the continued stay in the country by the British colonizers politically and morally untenable. Imprisoned by the British for fomenting unrest, Gandhi confronted the colonizers’ force of arms with the power of his ideas, and the rightness of his cause, and by his act of courageous disobedience prevailed gloriously over the British in the end. Today, India is a vibrant democracy of 1.2 billion people, free because of the disobedience of one frail, unprepossessing man, Mahatma Gandhi.…
Nonviolent struggle has been utilized countless times throughout the history of civilization. Contrary to popular belief, many of the world’s greatest wars are fought free of violence. Nonviolent actions offer an alternative approach to conflict resolution; one that does not resort to literal war and prevents blood shedding. The motivation behind these struggles vary, but the desired outcome is always to promote or prevent a change. Conflicts are diverse, and typically they are concerned with social, economic, ethnic, religious, national, humanitarian, and political matters (Sharp, 2005, p. 15).…
Mohandas Gandhi exhibited this during India’s independence movement. Gandhi held non-violent protests to fight for India’s independence. By protesting, Gandi displayed disobedience towards the British to earn rights for himself and others. He was able to peacefully achieve his goal of independence for India. Gandhi proved that disobedience allows people to create change that may not happen by following rules. People may argue that disobedience is injurious because it creates a rude, harmful society of people. This conjecture is incorrect because as Gandhi established, disobedience can be peaceful. Gandhi and all of his supporters were able to disobey while remaining non-violent to receive their rights from the British. Disobedience helps people improve their society and causes minimal harm, making it an exceedingly valuable human…
The history of violence in the world is well documented. However it is also possible to use non-violence to bring about change. This DBQ will look at two countries where a non-violent movement was successful. India and South Africa were two important nations on two different continents. But although they looked strong on the outside, each one suffered from a disease that threatened the health of the whole. For India, the disease was colonization. For South Africa, it was racial segregation. In each of these nations three conditions help explain why non-violence worked. The first condition was that both of them had been colonies of England. And like England both countries thought law was very powerful, more powerful even than government officials. The second condition was the presence of violence. Without the possibility of a violent revolution, the government might not have been willing to change. The third condition was the presence of a leader, Mohandas Gandhi in India and Nelson Mandela South Africa. Each of these men was so charismatic he could lead his followers to a non-violent victory. Both of them gave their lives to the cause. Gandhi was shot by an assassin while Mandela spent almost twenty-seven years of his life in prison.…
The history of violence in the world is well documented. However it is also possible to use non-violence to bring about change. This DBQ will look at two countries where a non-violent movement was successful.…
Violence to non-violence can make a huge impact on social matters, because it limits the amount of chaos that can occur. The smallest things like making a small group to protest on a social issue, or even making posters to help make a difference, are very useful examples of non-violence. Hessel’s argument towards non-violence is, “It is along this path that humanity will clear its next hurdle… or say that “violence doesn’t work” is much more important than to know whether or not to condemn those who have recourse to it. In this notion of “working,” of effectiveness, lies a nonviolent hope.” Hessel believes that the past shows how violence solved nearly nothing and created a merely violent world, therefore it is our turn to show our non-violent actions and solutions to making a difference. The younger generation shows their non-violent side through volunteer work, and creating small organization to make changes in their community. It may not seem as powerful as what the older generation was used to, but it is a step forward. Even though nonviolence is a great solution, violence may still occur, because it takes one person to make chaos. It’s okay for violence to happen when its make your words be known, for example the civil rights movement and the women’s suffrage movement. They were violent movements that made a huge difference,…
Thesis Statement: Civil Disobedience, though often taken as a refusal to obey governmental instruction, was in fact an appropriate gesture of the people during the People Power Revolution because the people demonstrated democratic action when they felt that they were being oppressed.…
Sophia Tiongko CAL 103 D4 12 October 2023 Professor Ogden Essay 2 Final Draft The Perils of Passive Resistance When a body of people comes into power, there is always a risk that those who compose that body will abuse their power for personal gain and at the expense of the people they govern. Consequently, victims of this ugly facet of human nature are left to decide between two main methods of response: violent retaliation or amicable appeals to the government. Aggression is at times viewed as a more impactful, and time-effective approach, especially when the atrocities committed by a tyrannical government are so horrific, they justify violent means. On the other hand, a peaceful response has a clear ethical advantage and lacks the risk of chaos and…
As shown throughout history, individual forms of resistance cannot change many things. By having more than one forms of resistance come together, economic, political, and moral pressure can be imposed upon the oppressor in bringing about a change to current conditions that oppress the resistors. With courage and self-respect in defending their rights, the oppressed can curb injustices imposed in them by…
Do we live in a world where violent resistance is no longer a realistic option to oppose an oppressive regime? The Kenny reading showed that non-violence is a path that can lead to regime change. Why is that? Is it because a non-violent struggle is morally superior to a violent one, and is therefore difficult to oppose? After all, it’s difficult to justify violence against those who struggle without violence, for human rights, justice and democracy, things most people desire. To repress them would be a blatant violation of basic human decency, whereas in an armed struggle, repression can be justified, and implemented on a mass scale, in the name of stability. Perhaps a non-violent struggle is also superior to an armed one because of the question it poses? When a government faces a rebellion, its survival depends on its ability to out-kill the other side. But in a non-violent struggle, the government’s survival depends on its legitimacy in the eyes of the people. The struggle therefore becomes over votes, and rally sizes, both of which governments cannot win over easily when they are struggling against the numerically larger and more in-touch members of civil society. This could explain why governments often rely on crowd dispersal and repression, to combat non-violent activism.…