State vs. Non-State

State vs. Non-State When considering the use of violence and non-violence throughout history, or at least in the last 200 years, the term Manifest Destiny comes to mind. Although it is not in itself a violent or for that matter a “non-violent” action, the idea of Manifest Destiny gave Americans the attitude of God’s will for westward expansion which in turn lead to the violent relocation of the Native Americans, or First Peoples. Through laws, being the non-violent action of relocation, and war on the First Peoples being the violent means to an end. This is not the only idea throughout this time period, countries throughout the world were all going through change and not all of the changes for the better and not all the changes were made by the state. In 1917, in Russia, the people were getting fed up with the Czar’s ungodly rule over them. This came to a head during the March Revolution; 90,000 textile workers went on strike during the middle of World War I protesting the shortage of fuel and bread, by the end of the week there was a totally 400,000 striking with signs of “Down with the Tsar” and “Down with the War”. The “state” or in this case the tsar banned protesting and sent in the army to shoot the protesters. This use of violence back fired when the army turned on their officers and joined in on the protesting, demanding an end to the war. This Revolution led to the downfall of the Tsar, using both violent and non-violent means and involving both the state and non-state peoples. Another form of mass “state actors” is the formation of the League of Nations in an attempt to secure world peace or at least maintain some form of order throughout the world. This would eventually lead to more violence and then breakdown all together and turning into the United Nations. The greatest person in History, or at the least the most well known, to do with non-violence would be Gandhi. His idea of satyagraha says in all in the sense of “striving for truth and social