Peaceful vs Violent Protest Civil Rights Movement - Which one was more effective?
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Skip to page:
Within the Civil Rights movement time there were many peaceful and violent protests.
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
0
reply
Report
#2
Violence and civil disobedience are more effective. I can't actually think of any instances where lawful, peaceful protest has significantly changed anything.
Ultimately, hit the state in the wallet and then they will start paying attention. The IRA figured that one out when they started bombing major financial targets in London, and were costing the British government and economy billions of pounds in damages. The Good Friday agreement, which handed a lot of power to Republicans, followed pretty soon after.
Ultimately, hit the state in the wallet and then they will start paying attention. The IRA figured that one out when they started bombing major financial targets in London, and were costing the British government and economy billions of pounds in damages. The Good Friday agreement, which handed a lot of power to Republicans, followed pretty soon after.
0
reply
Report
#3
Moved to Society.
(Original post by tmmk9461)
Within the Civil Rights movement time there were many peaceful and violent protests.
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
Within the Civil Rights movement time there were many peaceful and violent protests.
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
0
reply
Report
#4
(Original post by tmmk9461)
Within the Civil Rights movement time there were many peaceful and violent protests.
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
Within the Civil Rights movement time there were many peaceful and violent protests.
Which one do you think were more effective and why?
Then again civil disobedience can be more effective in pressuring a government/organisation to do what the protestors asking them to do.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this. A good example of this is the suffragists and suffragettes movement. The suffragettes used a lot more millitant and violent tactics than the suffragists.
0
reply
Report
#5
(Original post by Wōden)
Violence and civil disobedience are more effective. I can't actually think of any instances where lawful, peaceful protest has significantly changed anything.
Violence and civil disobedience are more effective. I can't actually think of any instances where lawful, peaceful protest has significantly changed anything.
1
reply
Report
#6
Both can work, and both did work in the civil rights movement.
There is a simple equation for working out whether protests will succeed:
What causes a bigger problem for those in power:
The protest
Or
Enacting the demands of the protestors
unless there is a particular ideological barrier stopping those in power from acting, as long as the protest causes more of a problem then their demands, they will likely win in the long run.
Both a peaceful and non-peaceful protest have the potential to cause major problems. A peaceful protest can change minds, creating a huge problem for those in charge if they are part of a democratic system, the violent protest obviously causes physical and practical problems.
I imagine it's optimal to have both happening
There is a simple equation for working out whether protests will succeed:
What causes a bigger problem for those in power:
The protest
Or
Enacting the demands of the protestors
unless there is a particular ideological barrier stopping those in power from acting, as long as the protest causes more of a problem then their demands, they will likely win in the long run.
Both a peaceful and non-peaceful protest have the potential to cause major problems. A peaceful protest can change minds, creating a huge problem for those in charge if they are part of a democratic system, the violent protest obviously causes physical and practical problems.
I imagine it's optimal to have both happening
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Back
to top
to top