Often it’s the shadow of violence that is most effective. A peaceful protest, that is safe enough for families etc is perfect for snowballing. Focused action and the threat of counter violence keeps the government in check.
Too violent, and the support collapsed, letting the police simply overwhelm it. Too passive, and the whole thing can be ignored.
The Irish troubles are a good example. Protests and marches showed popular support. While the Sinn Fein party provided a political face. The IRA then made sure that proper attention was paid. All 3 were required to achieve their goals.
Yeah there are certainly logistical comparisons that could be made, but like c’mon… actually being completely and legally owned would suck so so so so much worse. Just another reminder of what’s at stake if we don’t put up a fight.
Norway leaving the union with Sweden in 1905 is famously one of the very few times secession was done non-violently. But to be fair there was large political pressure from Swedish socal democrats that urged the king not to go to war and the Sweds and Norwegians liked each other and remained good friends and allies afterwards.
Maybe if both parties start to work on the relationship and get friendly right away, then you could maybe have a peaceful resolution in 50 to 100 years time.
Youre really going to post the most controversial study there is because they cherry picked data?
Please give me one actual example of where the people toppled the government and enacted change… through non-violent protesting.
Moving the goal posts yeah yeah yeah. Give me an article or proof then of 1 single thing that caused real, permanent change, like I originally asked. Not some mass “several” article.
Absolutely not. History has shown that violence works. The Sufragettes protested peacefully for 40 years with no result whatsoever. They won because they became violent. The French revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. The American revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. Peaceful demonstrations don’t work, sorry guys.
The French revolution is a perfect example of what is wrong with violent revolution. Power vacuums attract the kind of people that will do anything for power. Not to mention the chaos and confusion that came with the actual process of revolution.
The French revolution was a success because they resorted to violence.
Are you sure it was a success? How come it seems like people immediately stopped studying French history before Napoleon comes in and tears it all down?
My city has had good turnout for a few protests in the last few months, but yesterday was the first time we took to the streets and caused a few traffic jams. I know it isn’t much, but it is an escalation. It was like scratching an itch, and I’m ready for whatever’s next.
it may be more successful short-term, like a king getting into power because of a coup. but if the king isn’t well liked, he has a difficult life. peaceful progress, on the other hand, brings lasting progress.
History has overwhelmingly shown that non-violence is more successful than violence. You do you.
I don’t think that’s true. There were violent riots accompanying every major social change in at least recent history.
And famously, it took an entire fucking war to end slavery in the United States.
Often it’s the shadow of violence that is most effective. A peaceful protest, that is safe enough for families etc is perfect for snowballing. Focused action and the threat of counter violence keeps the government in check.
Too violent, and the support collapsed, letting the police simply overwhelm it. Too passive, and the whole thing can be ignored.
The Irish troubles are a good example. Protests and marches showed popular support. While the Sinn Fein party provided a political face. The IRA then made sure that proper attention was paid. All 3 were required to achieve their goals.
Now we are debt slaves instead. Success.
I’m wary to use terms like debt slavery or wage slavery because it downplays the horrors of actual slavery.
Yeah there are certainly logistical comparisons that could be made, but like c’mon… actually being completely and legally owned would suck so so so so much worse. Just another reminder of what’s at stake if we don’t put up a fight.
Well… how’s that going?
A hell of a lot better than before that’s for sure.
if you confused about slavery legality in the united states, slavery is illegal.
hope this helps you.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2020/10/how-private-prisons-profit-from-forced-labor
It’s still kinda legal, just takes some extra steps and signatures, and a bribed judge - of which there are many.
That’s also setting aside people that are effectively slaves to low wages, unable to do anything but work with no chance for upward mobility.
Well I mean, slavery is still illegal. Black people are able to vote, hold office, own property, etc.
There’s still a lot of social injustice to solve but there’s been a lot of progress, albeit slow.
The lesson is to not take your boot off of the vanquished evil.
good point.
The more I learn about history, the more I learn that violence changed things 99% of the time since before the Roman Empire.
Also after
And during
Oh by saying “since before” I meant to imply “until today” hahaha
Ah makes sense haha
Honestly “and forever” >w<
Into the exact same regime with a new color of paint?
Can you give one example where non-violence caused actual long standing change with 0 violence?
Norway leaving the union with Sweden in 1905 is famously one of the very few times secession was done non-violently. But to be fair there was large political pressure from Swedish socal democrats that urged the king not to go to war and the Sweds and Norwegians liked each other and remained good friends and allies afterwards.
Maybe if both parties start to work on the relationship and get friendly right away, then you could maybe have a peaceful resolution in 50 to 100 years time.
How about several?
Youre really going to post the most controversial study there is because they cherry picked data?
Please give me one actual example of where the people toppled the government and enacted change… through non-violent protesting.
Moving the goal posts yeah yeah yeah. Give me an article or proof then of 1 single thing that caused real, permanent change, like I originally asked. Not some mass “several” article.
No.
I won’t be sealioned.
Absolutely not. History has shown that violence works. The Sufragettes protested peacefully for 40 years with no result whatsoever. They won because they became violent. The French revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. The American revolution was a success because they resorted to violence. Peaceful demonstrations don’t work, sorry guys.
The French revolution is a perfect example of what is wrong with violent revolution. Power vacuums attract the kind of people that will do anything for power. Not to mention the chaos and confusion that came with the actual process of revolution.
Are you sure it was a success? How come it seems like people immediately stopped studying French history before Napoleon comes in and tears it all down?
Edit: Oh look its you. I see you.
No it hasnt. Power doesnt abdicate itself because you begged
Protest aren’t begging. They are a demonstration of capacity for action.
My city has had good turnout for a few protests in the last few months, but yesterday was the first time we took to the streets and caused a few traffic jams. I know it isn’t much, but it is an escalation. It was like scratching an itch, and I’m ready for whatever’s next.
Violence is far more successful, historically speaking.
it may be more successful short-term, like a king getting into power because of a coup. but if the king isn’t well liked, he has a difficult life. peaceful progress, on the other hand, brings lasting progress.
It also tends to beget more violence.
What specifically are you talking about?