When one wins by violence it is by injustices, death and even more suffering then before. While nonviolence promotes justice and moral standards all the while
Martin Luther King Jr., plus his own beliefs and conclusions, shows that nonviolence methods historically and analytically accomplish much more than violent tactics. The utilization of formal diction in Chavez’s article is proven to be most evident when he mentions, “The greater the oppression, the more leverage nonviolence holds. Violence does not work in the long run and if it is temporarily successful, it replaces one violent form of power with another just as violent. People suffer from violence” (Chavez). By the author using formal diction, especially towards the conclusion of his article it makes the audience have to or want to agree with him as the statements he provides don’t leave much room for counterarguments and instead reaches to the audience's logos or reasoning.
Peaceful resistance to laws has a more positive impact on a free society because it allows people to express how wrong something can be and stress the need for change. In the "Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King demonstrates how nonviolence allows those who "refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue" (King). Martin Luther King explains how effective nonviolence can be. This demonstrates how those protesting aren't causing chaos, yet are still being able to get their point across.
Believing in non-violence protests helped to enhance society because violence would have lead to more hostility and hatred among African Americans and
Cesar Chavez, labor union organizer and civil rights leader, took the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as an opportunity to remind people about the benefits of nonviolent resistance. Chavez published an article in the magazine of a religious organization devoted to helping those in need. In this article, Chavez shares his views on how nonviolent resistance is more effective than violent resistance. Chavez contracts the outcomes of violence versus nonviolence using an if then format in order to prove nonviolence superior.
Accounts of civil disobediences have made their way into the paper many times since the start of this country: the Boston Tea Party, Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax, and Rosa Park's decision to stay seated on the bus. All of these examples represent a time of distress when people responded in non-violence to prove a point. But many would ask if this is really proving a point or if it is simply disregarding the law and setting a bad example? Well let me ask you this: would it be better to sit back and to hope that someone will speak out about the problem, or to go forward in violence thinking that that is the only way to achieve something? It seems that an act of non-violence is a way of being heard without coming across as irrational or
Civil rights leader, Cesar Chavez, in his article about nonviolent resistance, written on the 10th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., justifies why non-violence is better. Chavez’s purpose is to argue that nonviolence is better than violence. He adopts a serious tone in order to prove that nonviolence is the solution to people in need. Chavez begins his article by relating nonviolence to power. This is followed by the claim that “nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive.”
Peaceful resistance to laws positively affect a free society. Throughout history, there have been multiple cases of both violent and peaceful protests. However, the peaceful protests are the ones that tend to stick with a society and are the ones that change the society for the better. In April 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter about just and unjust laws while he was in Birmingham jail for peacefully protesting. King came to Birmingham because "injustice is here".
For example, When Michael Brown was killed there was a several marches around the country they all got national attention. In Martin Luther King’s speech he argues that people should stick to using non-violence instead of using violence to solving your problems: “So in the days ahead let us not sink into the quicksands of violence; rather let us stand on the high ground of love and non-injury.” The idea that we should use non-violence instead of using violence is better because if you start to use violence people are going to say they want change but they are harming our city 's, we cannot advocate violence because we want change to happen and we don 't want more people getting hurt. Indeed we should use non-violence because we will get national attention. Ultimately non-violence protests are better than violent protests because if we want to change something from happening we have to be civilized americans and not make things
On the other hand, using nonviolence allows people to participate and fight for what they believe in through non-violent ways like boycotts, marches, and strikes. These effective nonviolent “weapons” allow people to fight for change and keep their sense of strength and justice which would have otherwise been lost through
Failing to see this importance will strip people of their spirit, morale, and strength. Utilizing violence to make change won’t help in any way, whereas nonviolence it the opposite. This is why people prefer nonviolent
Lawrence Humes 10/ 27/15 AP Art History Research Paper This painting is the Dancing Couple created by Jan Steen. Steen was a Dutch painter living in the 17th Century. Born In 1626 in Leiden, he was raised by a family of wealthy Catholics. He was educated at a Latin School and learned from Nicolaes Knupfer, his teacher at school from where he traces his style.
Using nonviolent resistance does not include killing off anyone that doesn’t share the same opinion, it is simply protesting to prove and persuade a need for change. Also, peacefully protesting attracts attention from all over the world; thus, educating more people about a serious issue in society. If no one takes action, no one will realize the problem and it’ll only continue to grow. Also, many political leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr. are extremely known for their delightful use of civil disobedience. Even better, all of them were successful in bringing about a change in society.
Peaceful resistant to laws positively impacts our free society today in America because of many specific reasons. One being, it is protected under our first amendment, which allows the citizens of America to the right to petition. This right allows the people, which is what America in truth is all about, to petitions things they don´t like, or want done away with. In today's ever changing society, many people find things unjust, or unfair, and the only ways to deal with those at times is to go down the peaceful way of resisting laws. Now of course, not following a law, or breaking one is never truly the answer, but it takes only one person to make a difference, and at times, that is what is what the United States needs, a rule breaker.
Peaceful Resistance no matter what way you look at it, it 's still going against someone whether it involves words or actions, resistance still causes more conflict. The last 5 years we have had people say they want change through these “peaceful protest” but these peaceful protests have done nothing but turn to violent riots were theirs damage to vehicles, business families rely on destroyed, bystanders hurt, officers killed and our country torn apart. Back when Martian Luther King Jr was around and he had his Peaceful Resistance or rallies for equality, they were peaceful and brought our country together with something that needed to be changed, but the protest we’ve had the last 5 years… he would be ashamed of. Peaceful Resistance to laws does negatively impact our free society in America. First going along with what I said about there being “peaceful rallies” even though some people may be at these rallies to make a difference to support their opinion, not everyone can respect that.
