Violent Vs Nonviolent Protests

In class, we have learned about apartheid in South Africa, which was a system that separated people based on their race, and allowed the white minority to rule over the country. During this period of time, the blacks were treated unequally and were thought to be inferior. Many black protesters, like Steve Biko, rose up against the government to obtain social change. At the time of his trial, Biko told the judge "We believe we can progress without violence." Do peaceful protests succeed in obtaining social change? Or is violence necessary? The most important thing in a demonstration is the social support, so the number of people who participate in the protest. Researchers say that no government can resist if 3,5% of the population rise up against it. Therefore, I agree with Steve Biko and I think that nonviolent protests are more effective than violent ones, because more people participate in them.

Peaceful protests don't involve weapons such as guns or bombs, and they usually don't cause material nor human damages, which encourages more people to join in, even the ones who don't feel concerned by the problem. For example, if some friends tell me that they are going to a demonstration and that I should join them, then I would very much like to support them even if I don't personally feel concerned. But, if I go down to the streets and see a group of people yelling with guns and other deadly killing machines, then I would go right back up to my house and draw the curtains. In the contrary, if I see a group of people marching down the streets holding banners and singing (for example), I would certainly join them. Thereby, nonviolent protests encourage people to join in, unlike violent protests that scare people