|
GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Is violent or non-violent protest more effective?
Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.
- Bubba August 14, 2008, 02:27
- Non-violent protest is a tactic. It's use can be effective when violent protest would bring about an undesirable response from the public in general, that is, when it could easily be used propagandistically to undermine the protesters' cause. When non-violent protest has been proved ineffective but violent protest strikes a favorable response in the public, violent protest done strategically is a valid tactic. Even Mohandas K Gandhi told his followers that violent protest is preferable to no protest at all, because the most important thing is to confront evil with courage and determination.
- Nick June 16, 2008, 06:12
- Western violence (EUSSR and USSA) show, that with violence you can shape current events for the moment. Western violence started some wars/events, but western violence victims (new enemies) will decide how all violence will end. West is learning hard way, just the begining. Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Zimbabwe and elsewhere show that violence is western main tool to promote western political influence. For the long run violence becomes counter productive so I hope Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan will end up like sort of Vietnam for them. West is making many victims/enemies so they can count on them in future for new troubles.
- ROBERT (U.S.) June 11, 2008, 09:35
- The big question is (Is It Revolution or Evolution).What most people would consider revolution is in fact evolution of the mass or (larger populations which are harder to control).What once was the minority of the population will become the majority. Lets take the example of the mafia and the unions durn the industial age when the bourgeoisis where exploting the proletarings.
the mafia delt with them violently and successfully .This is a product of the protector failing at there jobs so people seek protection else where.I cannot stress enough that is better to be a good leader of a great nation than it is to be a dictator of a poor and anarchy country.
- John June 9, 2008, 21:59
- It doesn't make any difference, what makes a difference is whether enough people who are not protesting care and whether the target of the protest cares.
- Dion April 17, 2008, 00:01
- Non-violent protest achieves more than just the desired result, it sets an example for future generations. It has permanent virtue and lends public sympathy to its represented cause long after the dust has settled politically. Violent protest can rid of a heartless regime, but only by replacing it with something just as arbitrary.
- DaniYah March 23, 2008, 18:27
- Johann,
I very much like your idea about promoting foreign music. Though in Russia, and even in Europe in general has largely been swallowed by foreign music from two sources- American and British culture. Some examples are the rock&roll genre. Though people loosened up a bit with Jazz from Afro-American roots. But still, it came primarily from the same region- Western English-speaking cultures. I do believe there is a need to diversify, and that that diversification can lead to the tolerance for peace worldwide.
- johann March 23, 2008, 00:04
- A very form of peacefull-protest is music.The good music makes people happy,music has no frontiers,no barriers,makes the peoples feel much closer to each others,opening new opportunities for peace and brotherhood.It's sad that politicians don't understand this.Just imagine how wonderfull could be to make big concerts in various parts of the world with the music of different nationalities ,cultures-of course LIVE on TV channels on the planet.Do we now about arab,israeli,african,south-american,asian popular music ? Do we now much about their musical culture?The most of people don't.God creates the varieties of people and cultures for all,and man doesn't challenge this will.Every culture is valuble as is,we must rediscover not to kill it.The path on wich humanity is going,thanks to some "evil"people is leading to disaster.As long as some nations are "infected" to belive that they are much inteligent than others there will be no peace and the protests will be more and more violent.So,it is the ultimate chance to doing this.Change hatereed vith knoledge and respect for others instead of instigating to violence,dear politicians!...then you won't have violence.
- DaniYah March 22, 2008, 05:21
- The important thing is the strength of a message. Weak mesages, conveyed by peaceful protest, can even cause violence, because it incites frustration.
Weak messages also don't last.
That also defines violence against human beings as a weak message.
A message should pierce the conscience of the target audience. It is only then that any real complete change can be made, because when the audience believes in the message, they are only then able to earnestly fulfill the policy demanded.
The truly strong message also ensures the consistency of its promoters and their followers long after the message is first aired.
Christ's message of non-violence was meant to highlight this: the power of the mind over the matter.
- DaniYah March 22, 2008, 05:10
- Johann,
Stalin was an infiltrator put in power by enemies of the region and people. He made Russia weak. Any of the better policies that you mentioned were aleardy in the making under his predecessors- many of whom he killed. He simply stole their good ideas. Don't believe that rumor that Russia/USSR needed him. Traitors, theives, and mass murderers are never needed.
- Sevodnya_Net March 21, 2008, 13:46
- Stalin was a disastrous leader for the USSR - most of the problems that beset that country were actually caused by him. It was thanks to Stalin that the USSR nearly succumbed to Hitler. He basically murdered the brains and anyone he regarded as a threat to him and no one was brave enough to tell him he was wrong until it was almost too late.
I'm puzzled tho as to what Lenin and Stalin have to do with this. I thought the topic was supposed to be about protesters, not megalomaniac dictators ...
- johann March 20, 2008, 20:20
- You're right,DaniYah,that Stalin behaviour was questionable;it is very hard to understand what was in his had at that time,but the violence is a fact.The context of those years was very difficult,the country was in civil war,foreign interventionist troops were there,the whole nation was collapsed,there was a need for a strong leadership and that was Stalin.
- DaniYah March 20, 2008, 08:53
- Johann,
You ask whether Lenin would have achieved "anything at all". There is no question whether Lenin achieved anything, but how long lasting that achievement was. Durability must be factored in.
In this case, why if in the plan Lenin was a savior of the region, did Stalin follow behind as the destroyer of so many, to the point of killing even his closest allies?
Such tragedy is the only product of violence, as such is disqualified as an effective policy.
- johann March 20, 2008, 02:27
- I1m just asking : wether by protesting peacefully,Lenin would have had acheave something at all?Ney!That means it depends on some critical stage of reasons(economic,social,political,moral)not to forget of course the realities of that time and today.Today a very huge mass of people could be "infected"by different media:TV,Radio,Newspapers.From this point of view the "weak" goverments are very exposed to such kind of "moves" ,and there are some people who have reached a high perfection using these "tools".Now the first thing,when mass-protests are taking place is to ask who is behind?!...and there is no goverment an exception,because of precedents of external involvement.Sorry to say but the question is not accurate,from these points of view.
- DaniYah March 19, 2008, 23:58
- The important issue is the strength of the message.
Many/most of todays' non-violent protest undo themselves with weak, irrelevant, and incomplete messages. (The reason being that the people who participate are information-deprived.)
In this light, non-violent protests with weak messages can often be the trigger for violence.
A weak message leads to frustrations; frustration leads to violence.
Violence is chaos. It is impossible to come to any understanding while being involved in chaos. chaos only serves the purpose of the enemies of those who are supposed to be protesting for better societal conditions.
A strong message must pierce the ideology/reasoning of the opposition. How many people have been able to do that? The Salt Revolution of Mahatma Ghandi is cited by many. Ghandi's movement was able to stir the hearts of millions of his fellow countrymen.
However, Ghandi's non-violent harmony was still incomplete, for as soon as his peoples were freed of British rule, their souls were immediately stirred into an extremely unnatural violence. This resulted in the split of every ethnic group, every neighborhood in the region into separate countries- Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and others- the greatest and perhaps the most violent migration in human history.
Whereas those same people lived together in peace before the Ghandi revolution (while under the 'orderly' British oppression). That violence (chaos)obviously benefited the former colonial power, and new ones looking to cash in (USA,etc.).
If Ghandi's message had been complete, then the bonds of unity, brotherhood, and civility would not have left with the British.
In order to bring about a policy or change of policy by people in power, the only way to reach them is by piercing their conscience.
If violence is used, those powerful individuals are too often very well protected to feel anything. Plus, they can always put on a show of appeasing the people's demands when in reality they are working secretly to quell them (subversive tactics). Those powerful people will make themselves look good by publishing fake reports with skewered statistics to show how they have made improvements when in reality it is worse than before.
On the other hand, Christ's messages are so strong that the most powerful army (the Roman Empire) could not quell it. Christ's legacy is the only one of its kind in human history to speak to the power of a message- the superiority of the mind over the matter.
- Vijay Singh March 19, 2008, 19:40
- The better question would have been, in my opinion of course, WHEN and for WHAT protest?
Of course,independence/autonomy more rights etc etc are beautiful phrases/full of hope.
But, the whole question is, then what?
Does it bring more properity?
Does it bring peace?
Does that promote stability?
Does the movement really enjoy widepread support and for what purpose?
In a way, both Serbia and China are in a similar position!
Only difference being that Serbia is not that important or strong,as per certain powers' calculations...
While about Tibet, why now, after 20 years of 'subjugation' and 'non-development'?
Is it because the Olympics approaches...?
Or
Is it because someone wanted a diversion...?
Tibetans, if any are reading this, beware of the one who "comes with a crooked heart and a winning smile/empty promises!
|
