The Pros And Cons Of Destructive Protests

Nonviolence has exactly the opposite effect. If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people’s support. We can gather the support of millions who have a conscience and would rather see a nonviolent resolution to problems.” (Chavez 1). Chavez compares non-violence to violence to show why non-violence is a safer and more humane way of solving problems within society.

It makes them lose sight of their original purpose to protest rendering them irrelevant. In the end, all that matters is that the opponent employed violent strategies, and violent response is justified. In that case, nonviolent action is better than violent

Protests can start out peaceful but quickly turn violent. Though protests can be amazing and cause social change and change within the government they can also turn violent and leave behind a huge mess. An example of this is the Dakota Access Pipeline protest. It started out as a peaceful protest against the pipeline being built close to Native American land and along the way turned into a violent protest. Everything was going fine and as planned then things started going south. The sheriff’s office said, “According to numerous witnesses within five minutes the crowd of protesters, estimated to be a few hundred people became violent. They stampeded into the construction area with horses, dogs and vehicles” (Peralta). In this case, the protest

In addition to all of this being said. Protest are turning violent for a reason. Protest are not just turning violent for no reason. They are turning

“Who gets killed in the case of violent revolution? The poor, the workers”(Article). Cesar Chavez states this in his persuasive article fighting for nonviolent resistance rather than violence. There is a wrong and a right way to deal with people or laws one is against and that is what Chavez tries to convey in this article. He uses different strategies to try to convince the readers that violence is not acceptable, and there are better ways to handle anger.

All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

Peaceful protest leads to both positive and negative impacts on a free society. The main issue of the society isn't just people making bold moves like these, it has to do with people being able to accept them and not deal with it in a violent way, thinking that, that is acceptable and going to solve anything, when it really make it

A 'riot' is commonly defined as a disorderly behaviour, which often involve violence and the destruction of property (Andrews, 2014, p. 292). Riots can be viewed from a Conservative point of view and from a Radical point of view. Conservatism and Radicalism are both political ideologies. Although ideologies are 'explanatory frameworks that help to make sense of society' (Andrews, 2014, p. 306), conservatism and radicalism contrast in many ways. Conservatism is associated with wisdom, limited politics, and natural hierarchy, legitimising the existing order. Radicalism is linked to progress, universal rights and popular sovereignty, suggesting alternative to the existing order (The Open University, 2016b).

In the history of mankind, there has been multiple cases of violent and nonviolent opposition. The question is which of these is more appealing than the other. In violent protest, citizens protest against their opposition with violence such as; rioting, vandalizing, arson, assault, and many other forms of violence. In nonviolent protest citizens will protest their opposition peacefully through calm and non-violent protest. This is also known as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the most efficient form of protest in a society.

As protesting goes on emotions build up which can result in a public revolt that

You have those people who want their voices heard in a positive way. You always have to cause destruction and chaos when you feel strong about something; because you think it will help. You can partake in your freedom of speech and peacefully protest. If you do this you do not have to worry about much because it’s your constitutional right to do so. Peaceful protesting in many cases can solve more problems than violence can. It is a simple and easy way to release your frustration in a calm peaceful manner.

I believe that peaceful resistance to laws both positively and negatively impacts a free society. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws and government demands one considers unjust, and accepting the consequences. The first amendment prohibits Congress to enact any law that would intervene with any person's civil rights. Though everybody knows this, why are there discussions about what people can and cannot refuse to do. Some people refuse to do things because it goes against their faith, which as stated earlier is allowed according to the first amendment. While others refuse to see what is right in front of them, in the very center of the Declaration of Independence.

Protests riots in the United States has proven to an issue for both the country’s financial strength and the unity of the nation. With the presence of social injustices, combined with the increased impact of social media propaganda, protests riots are beginning to reach an all time high. Protest riots destroy individual communities and businesses, jeopardizes the safety of others and taints the protest’s cause by resorting to civil disobedience. Action must be done in order to prevent these random acts of violence from continuing after every social hot topic. The goal is not to prevent citizens from protesting; in fact, this should be encouraged. The goal is to change the way the protests are handled from both the citizens and authority perspectives, in order to prevent these protests from escalating into something dangerous.

It’s hard to make people listen. It’s hard to make people want change. And using violence brings a bad reputation to what one is trying to bring attention to. Thus, peaceful protesting and civil disobedience are important tools to positively impact a free society. Accepting the consequences of civil disobedience proves to the world that one will sacrifice whatever is necessary to achieve what they are fighting for, which strengthens their message even more.

Violent protest is divisive - it turns citizens away from seeing reason in your stance, costs taxpayers money for police protection and control and drives people strongly to one side or the other of the issues protested. The reason that protests are often seen as dangerous is because they can turn sour as the result of people using this power and ability to demonstrate as a reason to injure and destroy, often without any connection to the original protested topic. Protesters have been known to break shop windows, throw bricks at cars and even injure or kill one another in extreme situations. Peacekeepers attempting to protect the citizens and prevent escalation are often vilified and presented as brutalizing peaceful protesters.