advantages and disadvantages of non-violent resistance in solving conflicts in a nation?
2006-09-01 10:06:09 · 9 answers · asked by Teejay 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Advantages are obviously that nobody gets hurt or dies. Disadvantage is, we live in a violent world where your presence is not noted unless you use some kind of force.
Would non-violence have worked with Hitler or Stalin? Absolutely not.
Violence is a necessary, yet extremely wrong, way to handle situations.
2006-09-01 10:08:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I assume you refer to non-violent resistance to violent solutions for solving conflicts. Individuals can do many things, e.g. refusing to be conscripted into armies. Most civilised countries then offer such conscientious objectors an alternative: work on farms or the ambulance corps, or firefighting. This way they still help their countrymen whilst not directly supporting war. Or poetry, drama, and novels can be used by individuals to sear national conscience. There is also the prophetic 'voice' warning nations of impending disaster if justice and equity are trampled. Combined, these things challenge society and politicians to think again. With persistance, they become a thorn in the flesh as well as a shining example. It takes more courage and conviction to be a tenacious objector to violence than to follow the herd and take up arms. That's why there seems to be so few resisting violence. It's always easier to come to blows than it is to think and work for peace. Humility is required for peace-making, putting the welfare of others before your own.
It is true that violent people / nations will take advantage of the non-violent, despising them. The wonder of history, however, is that the non-violent element can never be destroyed and, given enough time, ultimately triumphs. Before anyone writes in to ridicule or object to that claim, pause to think that history has not yet ended. Watch this space! And, while you're watching, check out these sites:
www.sojo.net and www.charlesstrohmer.com
2006-09-01 17:41:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didnt Mahatma Ghandi get the British out of India with nonviolence? I know it went on to be partitioned afterwards but he did get the occupying force out. If enough people could be talked into a nonviolent protest it would be the very best way to solve conflict in a country-any country.
2006-09-01 20:12:03 · answer #3 · answered by Rachel Maria 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Negligible. The advantage, as another responder has mentioned, is that (usually) no one gets hurt; the disadvantage is that it has no effect.
2006-09-01 17:54:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
in a one nation u can't use violence to solve anything cuz it doesn't work but if u r fighting an enemy out of ur country then u must study ur chances in both cases and choose the best for u
2006-09-01 17:10:04 · answer #5 · answered by masis k 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
non-violent resistance lol that's a contradiction
2006-09-01 17:17:42 · answer #6 · answered by Jammy 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
disadvantages ====
people will have to change thier culture
damages economy
advantages=====
could have better lifes
2006-09-01 17:11:03 · answer #7 · answered by Chesh » 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Neither
2006-09-02 08:29:37 · answer #8 · answered by Mr curious 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the conflict doesn't get resolved
2006-09-01 17:19:25 · answer #9 · answered by timone 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋