should citizens resort to violence if they suffer from severe oppression and there is not a fair way to change

Question

why or why not what methods would you use?

Answer 1

That is often the reason for violence. The inability of people to find a legitimate path to helping them with their problems.

The only problem with that is too often innocent people become entangled in the quest for a solution by people who are oppressed and have problems that are insurmountable.

Whenever you have a problem, use the court system. Never take the law into your own hands.

Answer 2

I think it obvious to say that violence must always be a last resort because it usually leads to unintended consequences and collateral damage.

I think that Gandhi (and Mandela) proved that organized and committed non-violent civil disobedience can be more effective than violence. He was a great strategist who realized that the Indians would never be able to match the British military might. So he made his lack of military capability a strength by organizing his countrymen into mass protests, strikes and civil disobedience. He did this at a time when the global media was starting to become a reality. So when the British raised arms against Indians practicing civil disobedience, the British looked like evil bullies. This rallied the world behind the Indians and led to their eventual independence. This what made Gandhi a role model for the ages.

However, it would be idealistic to say that civil disobedience always works. Sometimes, you have to resort to guerrilla tactics much like the Americans did during the revolutionary war. The problem is that once you start the chain of violence, you lose your moral standing and risk creating more generalized violence that almost always hurts the oppressed more than the oppressors.

Answer 3

It's called "Civil Disobedience". If all else has failed, some believe violence is their last hope, because the powers that be who rule the Roost often only respond to violence.
But in my view... if Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Gandhi or even Lech Walesa can make drastic change within a country by peaceful civil disobedience & rallying the many who are oppressed , then I think anything can be achieved without violence if you have the right leader.

Answer 4

People have no alternative than to resort to violence if they are oppressed. The best approach I believe would to be to "form a resistance movement." You would be better off in "numbers" If there is no democracy to make changes the Resistance movement would work in that direction to help free and end the oppression.

Answer 5

Yes!! Citizens have a Moral obligation to do what is best for your Country and its people. We cannot shy away from violence , simply because it is violent. Obviously one would exhaust every other avenue of change first, and of course violence is always a LAST resort .But to wash your hands of violence completely simply because it is distasteful to you, is ...wrong

Answer 6

That's what the rebel/patriots did in 1776.

Methods? Whatever works but the only legitimate targets are officials of the oppressing government and the military if it is controlled by them. Targets such as everyday people and private businesses would change "patriots"/insurrectionists to terrorists and should be condemned by all.

BTW, as bad as things are in the western world, we are not close to that point yet so don't start making bombs, please.

Answer 7

If that is the only option left, yes. We know that the average american has no rights. We are just taxpayers. Mexican Nationals have more "rights". Disgusting.

Answer 8

yes, revolution is sometimes the only way to get change.

Answer 9

If there's no other way to change this, then yes.