Is violence the only way to effect real social change?

Question

And before anyone names Gandhi or Luther King, keep in mind the main reason India was freed was because the UK was nearly bankrupt after WW2; and the main reason why Blacks were given civil rights in the USA was because the civil unrest had grown to unthinkable proportions.

Is war the only way to obtain rights?

Answer 1

It's not the only way, but it certainly is one of the most effective, if not the single most effective way.

The only difficulty with using violence to achieve social change is that it begets more violence for a period of time, while the entire system strives for a kind of equilibrium and people get used to the new order of things.

You can look at Northern Ireland, and say that the tentative peace they are enjoying, and the fact that the Protestants and the Catholics are working together to change things happened because of talking and working through problems, but I think that would be a naive way of looking at it. The reason both finally agreed to come to the table is because the violence was completely out of control. The IRA was setting off bombs in public places, and the RUC was turning pubs and other Catholic hangouts into shooting galleries. It took time for the generation which was born during the troubles to finally say, "ENOUGH!" They are in charge now, and it's precisely because they are tired of the violence that they are seeking some way to work things out.

Answer 2

Nothing motivates better than the threat of death and dismemberment. Terrorism will effect a real social change once the liberal/progressives understand that the terrorist won't play nice, it's fight or die. Freedom isn't free, every civilization had to fight to be free.

Answer 3

No. These world leaders need to be locked up in a room together--until they reach some sort of suitable compromise. We the people should not be hurting/losing loved-ones--let the leaders get into it--alone.

Answer 4

Women won the right to vote without violence (at least they weren't violent). I would say that they won the right to "choose" without violence, except that the "choice" referred to is quite violent in itself.

http://www.yaktivist.com -- A place to discuss developing nonlethal weapons and nonlethal pregnancy termination technology.

Answer 5

nope havent u heard of canada no war happened and they became indepent.

Answer 6

No not necessarily. You could just threaten them.

Answer 7

No.