Which is a more effective strategy in terms of social action - non-violent peacekeeping and activism (MLK, Gandhi) or aggressive peacemaking (Malcom X)? Consider both sides in your answer.
Though interesting, I found that the ten minute presentation was not necessarily valid. What bothered me about her plea to see more non-violent protests was that she compared it to a child having a tantrum. You can't compare an army to a child throwing a tantrum. Armies will do what they want to, regardless of the press... it is in nobody's best interest to have the world see you in a bad light. I believe that many non violent protests turn violent whether or not it is how they were intended.
To answer the question of which type of protest is most effective, I can't say that I have a strong say in this. Both means of protest have proven to work and to get a point across, however the world would like to see more non violent protests. Every group has their own means and their own points to promote, it really depends on the situation; you would not hold a violent protest to end a war, you might hold a violent protest if the economy crashes and you lose all of your money.
I also thought her comparison between a child throwing a tantrum and an army was not completely valid. I think that in most situations issues can be resolved without violence but some situations may require some violence like your example of the economy crashing, no one would respond to that peacefulyl.
ReplyDelete