Assess The Difference Between Non-Violence And Nonviolent Resistance

Words: 591
Pages: 3

Violence and nonviolence each have their place, but in every situation there is always one best option. When it comes to protest, nonviolence is generally the best option. Non-violent resistance is superior when looked at from the standpoints of effectiveness, morality, and societal consequences.
Non-violent protest is generally more effective than violent resistance. For example, after the 1955 arrest of Rosa Parks for refusing to give up her bus seat to a white man, civil rights leaders in Montgomery began to organize a boycott of the Montgomery bus system. The original terms of the boycott included the hiring of black bus drivers and first come, first serve seating, rather than forcing black passengers to the back of the bus. However, the boycott brought about a Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public transport was unconstitutional. The boycott allowed for mass involvement and forced peaceful negotiation. The argument could be raised that physical force is just as effective and faster.
…show more content…
Nelson Mandela gave the advice that “if you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner.” Although there are often negative responses to both violent and nonviolent resistance, it is in the best interests of the resisting population to garner as much sympathy for their movement as they can. For instance, in 1930, Mohandas Gandhi protested Britain’s Salt Acts, which prohibited Indians from gathering or selling salt, by organizing a march to the Dandi (a town on the coast of the Arabian Sea) in order to make salt from the saltwater there. This spurred a movement of mass civil disobedience all over India, which continued even after Gandhi was arrested soon after the march. Gandhi’s actions not only provided an example to protesters across India, but garnered international sympathy for the cause of Indian