• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Violent "Protest" Effective?

Is Violent "Protest" Effective?


  • Total voters
    23
Perhaps it depends on who initiates the violence. A long time ago I watched a peaceful protest by blacks in Birmingham turn ugly as the police used dogs and fire hoses to break it up. The police initiated the violence, that day was a huge turning point in the march for civil rights. It proved in this old Georgia boys mind that segregation were wrong. they were the aggressors. It was time to change and for change. Without Birmingham who knows how the 1964 civil rights bill would have fared?

I agree and it bears out what I'm saying. Confronting non violence with violence did not benefit the violent. One of the things I respect most about MLK was his insistence on non violence and that's what precipitated the change.
 
real question is when does protest become revolution....................
 
One does not need to live in the city to be an officer in the city in my town. Not sure about the county sheriff's policy on that.

I don't know if it would make a difference or not. But if the police live in and knew quite a lot of the people in the town he is an officer and the town folk knew him, that might have made a huge difference. Then again maybe not. I never lived in a big city.
 
Down here in order to be a member of the county sheriff's department one must live in the county. The same for the different town police departments. They are all part of the community, our neighbors and friends who just happen to be police. Now we are a fairly rural county, Atlanta is 30 miles to the north of us. But it works for us, I don't know how it would work in the big cities.

I don't think any of them gave it a try. Atlanta is always short of police or so it seems by all the advertisements in the AJC trying to recruit them. One of my neighbors about a mile down the road is an Atlanta cop. He drives 40 miles to work everyday. The difference here is the police in Henry are part of the Henry County Community, the police in Atlanta are not, to them it is just a job.

Just something to think on.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Same in my town. The police force here is relatively small, but they can call on the County Sheriff's Department for help, if necessary, but I honestly cannot recall the last when they may have had to do that, though. Our police routinely go the schools to teach children safety tips, and we all know each other since they have to live in our city if they want to be hired to work here. Our children respect the police, but I saw a lot of disrespect by some adults in Ferguson, I'm sorry to say, and it's bound to be noticed by the children. Sad...
 
I agree and it bears out what I'm saying. Confronting non violence with violence did not benefit the violent. One of the things I respect most about MLK was his insistence on non violence and that's what precipitated the change.

You're right about MLK. There was never any doubt who was responsible for the violence in Birmingham. There is also no doubt who is responsible for the violence in Ferguson.
 
I don't know if it would make a difference or not. But if the police live in and knew quite a lot of the people in the town he is an officer and the town folk knew him, that might have made a huge difference. Then again maybe not. I never lived in a big city.

I have a cop who lives across the street from me. Don't even know his name. The person next door to him has told me a few times, but I cannot remember it.
 
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Same in my town. The police force here is relatively small, but they can call on the County Sheriff's Department for help, if necessary, but I honestly cannot recall the last when they may have had to do that, though. Our police routinely go the schools to teach children safety tips, and we all know each other since they have to live in our city if they want to be hired to work here. Our children respect the police, but I saw a lot of disrespect by some adults in Ferguson, I'm sorry to say, and it's bound to be noticed by the children. Sad...

Exactly, the same here. If I run into the Sheriff at Dunkin Donuts or someplace it is always, howdy Jack, how's the wife and kids. I live out in the country so I don't deal with the town police of Stockbridge or McDonough. But I do know close to all of those who are in the country Sheriff's Department. I think it makes a big difference.

Now I don't know if it would in a big city like Atlanta, Cleveland or St. Louis. It couldn't hurt to try.
 
I have a cop who lives across the street from me. Don't even know his name. The person next door to him has told me a few times, but I cannot remember it.

That seems to be how life is today. I live out in the country, but I know most of the officers in the Sheriff's department personally. Not the officers in the town's though.
 
That seems to be how life is today. I live out in the country, but I know most of the officers in the Sheriff's department personally. Not the officers in the town's though.

I know the neighbors who live on either side of him. He just isn't a friendly person. we will nod and good morning, etc but just isn't someone who chats. I have had conversations with people going to his house more substantive than with him. His wife is a nurse and she isn't particularly friendly either. The guy on one side is retired and he is a chatty and the guy on the other side is a fireman who has seen me doing things and come over to help, chat, etc.
 
I know the neighbors who live on either side of him. He just isn't a friendly person. we will nod and good morning, etc but just isn't someone who chats. I have had conversations with people going to his house more substantive than with him. His wife is a nurse and she isn't particularly friendly either. The guy on one side is retired and he is a chatty and the guy on the other side is a fireman who has seen me doing things and come over to help, chat, etc.

Some people are like that, basically loners or just a family man. I have had numerous people tell me that when they first met me I was quiet as all get out, but once I got to know them they couldn't shut me up.
 
My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.

I think sometimes violent protest can be effective. The American Revolution was a violent protest, and that worked out pretty well. You could point to a number of other similar situations. The Arab Spring is probably the most recent.
 
When it's participants are revolting, I guess.

That's what the Tsar and Loius 16th said.................

look what happened to them...............LMAO!!!

You can cut to 1:15...................

 
I think sometimes violent protest can be effective. The American Revolution was a violent protest, and that worked out pretty well. You could point to a number of other similar situations. The Arab Spring is probably the most recent.

Yes, the American revolution and the Arab Spring are examples of violent protests that worked.
Well, the former anyway. It's a bit of a stretch to say that anyone in Arab lands is actually free as a result.

But that's an aside.

Now, had the colonists gone out and stolen goods from other colonists and burned their stores, just how effective would the revolution have been?

What we're seeing in Ferguson and now around the country is not violent protest, or any sort of protest. What we're seeing is an excuse to steal and destroy property, pure and simple.
 
Yes, the American revolution and the Arab Spring are examples of violent protests that worked.
Well, the former anyway. It's a bit of a stretch to say that anyone in Arab lands is actually free as a result.

But that's an aside.

Now, had the colonists gone out and stolen goods from other colonists and burned their stores, just how effective would the revolution have been?

What we're seeing in Ferguson and now around the country is not violent protest, or any sort of protest. What we're seeing is an excuse to steal and destroy property, pure and simple.

So it appears the debate actually comes down to what people consider violent protest. To me the Revolution was... Well a revolution. It was not a protest. A violent protest may lead to revolution but at some point it stops being a protest and becomes revolution. They are two separate things.
 
This is a spin off question about when violent "protest" is justified and the responses seem to fall along the lines of "only as a last resort". My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.

Not that I am aware of at least, more often than not the violent ones are agents provocateurs anyway.

Since Ferguson is still fresh (if not still burning), the violent protesters / looters going through and burning down businesses are only destroying their own commmunity.

so, while violence might potentially be possible for actual change, I don't know an example where it's been realized, and the cases we can think of, the violence is counter productive. If only because there is a lack of focus to the protests... no clear objectives.

What's worse is that I have doubts that the violent / looters were even from Ferguson and so wouldn't even care that they are destroying the community.
 
This is a spin off question about when violent "protest" is justified and the responses seem to fall along the lines of "only as a last resort". My thought was immediately whether violent "protest" ever actually made any situation better or made people more likely to sympathize with whatever the protesters are mad about or is more likely to set people against them? I think it's the latter. I do think there is a case, sometimes, for civil disobedience but that's not the same as saying that violence is justified and/or effective as a means of protest.

The two options that would tend to be the most effective are peaceful protesting and outright rebellion. In a democratic society where most of the population is silently sympathetic to the cause of the protestors, as was the case during the civil rights movement, then it is best to maintain peaceful behavior until everyone realizes how stupid and brutish the oppressors are and acts to change the situation. In undemocratic societies where the immediate response of the government is lethal force against the protestors, as it was in Libya in 2011, then an armed revolution is the best option. Violent protest does little except discredit the opposition in the eyes of moderates, especially if it is just attacks against innocent people or their property.
 
Back
Top Bottom