Are violent protests effective?

I think it is because then non-violent advocates like Martin Luther King and Gandhi are able to step in and take over the movement and make real change.

I think an interesting question is; are riots protests? I don't think riots are protests; I think they are a natural outpouring of emotion.

I don't understand your message portion. You do know that the really bad riots happened AFTER MLK was murdered, don't you?

He did not follow them. Gandhi also did not step in and take over from some preceding violent movement.

The net effect of the riots in England has reduced my empathy for whoever the rioters think they represent.

All violent, and all led eventually to deep change.

in the short term, depending on the event, no, ever.

In the medium to long term... well the reforms in Europe to the political systems in the 1850s came from the 1848 very violent riots.

There have been other events... Mexico City and The Tlatelolco Masacre... short term... nope, long term... it set the seeds for the democratic revolution.

So as they say... it's complicated... very short answer, sometimes they do... but never in the short term.

It IS complicated.

how even the US War of Independence came to be... it is ... complicated. And there were riots starting in the 1720s...

If people studied that event in that way it might help.

They are an excellent way of starting a dialog that would otherwise be ignored.

Are they an end all answer, No.

but I haven't been able to get out of my mind what that young man said to the reporter when she asked him the same question: "If we didn't riot, you wouldn't be talking to me now."

Is beating someone half to death effective.
Is breaking a window and robbing a store effective.

I guess it depends on the message you want to give.

Violence is effective, yes, but is that the kind of society we want to create?

to effect change. So far it hasn't happened, but I guess there's always a first time.

Violence in defense of ones life is an imperative.

We should not confuse the two.

It is if you want shoes, shirts and cell phones.

I doubt if such activities will be effective in getting changes in British society that will benefit the poor. It could have the opposite result.

It causes fearfulness and helps conservatives.

Violence is a loser.

As the young man said in the interview, (paraphrasing) "At least you're talking to us now."

these people.

or

fuckin criminals. put their ass in jail

I'd choose jail. Remember ALL the peaceful protests have been ignored AND the cops shot a guy under uncertain circumstances. Sometimes you don't CARE if you go to jail as long as you're no longer ignored.

What was it JFK said? Something about people who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.

Wasn't always pretty, I have little doubt we benefitted in some way from violent protest when all else failed. Not preferable but sometimes may be necessary as a last resort.

how effective is that?

:banghead:

destroy her home?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You better send in another donation to Wayne and stock up the bomb shelter.





LOL, funniest/lamest post I read in a while. Thanks for the chuckle.

in my area... and the point i am making, 80% or MORE have guns. i would not be alone. the whole damn neighborhood has guns. do you really think it will not be a blood bath if we were to have people attack us and property? and that amuses you?

these people are punks. the rich are laughing AT them. the punks destroying the middle class.... rich are laughing the same as bushco laughed at the people who voted for them. fools.

the punks dont care an iota about the political issues, nor have they educated self (and YES it is available to them) nor have they put in the small amount of time to vote for their benefit.

i truly am disgusted with the excuses and justifying those that have been hurt adn threatened. supporting of the mob mentality.

What makes you think your neighbors like you? You better start keeping tabs on them, I think they are out to get you.

a chicken. scaredy cat.

i also know if someone broke in my home, at that point they are willing to hurt me. i would rather they hurt, instead of me. i would hope i would be able to pull a trigger on a gun if i were being threatened in my home. i dont know that i can, because, after all, as i said, i am a coward. a pacifist. anti gun. dont like them, dont use them. but hopefully if threatened, i could get beyond that. the men in my family are not so cowardly, and unfamiliar with guns.

but then, that is not the point of my post.

point being

in the u.s., people own guns and will shoot. oh yea. sounds fun. lets put up the poor against the poor and middle class cause we are angry at the rich.

realy

sounds brilliant

keep telling us your fantasy about harming those hooligans.

If you win, you can be the new government. If you lose, you get your head stuck on a pike.

But to talk about effectiveness, you have to also talk about what your goals are. In the current case in the UK, if the rioters wanted to raise hell and stock up on consumer goods, then they've been very effective. If they want to win global sympathy or get concessions from the government, maybe not.

It was the first big year for Michael Jordan. There was a celebration going on all over the city but it got out of hand in several areas, both on the south side and the near north side. Can't really blame one group of people for it because it was several different groups.

It wasn't a social protest. It was a celebration. But there was a great deal of property damage, and people were hurt and arrested. There was just no reason for it. Every year after that they ran PSAs on TV telling people to celebrate safely. But it was just kind of bizarre that people did something destructive to celebrate in the first place.

On the one hand, it might get people involved in the reasons for the riots and scare the politicians into doing something.

On the other hand, it gets the powers-that-be into a snit... "the rule of law MUST reign supreme, and if you don't like it, there is a process you must use. Violence is unacceptable!"



The latter seems to be happening more often now. :shrug:

Looting and burning your own neighborhood is not so much of a protest so much as validating the worst things the elite say about you. It may register as an expression of anger, but it tends to burn itself out and is unlikely to bring a distant, authoritarian government composed of people who couldn't care less about you to negotiated terms.

Not now. The system is too entrenched.

And that is far from the only case.

I much prefer nonviolence, but...

those protesting will eventually win.

each scenario demands it own analysis

They were the alternative to violence, and the establishment chose to deal with them because it ended up being their best option. MLK would've been ignored if there hadn't been a Malcolm X, and even Ghandi said violent resistance was better than passive acceptance.

But are riots in your own neighborhood an effective form of a violence? No, I don't think so.

Gandhi and MLK Jr. got to play Good Cops - talk to us, we'll be reasonable, we'll negotiate, we'll get the people to behave themselves and not burn your cities down.

But if you don't work with us, Bad Cop might come out - the people will be so pissed off that there will be riots everywhere, and I don't know if we can stop them.

Somehow, the popular view of dissent has become "let them hit you until they realize they're wrong". It's silly.

If the protesters start out violently, they lose.

If the authorities try to put down the protest by violent means, they lose... eventually.









:shrug:

Bringing down a system? Well the French Revolution and Bolshivek Revolution are proof of that

Emptying the stores of wares? Well the UK protests are proving that

Making life better? No, not really

General Strikes, however, the kind that bring countries to a screeching halt - those are effective