The outcome of violent revolutions is very hard to predict or control. Be careful what you wish for. Non-violent revolution is the way to start, and keep riding it until there’s no other choice.
This list is such a joke. Many of these examples happened within the context of war aligned with the purpose of the war. Others did not achieve any sort of lasting change.
The apartheid example is particularly egregious. Violence played a large role in South Africa. Same with civil right in the US
Gentle reader, please go learn your history. Violence, specifically the threat of (which is at play in mass peaceful protests, which are absolutely an effective tool in resistance) -- is ultimately the only way to resist an attacker. To any freedom, fascism is the attacker.
Ffs nobody said the governments of these various places remained nonviolent as nonviolent protest was used to enact chamge. We're talking about the people protesting. Always were.
Try paying some attention, if you want to jump in. You'll be wrong less often.
Sadly you seem to miss all the violent action that came about because of peaceful protests, that chang happened. It was BECAUSE of violence after the fact, peace was made but always, peaceful protests led to violence harsher conditions, sanctions. The Russian revolution was hardly peaceful, idiot.
The Czar, his wife and 8 children were the last to be murdered to FORCE that change. So don't come here talking stupidity when the rest of actually read the history or had family who actually lived thru it. You read one book on non violent protests=PROPAGANDA peddling. Idiot.
I'm muting both you idiots. Pretty sad you can r3ad all those instances of nonviolent protest which actually worked and then try to deny the effectiveness. You're stupid. I don't interact with stupid people. So long.
Many of these actions did, in fact, set up situations where armed conflict was even possible, is I think what you actually mean. Because that would be a lot more accurate of a statement.
Comments
The apartheid example is particularly egregious. Violence played a large role in South Africa. Same with civil right in the US
Gentle reader, please go learn your history. Violence, specifically the threat of (which is at play in mass peaceful protests, which are absolutely an effective tool in resistance) -- is ultimately the only way to resist an attacker. To any freedom, fascism is the attacker.
They didn't ask for violence, those protesters, it was served to them. By a fascist law enforcement.
Try paying some attention, if you want to jump in. You'll be wrong less often.
Muted.
Many of these actions did, in fact, set up situations where armed conflict was even possible, is I think what you actually mean. Because that would be a lot more accurate of a statement.
You have the day you deserve.