As we talk about in the last classes, the non-violence was a very popular way of protest, and it became very famous because of Gandhi.
In this entry I would like to talk about the differnt methods of non-violence protest.
1.- Sit-ins: In this method the protesters occupy certain place by sitting on available chairs, stools and occasionally on the floor for a limited or unlimited period, the objective is disrupting the normal pattern of activities.
 |
| Durham, NorthCarolina sit-in, 1957. |
 |
| Student strike in Quebec, Canada. |
3.- Vigils: A vigil consist of people remaning at a particulr place as a means of expressing a point of view, or a disagreement. It often involves late hours and loss of sleep
 |
| Chacao,Venezuela, 2014 |
In my opinion I think that non-violence it's a way of violence, because if violence has and needs mechanism and tools of coercion, nonviolence also uses artifacts and maybe that is the reason of the continuing discrimination and injustices in our world.
And this make me think a lot about, the violence as an issue. Because violence is always present in our lives, since we were childs. How can we fight agaist violence? It is ok to fight violence with more violence?
I think in some cases you need to use violence because is the only way to solve some problems, for example if you are in a fight, you cannot to talk with the person you are fighting with. But in other cases, like those you have presented, non-violence is very useful, maybe you can achieve something you want or you just can catch the eye of someone. In my case, I try not to use violence in any situation, I always try to talk
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you're in a fight, it's usually because something went wrong before that. There are obviously times when using violence is the only possible way; eat or being eaten. Though we should always try yo achieve our goals by non-violent methods. At least, that's the most (or maybe the only) morally correct procedure. I said the last thing because I personally have a more machiavellian way of thinking.
ReplyDelete