1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
S_A_V [24]
2 years ago
14

Why might violence be tempting to activists? Why might it be risky to their movements?

History
1 answer:
Neko [114]2 years ago
5 0

Answer:

We agree with a number of Thaler’s points. First, he is right to question those on the outside who tell activists what to do or offer strategic or tactical advice. Local activists know their context best, and specific instructions from outside actors can place activists at great risk. People struggling under such conditions often say they learn the most from being in touch with other activists. But when activists approach scholars or practitioners for information or resources, it is crucial to make sure that a broad range of experience and evidence are publicly available and accessible. That was the purpose of a recent event hosted by the United States Institute of Peace that featured various scholarly and activist perspectives on how movements respond to repression.

Second, we appreciate how the article highlights the role of human agency in the struggle against authoritarianism and other forms of oppression. Civil resistance offers a way for marginalized and excluded groups to wage struggle using a wide range of direct-action tactics that can be used to disrupt injustices and challenge the status quo. It is more than simply an ideal or a normative preference. We also recognize that when activists seek out support or information, they decide for themselves whether the information is relevant to their context, or whether to discard it.

Third, we share his denunciation of repressive state violence targeting unarmed civilian dissenters. It is a regrettable reality that states often respond to those who challenge state power with violent repression, regardless of which methods of resistance they use. This state violence should never be normalized, nor should false moral equivalences or “both sides”-type narratives be tolerated. Outside actors should stand in solidarity with those fighting oppression and prioritize actions that protect fundamental human rights and mitigate violence targeting unarmed dissidents.

Yet we differ on other important points. First, critics often claim that nonviolence is part of a Western hegemonic discourse that reinforces the legitimacy of state violence while simultaneously encouraging oppressed people to carry the unfair burden of good behavior under crushing conditions. Discourses advocating nonviolent resistance are in no way hegemonic, nor are they Western in origin. Over the millennia, states and nonstate groups have justified violence on the basis of its necessity, used cultural relativism as a way to prevent critiques of violence, and persecuted, imprisoned, and executed those who have advocated nonviolent approaches, which threaten two hegemonic discourses—the state’s monopoly on power, and the normalcy and necessity of violence.

Nonviolent resistance has been a counterhegemonic force that challenges both of these dominant discourses. The technique was developed and embraced by people living under colonial regimes throughout the global south, as well as by marginalized and oppressed communities within the West. Despite their views that violence was preferable to passivity, practitioners such as Mohandas Gandhi and Badshah Khan saw mass civil resistance as the only way for them to challenge the violence of Western imperialism on pragmatic grounds. Over the course of the past century, the technique spread from the global south to the United States and Europe, where people fighting racism, sexism, poverty, war, authoritarianism, and economic inequality have seen the strategic value of fighting structural violence by building and wielding inclusive power from below using nonviolent resistance.

Activists from around the world continue to make arguments about the strategic utility of nonviolent resistance, without any nudging from Westerners or Western researchers. Protesters facing a massive crackdown in Baghdad attempted to maintain nonviolent discipline by shouting “Peaceful! Peaceful!” while under fire from security forces. Women in Lebanon have organized human chains to maintain nonviolent discipline in the ongoing movement there, which is now in a particularly delicate phase. Dissidents associated with the Sudanese Revolution insisted on maintaining a remarkable level of nonviolent discipline, despite bloody crackdowns attempting to throw the transition into disarray. And in Algeria, the ongoing movement there has remained both disruptive and restrained in its use of violence.

Our book, Why Civil Resistance Works, presents evidence that mass, broad-based participation is critical to movement success and that movements that rely primarily on nonviolent tactics tend to enjoy more diverse participation, which in turn yields a number of political advantages for the campaign. Updated analyses reinforce these earlier findings, and other research helps to unpack these dynamics at a more granular level.

Explanation:

You might be interested in
French army officer that came to help the americans defeat the british
postnew [5]
General jean-baptiste kléber
5 0
2 years ago
Which of the following was a result of industrialization during the 1800s?        A. Movement of people to rural areas   B. Smal
labwork [276]
I would also say C. movement of people to urban areas is the correct answer.
Industrialization meant that the country was becoming more and more technologically advanced. There were new factories, which meant there were new job positions. So obviously people wanted to come to the city in order to pursue a career. 
3 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Which political economic system do you think is the best balance of freedom and equality? Why?
AveGali [126]
Whilst Liberalism is founded on ideas of freedom, equality and liberty. Social Democracy is the best balance of freedom and equality because it promotes social justice in a capitalist economy and a liberal democratic view. Also, communism has, historically, a poor reputation for freedom and equality. For example, China and North Korea are current communist countries and Russia previously was a communist country after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.
3 0
3 years ago
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law?
fgiga [73]

Answer:

Gore. In Bush v. Gore (2000), a divided Supreme Court ruled that the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional

6 0
2 years ago
What person was influential in trying to ease race relations in America during the early part of the twentieth century?
Aliun [14]
<span>Booker T. Washington</span>
3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Following the Adams-Onis Treaty, which countries claimed the Oregon Territory?
    9·2 answers
  • Which was a result of the peace conference led by Prince Mitternich of Austria?
    9·2 answers
  • What was the major cause of tension between the mexican government and texas colonists?
    10·1 answer
  • The three reasons Americans were ready to go to war with England were.....
    9·1 answer
  • What is the tone of this passage ?
    15·2 answers
  • ____________and Germany raced to build the largest navy.
    6·2 answers
  • Un ejemplo de la metainformacion
    8·1 answer
  • How did the United States respond to the red scare
    12·1 answer
  • Define/describe "state's rights​
    6·1 answer
  • What angered some Americans about the way President Clinton balanced the federal budget? He raised taxes. He increased spending.
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!