Should people without power use violence to make a change??

2 answers:

6 0

Violence often diminishes the power of those who employ it, necessitating the use of more violence in an attempt to gain or maintain control. Power and violence are not the same. ... Violence rarely creates power. In fact, groups or individuals that use violence often find their actions diminish what power they do have.

sp2606 [1]2 years ago

4 0

It depends. You should first use means that aren’t drastic. Meaning you should kindly fight for the right to make a change. I don’t believe you should use violence tho. Violence when used to make a change can cause greed after u get that change.

You might be interested in

History !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

12345 [234]

1) Pulpit
2) Presbyterian
3) Pietist
4) Steal
5) Ticonderoga
6) Riot
7) Teenager
8) Seal
9) Treaty of Ulrecht

Hope this helps! :)

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

ANSWER THIS QUICKLY I AM GIVING 35 POINTS FOR THIS

ololo11 [35]

It allows people worldwide to identify the same species.

6 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Reasons on why the New Deal (Franklin Delano Roosevelt's plan) was a success?

Minchanka [31]

The New Deal was a group of U.S. government programs that helped people during the Great Depression.

Here are some reasons why the New Deal was a success:

-It helped restore American's faith in the government.
-Gave out millions of jobs.
-It stabilized the banking system.
-It cut the number of business failures

4 0

3 years ago

According to the passage, President Abraham Lincoln's primary goal in fighting the Civil War was to A) advance the cause of Nort

marshall27 [118]

The reason that President Lincoln gave for fighting the Civil War was B) use any means necessary to save the Union.

<h3>President Lincoln's actions</h3>

President Lincoln tried to reassure the South that he would not end slavery.
Lincoln believed that the secession of the South States would lead to the destruction of the Union.

Lincoln therefore decided that the best way to protect the Union would be to bring the Southern States back into the fold by any mans necessary including force.

In conclusion, option B is correct.

Find out more on President Lincoln at brainly.com/question/12827866.

4 0

2 years ago

In the 2000 presidential election Arizona had 8 electoral votes. What best explains the change shown on this map

Liula [17]

You didn't show a map, but I can explain how electoral college votes are determined. Arizona's number of electoral votes has been growing because its state population has been growing at a rate faster than other states, and some states have seen shrinking of their population.

Here's what the National Archives says concerning how Electoral College delegates are assigned: Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census. Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives.

So the number of electoral votes each state gets (of the 538 total electoral votes) is recalculated every ten years, based on the most recent US Census data.

In the 2000 presidential election, Arizona had 8 electoral votes, as it had also in the 1992 and 1996 elections. That number was based on the 1990 Census figures for population. In the elections previous to that, in 1984 and 1988, Arizona had 7 electoral votes, based on population numbers from the 1980 Census. In the elections of 2004 and 2008, Arizona had 10 electoral votes based on 2000 Census data. In 2012 and 2016, Arizona had 11 electoral votes based on the 2010 Census. So you can see that Arizona's relative share of the national population has continued to grow and affect its share of Electoral College votes.

4 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers