As I have already pointed out in paragraph two, there are many people who feel that non-violent protests are the best answer to solving problems and are looked up to and admired for their success in resolving these difficulties. One particular person who has illustrated this is Martin Luther King who led many non-violent protests and won many awards (including the Noble Peace Prize). As already mentioned, Ghandi also led non-violent protests, and he to achieved many of his goals.
In my personal opinion I agree that non-violence is a much more effective way of dealing with prejudice as usually you do not need to resort to harming anyone to achieve your aims. I think this because both Ghandi and Martin Luther King succeeded to accomplish what they wanted, equal rights for all. Non- violent protests can also be a lot quicker than non-violent ones, for example WWII lasted for six years, whereas the Montgomery bus boycott lasted about one.
However, in very special cases such as WWII war and fighting may be unavoidable. For example, I agree with the decisions that Winston Churchill made and believe that there were no other options to stop Hitler and the Nazis. In this circumstance I agree as Adolph Hitler was such a dangerous person that the only way to stop him would have been to go to war. He did achieve this which shows that violence can too be an effective way of achieving your aims. Nonetheless, this might not always be the best way of dealing with problems, as Tony Blair’s policies in Iraq may have stopped Saddam Hussein but terrorism in both Iraq and this country has increased dramatically causing many deaths. This shows that violence will sometimes make things worse.
Even though non-violent protests try to avoid deaths and injuries they can sometimes lead to violent fights which result in many fatalities. An example of a non-violent protest which then became very violent was the Soweto uprising in South Africa on the 16th June 1976. This was when thousands of black children protested about a new law which said they could only be taught in the language Afrikaans. The children protested against the new law by singing songs and waving signs. At first police used gas to try and calm things down, but they then started firing guns. The children protesting threw stones back at the police. Adults then joined in and the protest turned into a riot which lasted three days. It is thought that over 500 people (many of them children were killed in this incident). Even though this was a terrible and sad event the uprising and the way it was dealt with brought the problems in South Africa to the world's attention. Some countries introduced things called sanctions against South Africa, which meant they refused to sell goods to the country or buy goods from it. This meant that eventually South Africa was forced to change its ways as they were unable to get money and goods if they didn’t.
A further example of how non-violent protest can become violent is that both of the leaders, Martin Luther King and Ghandi were assassinated. This shows that there were some people that did not believe in Martin Luther King and Ghandi views. It also emphasises the fact that sometimes violence is not a good way of protesting as they did not stop the leaders beliefs, but in fact it encouraged more people that they were right as they were willing to stand up for they’re beliefs.
Despite the fact that some non-violent protests sometimes end in violence and deaths, there are generally many more deaths in violent protests.
Another person who believed in the similar non-violent principles as Martin Luther King and Ghandi was Jesus, although he did not lead any non-violent protests. Jesus has many quotes which support his view on non-violence such as “do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31), which means you should treat other people how you want to be treated and “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who ill treat you,” (Luke 6:27-28). Jesus also said “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also,” (Matthew 6:39), which Ghandi later repeated. This shows that Ghandi wanted to emphasise his point by using quotes from different religions. Another quote from Ghandi is “I would rather Hinduism died than untouchability lived” which shows he was so determined to get rid of untouchability that he was even willing to have the religion that believed in it (his own religion) wiped out to achieve this.
I believe that non-violence is usually the best answer to not only the larger problems that Ghandi and martin Luther King faced, but also smaller problems for example in school. When I was at primary school I was picked on for a few reasons. It was usually just name calling but at one point I was pushed into a patch of stinging nettles and another time threatened to be strangled. I didn’t fight back as I had heard that you should ignore bullies and they would bet bored. I refused to fight back and soon told the teacher what was happening. She then talked to the boys that were bullying me and things got better dramatically. They never tried to hurt me again and although they would still sometimes call me names I didn’t care and so just ignored them. Eventually they got bored and left me alone, just like I had been told. I now know that it is a good thing that I didn’t retaliate as this would have encouraged them as all they wanted was for me to react. This is an example of an experience of my own where non-violence has proved effective.
In conclusion, I believe that wherever possible you should try to use non-violent methods to fight for what is right. Nonetheless there are people who believed that they could only achieve their aims by using violence and did this successfully. They achieved a fairer society and stopped a lot prejudice views. If they hadn’t had the courage to fight for they’re beliefs people may still today be the victims of serious discrimination and prejudice.
