Throughout history we have seen both ends of the spectrum between actions that have been violent and ones that have not. To say that each person is capable of violence is a major assumption to be made but at the same time it is difficult to refute. How much can a single person take? It seems as though our culture will react with violence much faster than with nonviolent actions and that is because it is how our history has developed. It is possible for nonviolent actions to be the desired way but those who have chosen to act nonviolently are sort of few and far between and that is why we have such infamous faces of nonviolence such as Ghandi or MLK Jr and the faces of violence aren’t as public or recognizable because they are easier to find. This debate is relates to that of human nature, are we selfish or selfless? Good or evil? There are arguments for both and it is a debate that will never end nor will it be proven or refuted all together? We are all responsible for our own actions but other peoples actions are not our responsibility and I think more often than not our actions are responses to others.
I also think violence is inevitable, whether it’s a just war or a nonviolent protest to end social injustices.
Ghandi and MLK Jr are praised for their noble leadership and peaceful actions, as they should be, but it has been my experience that when their philosophies are taught in class, the attention is always focused on how non-violence will succeed and lead to a peaceful society. Yes…this is true. But the irony is, non-violence needs violence in order to make a tangible difference.
Nonviolence approaches are incredibly powerful because the participants use the energy of violence directed towards them to make their peaceful actions apparent. They act to draw out the injustices behind the violence, and it is their battered images that make the movement powerful and their statements heard. Violence is necessary to draw that stark contrast between the oppressor and the oppressed and seeks to appeal to the hearts of onlookers who witness the atrocities.
Violence, on the other hand, can also be used as a positive catalyst for change if used in a “just war”, say between the poor oppressed and the powerful elite. The civil war in El Salvador, for example, was fought in part to take back land that had been largely appropriated by the rich while leaving the majority of people impoverished and displaced.
So I think the debate is more than if people are innately good or evil, selfish or selfless. Those answers can change depending on what motivates the violence.