Violence. A word with many bad connotations, but is it,sometimes, in specific situations okay? Or should all actions be non-violent. Many protests have taken place over time, some violent and some not at all. But which is more succesful and who got the most respect?
First i think we should take a step back and consider what a violent protest is, afterall, different people take in different things as violent. The Oxford English Dictionary definition of violence is: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy and/or an intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force. So is marching in roads, giving speaches, vandalism, creating art and writings and even giving up your own life acts of violence? If so why?
Next i would like to consider the context of violence. For instance we have all been violent, weather we thouht it was right or not- as a four or five year old you are still learining your boundaries and it is more acceptable to be violent than it is if you are ten ot twenty because at the age of four or five you are desperate to get your point across, you want to hurt someone or you dont really know how to express your self so that kind of violence is uncontrolled. Wheras being violent when you are older isn't uncontrolled, you know the full severity of your actions and your usually not doing it in a way to hurt someone you are usually doing it to prove your dedication to an act or to prove a point.
Any type of violence from either side can be seen as an act of terrorism or heroism it just depend on the side you are on. right?