The nature of violence consists in causing violence in response. A new type of protest in a form of non-violent opposition, emerged in the sixtieth, has proved that it is more successful than violent activities. Examining thoroughly the protesting movements of the sixties, the conclusion can be made that the most prominent social change was brought by non-violent protest.
A non-violent protester cannot be reviewed on the same footing as a violent one. Dr. King opposed the soul force to physical force, treating non-violent protesters as peace-makers, who stand on a higher level than violent protesters. He put love in the first place, making it the major reason to enter opposition. As for me personally, I would rather take part in a non-violent protest than in violent one, because I suggest it more effective.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
Impressed by Gandhi’s result Dr. King supposed that only non-violent resistance can be successful. Violence would cause only other violence according to him, whereas only non-violence would succeed. Positive changes, such as the end of segregation or profound influence on the outcome of the Vietnam War, that followed, confirm his forecast.
The anti-war movement in the United States was so strong due to the war's intrusive character and numerous victims. Peaceful movements emerged as a consequence, aiming to stop the war. The society considered it unnecessary and cruel; therefore pacifist movement was so popular and eventually gained success.
Each social group, either students or blacks, struggling for emancipation aimed first to reach the positive changes according to their individual interests; on the other hand different people supported the protesting activities of other groups. There were lots of whites supporting anti-segregation movement, though they did not have such personal interests. It may be concluded that primary goal of the struggles was a major social change.