3 ms·

I'm sure they exist but could you name some civil rights movements that did not feature violence from one or both sides? Your point seems to be that "all thing

I'm sure they exist but could you name some civil rights movements that did not feature violence from one or both sides? Your point seems to be that "all things end" but that's true of anything. It took hundreds of years and massive two world wars for Britain to be weak enough to give up its self image of being an empire and emancipate its other colonies. Edit: Answered my own question, to some extent. Relative to even recent human history, gay marriage has gotten along pretty well. Not bloodlessly but nothing like the 1960's lynching of rights workers.

vinceguidry 8y ago
It's a question of how much violence. All dispute resolutions involve some form of it, telling one person they're not going to get what they want is absolutely a form of violence. But the violence needs to be managed, legible, and appropriate. Slavery regimes are best eliminated through compensation of the owners. The progress difference between the Dominican Republic and Haiti is directly attributable to the fact that while the Dominican Republic saw a managed transition away from slavery, Haiti saw the entire economy crumble in a revolution modeled after the French one. It's where you start thinking "this needs to be solved, right now," that leads to senseless, irrational violence. Hang back, spend some time understanding the problem, its economics, its politics. Take action to remove the worst excesses and slowly dig the problem out in detail. There's way more historical examples of well-meaning zealotry causing more problems than it solves than there are examples of zealotry preventing bigger problems from coming to pass.