Name one example from history where ""peaceful"" civilian protest has achieved anything.
Edgy teens gathering in a public place and chimping out for hours has never brought about any real change or impacted any government in any way.
All perceived victories of "peaceful protest" have come as a result of external factors,with negligible contributions from the protesters.
Thoughts?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
MLK day is on monday.
India defeated the Great British Empire through non-violent protest because of Ghandi.
I mean that says a lot about the Eternal Anglos.
I think the process of Indian independence was a bit more complicated than a couple hundred people sitting down in front of the parliament house and not eating, but i won't say anything about that because i haven't read up on it.
Isn't Vietnam a good example of change due to peaceful-ish protest? The war effort pretty much ground to a halt due to massive public backlash, causing the US to pull out and everything done over there to be done for naught. It's not like we had ran out of troops or money or anything.
The Portuguese Junta?
"peaceful protests" are pushed by (((you know who))) to prevent the common person from chimping out to get what they want
The average white westerner is so thoroughly conditioned against mass rioters that they'd still host non violent protests even if they were on the brink of starvation
also roasties. roasties can't stand the idea of a mass protest not being "safe" where they can just hold a sign for 45 minutes and then go home
Fall of the communist bloc??
Like voting, if it actually brought about change, you wouldn't be allowed to do it.
Is that moot under the muslim sign?
Tahir Square was pretty recent.
No. The US accomplished its purpose in vietnam, signed a treaty with the norvs and pulled out.
The norvs then violated the agreement and re-invaded the south and the US didn't go back.
As I said: real reasons behind events that aren't related to the protests.
Drug use and racism among the soldiers was so prevalent by the 1972 in the military especially the army that it was practically considered non viable and bordering on the brink of collapse and mutiny.
> economic and political collapse of the USSR
> anything to do with protests
not likely
The English had crushed revolt after revolt in India since the 1800's.
However, since people weren't actually committing violence en masse in 1947, they didn't have anyone to shoot legally and get away with it.
So the Eternal Anglo just called it quits and gave them their independence cause they didn't want to deal with their shit anymore.
My father was a recon marine in Vietnam, he brought back a little container that said, "take one marijuana" and said the military would give out weed.
Martin Luther king.
>the US won on their own terms, the government just happened to decide to leave under an obviously flimsy peace agreement and not come back when their allies were being rolled
ok bud
Well i'd say there's a difference between organized "civil disobedience" and getting together to shout in a park and block traffic for an hour, wouldn't you?
Well that's what's happening in afghanistan isn't it?
Ah ok so the solidarity movement aswell as the explosive reaction in Berlin due to a goverment official being caught in the moment had zero impact on the warsaw pact. Kk
ending the vietnam war
black civil rights
fall of communism in czechem slow vakya
The US's purpose was guaranteeing the independence of South Vietnam, a goal which they gave up on when they pulled out.
Peaceful protest is mainly just a show of force innit? The implication is that if the demands aren't met there will be open rebellion or strikes.
Are strikes peaceful protest? Because if they count they surely have accomplished a lot
top kek
the US pulled out knowing full well the North would fuck over the south. Nothing but spilling the blood of you adults was accomplished.
>Are strikes peaceful protest? Because if they count they surely have accomplished a lot
This, but considering OP is an American I wouldn't be surprised that the union he cares about are the one between same sexes.
Protesters work several contexts. First in democracies that agree to not killing people they can be quite disruptive and damaging. Second they are extremely powerful when a large percentage of the population agrees to them because it can have a severe economic impact. Third shame can,be effective tool to change public opinion.
You're a fucking retard. Just a few:
Peaceful revolution (GDR)
Resisting the British colonists (India)
Recent protests against Park Guen-Hye (ROK)
Korea might actually become a legit democracy, starting 2017
the protest is more for the protestors themselves
fucking hell
nice
>what are the poll tax riots
So WW2 and the general change of geopolitical direction from European nation states controlling empires to a bipolar world where two superpowers play each other off had nothing to do with it?
not even true, they just push the non-violent resistance meme in schools.
this guy did a lot
.
en.wikipedia.org
>he thinks the Democrats aren't traitors
faggot
Revolution isn't as dramatic as you make it out to be. Non-violent protests probably won't get regimes changed on their own but they do harden allegiances on both sides of whatever issue is being protested. Could be two onlookers starting an argument about it, or something as simple as reminding someone that others share their disaffectedness. And all these little pebbles that start bouncing down the hill could cause an avalanche, or not.