The Velvet Revolution was only peaceful because it was inevitable. It’s not nearly that simple when the political winds are against you or even neutral, as seen in Syria. This is also why Romania, which was politically isolated from the Eastern Bloc, went into violent revolt.
I know what you’re talking about, but there are tons of problems with that study, mainly ignoring the radical flank effect and failing to account for the fact that a weaker regime will be less able to enforce its will using violence.
Which of these 23 links backs up the claim that “people only respond to violence,” or, paraphrasing, non-violent resistance is ineffective.
I tried to skim a couple, but the synopsis on one was simply a recounting of black power tactics from the 70s, and another was a wiki page about the radical flank effect, which actually referenced the book I linked to support the claim that having a violent radical flank appeared to have no positive effect. Other references sometimes found a positive effect, but I can’t really compare the merits of the sources.
Honestly, having a pile of obscure links to whip out in favor of political violence is, let’s call it, odd.
Doesn’t mean shit unless they start a peacekeeping mission there that is willing to shoot at IDF troops.
Correct. Humans only respond to violence. Pacifists and limp-wrist Lefties waving signs and chanting aren’t going to make change.
Yep, nothing like that has ever worked…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution
The Velvet Revolution was only peaceful because it was inevitable. It’s not nearly that simple when the political winds are against you or even neutral, as seen in Syria. This is also why Romania, which was politically isolated from the Eastern Bloc, went into violent revolt.
Bullshit. We’re not talking about gaining political rights in peacetime. You will not stop a genocidal army with words and flowers.
And honestly, at this point implying otherwise is almost on complicity territory
Studies show non-violent protests have been the most effective.
But violent people do set the bar for their own treatment, sometimes.
I know what you’re talking about, but there are tons of problems with that study, mainly ignoring the radical flank effect and failing to account for the fact that a weaker regime will be less able to enforce its will using violence.
Please cite said studies. Apologies, but I can’t read anything on the internet without assuming it’s complete bullshit without sources
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156837/
This is the work that’s often being referenced when talking about non-violent vs violent resistance, and the 3.5% participation claim.
I don’t see any references for your claims either.
https://archive.org/details/strategyofsocial0000gams_d3m9
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm174
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/04/keystone-xl-protesters-science-joe-nocera-bill-mckibben/
http://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/handle/2152/543
https://archive.org/details/politicsofwomens00free
http://www2.cortland.edu/schools/arts-and-sciences/herbert-h.-haines.dot
https://web.archive.org/web/20150402133541/http://irasilver.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Reading-Movement-funding-Haines.pdf
https://archive.org/details/blackradicalsciv0000hain/page/n6/mode/1up
https://web.archive.org/web/20150101221603/http://beck.library.emory.edu/southernchanges/article.php?id=sc12-1_004
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/share/VHEHHFBAANC7ZUNFWK3A?target=10.1111%2Fj.1541-1338.2011.00498_3.x
https://books.google.com/books?id=aKt8f_PpRSQC
http://www.teachingforchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Crosby-this_nonviolent_stuff.pdf
http://nyupress.org/books/book-details.aspx?bookId=10963#.U1XprsJOVjo
http://government.arts.cornell.edu/assets/psac/sp14/Gupta_PSAC_Feb7.pdf
https://archive.org/details/socialmovementsr2edunse
http://www.citizenshandbook.org/movements.pdf
http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/9/4/6/p109468_index.html
http://ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Radical_Flank_Effects__The_Effect_of_Radical__Mod.pdf?paperid=23267
https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Chenoweth.Schock.Contemporaneous.Armed_.Challenges.pdf
https://archive.org/details/strategyofsocial0000gams_d3m9
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/blair-taylor-from-alterglobalization-to-occupy-wall-street
https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4pw6j9s1.pdf;origin=repeccitec
https://www.academia.edu/18313197/Rethinking_Radical_Flank_Theory_South_Africa
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_flank_effect
Maybe choose one or two source to back up your point. Nobody’s going to go through your wall of links.
Which of these 23 links backs up the claim that “people only respond to violence,” or, paraphrasing, non-violent resistance is ineffective.
I tried to skim a couple, but the synopsis on one was simply a recounting of black power tactics from the 70s, and another was a wiki page about the radical flank effect, which actually referenced the book I linked to support the claim that having a violent radical flank appeared to have no positive effect. Other references sometimes found a positive effect, but I can’t really compare the merits of the sources.
Honestly, having a pile of obscure links to whip out in favor of political violence is, let’s call it, odd.
All of them.
If you think Civil Rights was won with flowers and rainbows, it means your privilege is showing.
I don’t give two shits what a racist thinks is odd.