How did activists in both India and South Africa use these three forms of nonviolent action: protests (such as parades and demonstrations), noncooperation (such as boycotts, resignations and civil disobedience) and direct intervention (such as factory occupations and blockades)? How did the sanctions neutralize or limit the power of the regime?
Early in his career Gandhi once labeled a campaign of nonviolent action as "passive resistance." Is this a good description of what the Indians shown in the program were doing? Is it a good label for nonviolent action in general? Explain.
Participants in almost every nonviolent movement this past century have confronted the question of how to prepare for a possible crackdown. What risks did the Nashville students run by going ahead with the sit-in? What might have happened had the students fought back when attacked on February 27, 1960? Why did they decide to remain in jail, when they could have just as easily walked out? Did the events of February 27 work to the advantage of the students or that of the segregationists?
Why do activists campaigning against repressive regimes often go to great lengths to gain the attention of foreign media, especially media from the United States and Western Europe? How can a nonviolent movement, in its opposition to a government, use international attention?
What is the relationship between the form that movements have taken and the political outcomes that they have produced? Is it possible to build a democratic political order using nondemocratic means? Are there examples where this has occurred? Is a movement based on nonviolent action more likely to result in a sustainable democratic system than one based on guerilla warfare or terrorism? Why or why not?
Early in the August 1980 strike in Poland, some leaders called for expanding the list of demands to include free elections and an end to all censorship basic challenges to the Communist Party's political dictatorship. How might the conflict have turned out differently had the strike committee decided to include these political demands? Was dropping these demands a mistake, or was it a wise choice?
How have changes in communication technology affected the kinds of power that nonviolent movements and the regimes they oppose can exercise? What new tactics, for instance, might a present-day Gandhi employ in the era of cell phones and e-mail? Are the new technologies more likely to favor popular movements or repressive regimes?
Industrial workers have played key roles in several of the stories presented in this series. Why have workers and their unions often been such effective vehicles for nonviolent action? What forms of leverage do workers possess that ordinary civilians do not?
1. In South Africa, protests were used peacefully while the governments response was to shoot the crowd with rubber bullets and tear gas, which displayed the government in a negative light. South Africa also used boycotts as a means to hurt the economy, which made the government respect their business dealings.
In India, boycotts on things such as clothing caused the government to give concessions for the people living in poverty due to being forced to pay higher taxes while selling less of a product they were forced to make. India also used demonstrations such as the main weapon against requiring non-whites to carry papers with them wherever they went. Lastly, India used factory occupations such as the one of the salt mines to force the government into responding to their demands for independence.
2. I do not believe passive resistance is a good term for any nonviolent campaign because it implies that the people are merely doing nothing as a form of protest. While this may work for events such as strikes, it is not an accurate description for nonviolent movements in general.
3. The Nashville students faced beatings, jailings, even death by participating in the sit-ins. Had they fought back on February 27, 1960, there is no doubt in my mind that the government would use it as justification for retribution in the form of more discriminatory laws or having police officers take violent action. The students did not walk out because they wanted to burden the justice system; there is only so much room in a jail and without anyone paying bail, these students proved to be a significant burden on the law enforcement budget. The events of February 27, 1960 worked to the advantage of the students.
4. Activists campaigning against oppressive regimes try to get the attention of foreign media-- especially that of the United States and Western Europe-- because if the people of foreign nations take notice and force their own governments to support the movement, sanctions and even military action can be taken to destroy the regime. Nonviolent movements can be used as a way of getting international support because they force the government to respond to the movement. The governments response is typically one that is violent or only hurts their image in the eyes of the public. This gives nonviolent campaigns a snowballing effect.
5. The relationship between the methods of a movement and the political outcomes are critical. Typically, decentralized movements will result in a massive effort by each person to establish a government that is easily accepted by the majority (if not all) of the people. Denmark is one such movement. On the other end of the spectrum is terrorism, which usually results in violent, strict regimes that use military strength to scare the people into following orders. The Taliban is an example of this. It IS possible to establish democracy through nondemocratic means but that is extremely difficult to do because democracy relies on the convictions of the people, which can be easily ignore and/or corrupted through the use of whomever spearheads the movement.
6. Getting rid of the demands for free elections was a wise choice because political revolution needs to be a gradual process; asking for too much may have caused change for Poland (both the government and the people) to be quick to handle. This would mean that either the government would cut off negotiations or there could be a power vacuum.
7. The advancement of communications technology has made it easier for nonviolent movements to gain support through the World Wide Web (which has recently been proven to be an extremely effective tool on a number of occasions). However, it has also made it easier for the governments they oppose to intercept information being transmitted to the outside world and punish the people involved. A modern-day Ghandi would most likely take advantage of such hugely popular venues as YouTube or Veoh, which are both hosts to videos of a large number of protests, gatherings, riots, and other messages. Considering the controversy that simple YouTube videos have stirred up in recent years, it would be prudent for Modern Ghandi to use technology as an easy way to show the public a first-hand account of the events that unfold in todays political world. Obviously, these technologies favor the movements due to their displaying the average persons perspective of the event, which is something most people (especially those on the internet) can sympathize with.
8. Unions and workers have usually been an effective vehicle for nonviolent action because strikes cause production of materials to slow or stop. Without materials to sell to other countries, the government or corporation is forced to comply with the unions demands if they wish to maintain the ability to pay the people who actually enforce their policies.
1. How did activists in both India and South Africa use these three forms of nonviolent action: protests (such as parades and demonstrations), noncooperation (such as boycotts, resignations and civil disobedience) and direct intervention (such as factory occupations and blockades)? How did the sanctions neutralize or limit the power of the regime?
India did a lot they protested in the streets and boycotted the British by not buying there close from them or salt, they also didnt fight back and lost a lot of people, the people of Indian also wanted to destroy one of the slat companies in India but got there point across using non violent, while south Africa first started with violence then boycotted the downtown shopping malls and places, they refused to shop downtown at the British stores.
2. Early in his career Gandhi once labeled a campaign of nonviolent action as "passive resistance." Is this a good description of what the Indians shown in the program were doing? Is it a good label for nonviolent action in general? Explain.
Well yes because he did not use any violence he just didnt do anything any one told him too, he resisted a lot of things like his bail pay and other stuff, he didnt pay to get out of jail but was held in there, its a good name because he really did resist anything the British government throw at him.
3. Participants in almost every nonviolent movement this past century have confronted the question of how to prepare for a possible crackdown. What risks did the Nashville students run by going ahead with the sit-in? What might have happened had the students fought back when attacked on February 27, 1960? Why did they decide to remain in jail, when they could have just as easily walked out? Did the events of February 27 work to the advantage of the students or that of the segregationists?
Te Nashville students risked a lot by sitting down, they risked there lives because any of them cause have been shoot or worse. IF they fought back that night they all could of have been put in jail or work house for the rest of there lives or worse put to death. If they walked out of jail there point would not come across the nation and made an impact it would have been useless. It work for the students advantage because they got more people involved in it.
4. Why do activists campaigning against repressive regimes often go to great lengths to gain the attention of foreign media, especially media from the United States and Western Europe? How can a nonviolent movement, in its opposition to a government, use international attention?
Because they can get more people on there side to help them. If they didnt get that attention they would have just not got there point across and would love everything they want to get out of it. They can win other peoples side and get them to join in the fight to win the battle. By getting other counties attention they will get there point across and give the government more trouble.
5.What is the relationship between the form that movements have taken and the political outcomes that they have produced? Is it possible to build a democratic political order using nondemocratic means? Are there examples where this has occurred? Is a movement based on nonviolent action more likely to result in a sustainable democratic system than one based on guerilla warfare or terrorism? Why or why not?
Well its good if its getting results. I dont think u can really build a democratic using non democratic means its would cause to much problems. I dont think I have any examples of where it has occurred but that place must eighter has a good government or a bad one. Yes it would be a better democratic system because if u use warfare your bound to get the worse things out of people and lose a lot of people doing it so its better to use nonviolence then warfare.
6. Early in the August 1980 strike in Poland, some leaders called for expanding the list of demands to include free elections and an end to all censorship basic challenges to the Communist Party's political dictatorship. How might the conflict have turned out differently had the strike committee decided to include these political demands? Was dropping these demands a mistake, or was it a wise choice?
If the strike decided to include these political demands they might not have gotten what they wanted insisted it would be a war with the government and everyone would easy be killed in the way. Yes it was wise because they got what they wanted without the government fighting back and there would be no resolution involved in this battle
7. How have changes in communication technology affected the kinds of power that nonviolent movements and the regimes they oppose can exercise? What new tactics, for instance, might a present-day Gandhi employ in the era of cell phones and e-mail? Are the new technologies more likely to favor popular movements or repressive regimes?
Well a lot because the nonviolent group could get more people on there side the easier way ever they could cause a lot of problems for the government. They can email and call people and text to get more people to join there cause and group and get there point to. Popular movements because they expose what the government is doing.
8. Industrial workers have played key roles in several of the stories presented in this series. Why have workers and their unions often been such effective vehicles for nonviolent action? What forms of leverage do workers possess that ordinary civilians do not?
Because there the ones making it if they walk out or stop doing it they got more avenge and the union can keep the order or cause a strike. I dont really know
How did activists in both India and South Africa use these three forms of nonviolent action: protests (such as parades and demonstrations), noncooperation (such as boycotts, resignations and civil disobedience) and direct intervention (such as factory occupations and blockades)? How did the sanctions neutralize or limit the power of the regime? They protested and tried to get the govenrment to react to them. They wanted the government to react harshly so the world would recognize what was going on. They also used noncooperation to get a rise out of the ruling government. They used direct intervention to help slow the government's income and to really get the government's leaders riled up. It was all in an attempt get a reaction out of the government.
Early in his career Gandhi once labeled a campaign of nonviolent action as "passive resistance." Is this a good description of what the Indians shown in the program were doing? Is it a good label for nonviolent action in general? Explain. Yes, it is passive because it doesn't utilize violence. It is resistence because they do not follow the rules and regulation of the ruling government.
Participants in almost every nonviolent movement this past century have confronted the question of how to prepare for a possible crackdown. What risks did the Nashville students run by going ahead with the sit-in? What might have happened had the students fought back when attacked on February 27, 1960? Why did they decide to remain in jail, when they could have just as easily walked out? Did the events of February 27 work to the advantage of the students or that of the segregationists? They ran the risk of being beaten, thrown into jail, and being killed. If the students had fought back then more violence would have occured and the government probably would have killed many protestors. They decided to stay so they didn't have to pay the fine. They didn't want to help find a government they didn't support.
Why do activists campaigning against repressive regimes often go to great lengths to gain the attention of foreign media, especially media from the United States and Western Europe? How can a nonviolent movement, in its opposition to a government, use international attention? They hope that other countries will lend them support and aide. Also, they hope other countries such as the U.S. will put pressure on the repressive governments to stop whatever they are doing wrong.
What is the relationship between the form that movements have taken and the political outcomes that they have produced? Is it possible to build a democratic political order using nondemocratic means? Are there examples where this has occurred? Is a movement based on nonviolent action more likely to result in a sustainable democratic system than one based on guerilla warfare or terrorism? Why or why not? If you take a government by force, it leads to more force. Such as violent rebels taking control over a government and losing it to more violent rebels. When people take control with nonviolence they tend tyo last longer.
Early in the August 1980 strike in Poland, some leaders called for expanding the list of demands to include free elections and an end to all censorship basic challenges to the Communist Party's political dictatorship. How might the conflict have turned out differently had the strike committee decided to include these political demands? Was dropping these demands a mistake, or was it a wise choice? If they had included the demands maybe they would have gotten an agreement. Then they could vote for the leaders they want instead of leaders they don't respect. It was a wise choice dropping it. If they didn't then they wouldn't have any chance of an agreement.
How have changes in communication technology affected the kinds of power that nonviolent movements and the regimes they oppose can exercise? What new tactics, for instance, might a present-day Gandhi employ in the era of cell phones and e-mail? Are the new technologies more likely to favor popular movements or repressive regimes? Nonviolence is much more effect because now informantion travels faster. People can find out the truth about things much quicker than they used to be.
Industrial workers have played key roles in several of the stories presented in this series. Why have workers and their unions often been such effective vehicles for nonviolent action? What forms of leverage do workers possess that ordinary civilians do not?
The goverments depend on the factories for income and resources. This is why the governments tend to listen more to factories and factory workers.
1.Activists in both India and South Africa used protests by marching in the street and having meeting/speeches in public places to teach others about non-violent protest, they used noncooperation by pretty much going on strike against British factories and they refused to buy clothing made by the briitsh, they used intervention by locking themselves in factories not threathening anyone just so work couldn't be done. The ydid all this to get the governements attention.
2.Yes, because they are not harming anyone but they are getting their point across.
3.The Nashville students faced being seriously injured or being put in jail, if they would have fought back then a lot of them would have been killed and it wouldn't have solved anything. They remained in jail because they refused to pay the bail because they felt they were not doing anything wrong.
4.They hope that other countries will see what they are going through and want to help them.
5.
6.If the strike commiitee included the demands the outcome probably would have ended better because then they would have gotten what they wanted and would be happy.
7.Changes in communication technology has benefited non-violent movements because the news travels faster and more people can see whats going on around the world.
8.Because they are the one's making the goods if they stop then nothing is being done and the owners and country lose money.
The activist in both India and South Africa used three forms of nonviolent action.India boycotted on clothing and salt from the British.South Africa protested but the government ended up just shooting them and they boycotted the malls and shopping stores.
Yes because he never used violence, never paid bail he didnt give a hard time to go to jail.
The Nashville students risked a lot by going ahead with the sit it. They risked their lives, beatings, and going to jail.If they were to have fought back on February 27, 1960 there would have probably multiple deaths and a lot of arrests.They decided to remain in jail when they could have walked out because the space in the jail couldnt hold all the people in the jail no one decided to pay bail so it effected the government. The event went to the work of the students.
Activists campaigning against repressive regimes often go to great lengths to gain attention because the other nations will help them support there judgment, even gain there military to make an effect. A nonviolent movement in its opposition to a government can use international attention because the government has to respond to the movement
I dont think it is possible to build a democratic political order using nondemocratic means. Yes
The strike may have turned out differently they wouldnt have got what they wanted. I think it was a wise choiceThe communication technology affected the kinds of power that nonviolent movements and the regimes oppose now because of the web and telephone. A present day Gandhi would employ in the popular websites that show videos and information that is effective. Popular movementsUnions and workers have been such an effective vehicle for nonviolent actions because they will delay the process of products. The government will have to actually agree with the strike so they can make productions and sell to other countries
