"You may well ask, 'Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, etc.? Isn't negotiation a better path?' You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,"
Nonviolence is the key to making your point. It is a lot easier to go out and be violent and as a result, be arrested. That puts a negative light on the issue that is there. If one goes out in large numbers with others and they are not violent, it draws attention to how peaceful is it. Other people will see that it is a worth while cause that should not end in violence. It speaks volumes to those involved in the direct action. It shows that they have control, that they are peaceful, that they are working towards something that they believe is better. It is a way to have a lot of people join a cause. This gathering and joining of people will lead towards what is trying to be accomplished, negotiation. So many people will intimidate that government or governing body, that they (the government) does not want to look like the bad entity in all of this. The government is left with three options, let more people gather and have a movement gain, go in with or without for to try to break it up, or to negotiate. Negotiating is typically the best option and it leaves most happy or content with the outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment