Violent protests can draw significant media attention, amplifying the cause and increasing public awareness of the issues at hand. They can also demonstrate the intensity of frustration among marginalized groups, potentially prompting a stronger response from authorities or policymakers. Additionally, such protests may galvanize participation and solidarity among supporters who feel that peaceful methods have been ineffective. However, the potential for backlash and negative consequences often complicates the impact of violent actions.
violent protest is like the suffragettes they used violence to get what they wanted and nonviolent is where you use powers of persuasion to get your way and not to use violence.
Iran in 1979
dorothy the dinosaur
Islam and quran both are against use violence in any action where violence could have been substituted for non-violent actions there really isn't a better or worse to either one, they are both protests and, according to history, both usually end with getting what they were about.
He stopped eating.
Because of boycott and violent protests by colonists
Paris.
he made speeches and participated in non-violent protests.
The disadvantages of a non-violent protest consists of verbal abuse used more commonly as physical violence is not tolerated in non-violent protests.
Violent protests involve the use of force or aggression, while nonviolent protests rely on peaceful means such as civil disobedience and peaceful demonstrations. Research suggests that nonviolent protests are often more effective in bringing about lasting social change, as they are more likely to garner public support, avoid backlash, and create a sense of unity among participants. In contrast, violent protests can lead to negative consequences such as increased repression and alienation from potential allies.
Drafting
ghandi