Violence: The Role Of Violence In The Civil Rights Movement

What if Great Britain did not declare war on colonists, would it have pushed them even harder to fight, peacefully that is or use violence for their right to become a self-governing nation? Without violence conducted on by peace, would any movements be ignited? In some cases yes, violence is acceptable for social change. More things have changed throughout history by violence then peaceful protest has ever done. Also, peace will eventually turn to violence. Violence will be viewed as acceptable to some and evil to others.
James Lawson, a Civil Rights activist, believed that "the violence was accepted" by African-Americans in the South. Furthermore, Lawson argued that violence was not the only means of a solution within the civil rights movement. Additionally, he stated that non-violence played a role, too, even if it has been excessively promoted within the popular narrative today as the only thing that contributed to the fall of widespread white supremacy in the United States. While nonviolent rebels, such as one of the most famous not long ago, Martin Luther King Jr
For example, The American Revolution (1775-1783) which is also known as the United States War of Independence. Attempts by the British government to hike revenue by taxing the colonies met with heated protest among many colonists, who disliked their lack of image in Parliament and demanded the equal rights as other British citizens. The colonial opposition led to violence in 1770, when British soldiers opened fire on a crowd of colonists, killing five men in what is remembered as the Boston Massacre. While nonviolence set the building blocks upon which progress was to be built, violence is what allowed for the building of growth to happen. Ultimately, both of these approaches were necessary and made off of each other to achieve political, economic and or social