'Gandhi, Martin Luther King, And Mandela: What Made Non-Violence Work Essay\r'

'The history of violence in the world is easily registered. However it is also possible to wont non-violence to hold about change. This DBQ will look at twain countries where a non-violent movement was successful. India and southwestward Africa were two main(prenominal) nations on two different continents. But although they looked knock-down(prenominal) on the outside, each one suffered from a affection that threatened the health of the whole. For India, the dioceanse was colonization. For South Africa, it was racial segregation. In each of these nations three causes help develop why non-violence worked. The first condition was that both of them had been colonies of England. And standardised England both countries thought law was very powerful, more than powerful even than brass officials. The second condition was the presence of violence. Without the possibility of a violent revolution, the government might not have been willing to change.\r\nThe trinity condition wa s the presence of a leader, Mohandas Gandhi in India and Nelson Mandela South Africa. Each of these men was so charismatic he could lead his followers to a non-violent victory. Both of them gave their lives to the cause. Gandhi was thrust by an assassin while Mandela spent nigh twenty-seven years of his life in prison. Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, junior, and Nelson Mandela alone achieved a revolution and independence in their countries with non-violence. The reason this worked is because the non-violent people would be beaten and killed for doing zero contingent wrong, this made the attackers look like idiots for killing nude people. This would make the attackers realize what they’re doing and they would grant the landed estate independence. The enters provided could be situated into four categories: civil disobedience, self-control, willingness to evaluate punishment, and embracing the enemy.\r\nDocument 1 is a garner from Gandhi to Lord Irwin, the Englis h governor in India. The point of view is Gandhi because he is basic on the wholey telling the governor what his plans of civil disobedience ar: Gandhi and the community argon going to ignore the Salt Laws and march to the sea to make their own salt. The tone of this letter is very calm and peaceful. Document 2 is an ask out from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s autobiography along with a tear of a 1963 sit-in of desegregation supporters at a lunch counter. The point of view is MLK and the tone of his excerpt is proud because he knows that what he’s express is right. This is a good example of non-violence and civil disobedience because the lunch counter was for white people only, and the integration supporters did not fight back at all to the people who may have been throwing stuff at them, pouring stuff on them, or ptyalise at them.\r\nFinally, Document 3 is an excerpt from Nelson Mandela’s book, Long Walk to Freedom, and he is contemplating which tactic to use in order to achieve independence. The tone of this document is just boring because Mandela is simply thinking to himself. later pondering over the situation, he obviously selects the non-violent procession and it works like a charm. An additional document that could be helpful for this category could be a picture of a group of people who are being civilly disobedient and being beaten.\r\n'