Revolution

Revolution has achieved success in the past. Large displays including violence have always gotten attention; however, I do not think that violence is necessary to instigate change. For example, Gandhi led a nonviolent revolution advocating for independence. His method relied upon passive resistance. He and those who followed him did not outwardly fight, but they did stand up for their rights. In the end, they achieved their goal, thus proving that Gandhi’s method was successful. I do not think revolution needs to be physically dangerous, but I do think revolution is necessary in many cases to broaden how each individual thinks. Each person should have equal opportunities no matter who that person is. No one should be either considered inferior or be forced into submission because of race, class or gender, and if one is, a change needs to be made and mindsets need to be altered. I do believe that violence is used in many occasions because those revolting become exhausted with their constant fight and those they stand up against refuse to listen. It is difficult to persuade an individual to change his or her beliefs when he does not want to listen, but would violence really make him understand the plight of those who fight? I feel as though appealing to a person logically is much more successful in having him understand in the long run versus having a large display of violence shocking society into making some changes. When they are forced into making new laws to accommodate a changing population, the discrimination is still present even when the laws are made.