There’s a lot of evidence that says that non-violent resistance is more often more effective than violent-based resistance.

Can’t grab the source info link at the moment, but this video talks about it.

youtu.be/5Dk3hUNOMVk

non-violent resistance is more often effective

It’s only ever effective when a credible violent alternative is present.

No oppressed person in history has ever gotten their rights by appealing to the better nature of their oppressor.

Civil rights weren’t won when black people asked politely and just moved everyone’s heats at how unjustly they were being treated, when MLK died, he had a 75% disapproval rating, but through repeated demonstrations of power and showing what would happen if their demands weren’t met.

You’re jumping the gun and assuming a lot.

I couldn’t get past the 4th example of “non-violence” without laughing at how wildly revisionist they are. While each of these had non-violent components, none of them would have succeeded without violence. The housing rights act wasn’t passed until literally every city was on fire.

Here’s a great book detailing the experiences that lead civil rights leaders to understand as much..

The British gave up their occupation of India after a decades-long nonviolent struggle by the Indian population led by Mohandas Gandhi. The Danes, Norwegians and other peoples in Europe used civil resistance against Nazi invasion during World War II, raising the costs to Germany of its occupation of these nations, helping to strengthen the spirit and cohesion of their people, and saving the lives of thousands of Jews in Berlin to Copenhagen to Paris and elsewhere. Labor movements around the world have consistently used tactics of civil resistance to win concessions for workers throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. African Americans used civil resistance in their struggle to dissolve segregation in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.