The anti-war protests that broke out during the 1960’s were
started by the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. As a result, the
United States was thrown into turmoil. The peaceful protests were often met
with violent action from the government and resulted in more and more protests.
Despite the resulting protests and social disrupt the protests caused; they did
succeed by being a major factor of why the United States government ended their
influence in Vietnam. Peaceful protests have generally been very effective in
their influence. Activists such as Martin Luther King Jr. used them during the
same time period to effectively get equal rights for all. It is shown through
history the effectiveness of these protests. The more peaceful protests that successfully
accomplish their goals, the more they will be seen as an efficient means of rhetoric.
Sam Jacobson
I think you did a good job depicting the causes and effects of anti-war protests as well as how they were beneficial despite consequent social disruption. There are several sentences where you emphasize the effectiveness of peaceful protests, which is a bit redundant. Instead, you could dig deeper for some of the other aspects of stasis theory such as “action” and “jurisdiction." You do talk about how activists such as MLK use peaceful protests to get equal rights, but that isn’t necessarily relevant to the anti-war picture. Make sure you aren’t diverting from your topic!
ReplyDelete-Anjali
^Yes.
Delete^Yes.
DeleteI really like your description of peaceful protests as opposed to violent ones,especially in your comparison with MLK, but I agree with Anjali that your tangent feels a like a non sequitur. I think that the photo is mainly proving the existence of a problem, that being the negative consequences of excessive militarization. But you can explore all levels of stasis theory, including jurisdiction and policy.
ReplyDelete-Daniel Saliunas