I try to approach situations through the path of logic and reason. That's just how my brain works and it's hard for me to see a different view. All of this is an attempt at doing that. In my mind, I would see the oppressed taking a more rational approach than the oppressor as an extra mark in favor of the oppressed. They're having to live through unreasonable conditions born out of hate and yet they rise above it in spectacular fashion, refusing to bend to the call of violence.

However, I do understand that this approach wouldn't garner as much media attention. Unfortunately, the media only cares about how much stuff got blown up because ratings, so I can understand how resorting to violence may the the only option to get your cause onto the national stage.

Not everyone who fought for civil rights in the 50s and 60s used violence to achieve their goals. I can't imagine that the violent protesters would have succeeded without those refusing to take part in violent acts. Maybe nonviolence wouldn't have been a success either. I don't truly know enough about all of it to make a solid statement.

What are the right questions?