I have NO idea what this means?

Question

I have to answer this question for history, but I don't know what it means?

Why are non-violent protests and refusals to cooperate with the ruling government effective strategies to win a war against occupying forces? Would it work today?

Answer 1

non-violents and refusals are examples of trying to change a government's policies without confrontations. if it is met with violence (which cost's lots of money, which could go to supporting the populus) the people of that society will relate with the pacifists, and the government becomes the bad guy. the more violence, the more the people relate to the non-violent protesters. thus, the government collapses from the inside out.

the only way the government seems to be able to control their people is with more violence, which the population resents because they no longer have control over their own lives. this threat is very frightening.

this method of controlling a government will always work when the difference between peace and violence is a decision of the people

  

Answer 2

Not knowing the period you're studying, I'd have to guess this might be about Gandhi and his non-violent protests against the British.

The question is asking why that type of protest worked and do you think that non-violent protests would work in today's society.

Answer 3

You might should ask your teacher for help.