Is violence and destruction of property neccessary to seek justice and freedom didnt we get a whole country (USA) for doing that For my history class

So there are two possible answers based on your opinion:

A - You agree with violence and destruction of property to seek justice and freedom. Violence and destruction of property are perhaps the most persuasive methods of protest. It puts the pressure on whatever government must deal with it, and, if peaceful petitioning and protesting does not work, it may be one of the final options.

B - You disagree with violence and destruction of property to seek justice and freedom. Violence and destruction of property hurts only the lowest and most vulnerable people in society. Violence and destruction of property can also have the complete opposite effect of its aim; police, military, and security forces will crack down harder on the rioters, and public approval of groups and people organizing violence and destruction will decrease. Although the war for Independence is a commonly cited example for violence and destruction to seek justice and freedom, the majority of colonists back then were united by the common goal of liberty and freedom, while today, it is relatively hard to find a majority of people with the opinion of using violence and destruction to solve our issues.

Either one will be fine, just pick whichever one you agree with most.

the decreasing neutrality of the u. s. in world war i

hope this : )

ernest bai koroma (president) loko christianity

ahmad tejan kabbah (president) mandingo islam

johnny paul koroma (military junta limba christianity

julius maada bio (military junta mende christianity