It is true that violence sometimes does secure a good result for people in getting their demands met....but it is also true that non-violence is a far wiser path for people in general to follow. If you can mobilize enough people in a non-violent way, you can achieve enormous change.

In the case of the American Revolution, the colonial population was split about 50/50 between those who wanted a revolt against the crown and those who supported the crown. In the case of the 50% who were in favor of a revolt, I would assume that less than half of them were immediately willing to go out and risk their lives in violent confrontation with the British Army.

Given such a situation, you haven't got enough people mobilized to achieve a non-violent change. And so...the zealots resort to violence. Whether they succeed or not...and they may...a whole lot of innocent people get killed, terrorized, and lose their property. I don't call that a very good way of achieving social change.

Had the colonists resorted to non-violent forms of pressure on the crown in 1775 and had they mobilized sufficient numbers of people in that effort, the crown would have eventually granted every reform that the colonists were hoping for. And there would have been no revolution. And there would now be a representative and free democracy in the USA, just as there is in Canada.

Therefore, I think Obama's promotion of non-violence is wise and judicious, even IF it is not true that violence never produced good results for people in getting their demands met.

The American Revolution was an unnecessary conflict, and it resulted because of arrogant hardliners on both sides of the issue.