Violence has a specific meaning, and an essential part of it is that there is physical harm being done. There is an increasing tendency to equate words with violence, but things can be bad without being violent.
According to Merriam Webster[1], one definition of violent is "extremely powerful or forceful and capable of causing damage". Another is "EXTREME, INTENSE".
Further, according to the Oxford Living Dictionary[2], violence can also mean "involving an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force" or "very strong or powerful". The same dictionary [3] also lists a phrase, "do violence to", meaning "damage or adversely affect".
Obviously, the definitions of words such as "damage" and "powerful" apply in a metaphorical sense, not a literal sense. This should go without saying.
So, as long as we don't cherry-pick the meaning of the word 'violent' to specifically exclude these definitions, which would ultimately constitute a strawman argument, then I see no contradiction that cultures, through excessive governmental forces such as punishing children for speaking their heritage language(s), interdicting the use of a language in public through social engineering, or even forbidding under pain of fine or imprisonment for manifesting one's culture, justified in law as constituting some sort of social nuisance, have been and continue to be subjected to violent suppression and oppression all around the world.
> Violence has a specific meaning, and an essential part of it is that there is physical harm being done.
I think this is an assumption / belief that just isn't true, no matter how much you want it to be. Adjectives, like "violent", are used metaphorically all the time, and the use of metaphor isn't inherently incorrect
