Category: Civil Disobedience

In his article Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau deals with his vision of justice in Massachusetts. He is worried about so many problems that exist in the system of law and the justice of the state. He calls out his audience to act against the government to help the afflicted people gain abolition and other freedoms. In this essay, I aim to review his article to find important issues regarding injustice and its implications in.

At the beginning of his argument, Thoreau states that some laws in the country are extremely ghastly, and they do nothing else, but bring great pains and problems to the citizens of the country (Thoreau 184). So, he urges the audience to disobey the government and become rebels against such idle-headed regulations. He says that people act foolishly when they decide to be patient, and tolerate less than even-handed treatment. Thoreau proposes to follow the examples of cool dudes from the past such as Copernicus, Luther, Washington, and Franklin (Thoreau 185). He explains that even though these great guys were seen as rebels and rioters by their contemporaries, at the end of the day, they became heroes. Today, no one remembers those who opposed Copernicus, Luther, Washington, Franklin, and the other enlighteners, but many people do remember mutineers.

In the main part of the argument, the author is talking about all sorts of different examples of evil laws that bring nothing but harm to the nation. When he splits the log of a bad law, he asks: why on earth should we obey the government that makes traps to its people? And he answers this question by stating that there are no reasons for this. On the contrary, he concludes that it is better to resist the government like this, and do ones best to cut up this government along with its laws. He even takes notice of the fact that the law endorsement system makes no efforts to protect people against evil. Nothing, no slightest fact or evidence, no faintest hint exists to identify at least some small effort by the government to protect people against the wickedness that exists in the world. Instead, the government only wants to promote its own interests. So, there is nothing strange in disobeying this kind of regime. More than this, God himself wants to punish this government, and this is one more reason to go ahead and slay these terrible people who claim to be the representatives of justice on the earth (Thoreau 186).

In the final part of his argument, Thoreau addresses the most silver-tongued example of an awful injustice by the government which is in protecting slaveholders and making corresponding laws that help them in committing this evil. He says that honest people must raise and punish those disgusting offenders of law and justice.

All things considered, Thoreaus main point in this article is in the necessity of overthrowing the government that promotes evil laws. His argument raises many issues regarding justice, the protection of justice, and the validity of the actions of those who rebel against the government that advocates wickedness. The implications of these issues are well represented by the author in different parts of the article. They can be seen in the cases of the law on private property, the law on slavery favoritism, and the law on collecting taxes.

References

Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience. Justice (n. d.): 184-186. Print.

In the past, violence was often used as a means of bringing changes to the society, and even now such a strategy is perceived as something can be morally justified. In the course of its history, the United States also passed through periods when violent actions appealed to many people who tried to eradicate different forms of injustice such as slavery.

In his famous essay Civil Disobedience, Henry Thoreau describes the actions of a citizen who believes that a state is either unable or unwilling to serve people. This author is very cautious when he discusses the resistance to the state. In particular, he believes that there are cases when people have a moral right to rebel and revolutionanize¹.

However, he believes that it should be the last resort for people when they think that there is no other way of affecting the policies of a state. They should remember that it is usually not necessary to rely on brutal force, when a person tries to express his/her disagreement with the policies of political leaders.

Overall, it is possible to argue that violence cannot be regarded as a legitimate way of civil disobedience because it implies that an individual rejects the idea of law and dialogue between a person and the government. Such an approach will not bring sufficient improvements into the life of the community.

It should be noted that in his essay, Henry Thoreau openly criticizes the government of the United States. In particular, he pays close attention to the existence of slavery in the country and the legitimate status of this social phenomenon. This is why he believes that a person should act as counter-friction to stop the machine of cruelty and injustice. ²

From his point of view, it is immoral for a person to tolerate the existence of a political system that condones slavery. It is a duty of an individual to express his/her civil discontent. This argument is even more explicit when one speaks about Henry Thoreaus defense of a famous rebel John Brown who took violent actions against slave-owners in the United States.

In Thoreaus opinion, this person was a noble rebel, rather than a terrorist³ and his actions might have some ethical justifications. Therefore, one should not assume that this writer advocated only non-violent means of resistance. Such an assumption would be too idealistic and inaccurate. This is one of the main points that should be made.

Admittedly, Thoreaus viewpoints concerning the vicious aspects of slavery were correct, but he was too radical when he considered the possibility to use violence to fight various social wrongs. This view of civil disobedience can be dangerous.

The problem is that in the course of history even the noblest intentions of individuals could turn into violence and bloodshed that can be extremely devastating. This argument is particular important when one speaks about French and Russian revolutions that lead to the creation of totalitarian and unjust regimes.

This is the main dangers that people should be aware of when they discuss different forms of civil disobedience. Their public protest must not involve violence because it may completely undermine the efforts of many activists.

It is important to remember about the cost of violent protest. Thousands of people should not die to make politicians think differently and try to address really important issues. More importantly, one should keep in mind that brutal force does not usually help people to develop rational solutions.

Therefore, even if people achieve their objectives through violence, it is not likely that they will create a well-functioning and just state. Thoreau also suggested that people did not have to pay taxes if they wanted to express their discontent. Nonetheless, this behavior could give rise to violence against citizens.

Refusal to pay taxes is regarded as a crime against the state itself, and it could result in a conflict between an individual and the state. In fact, this type of civil disobedience suggested by Thoreau can disrupt the dialogue between the community and the government.

On the whole, the idea of civil disobedience is still relevant to modern people who may not be content with the policies of the government. In his essay, Henry Thoreau attempts to describe the ways of public protests. It is possible to agree with the idea that an individual should not tolerate the existence of injustice.

Nevertheless, rebellion or revolution should not be regarded as a means of expressing disagreement. Very often, it can only bring bloodshed and violence, and in this way, one cannot create any improvements in the lives of people. Certainly, it is not permissible to tolerate the existence of corrupt governments or cruel laws in a society.

This argument is particularly relevant when one speaks about slavery. Nevertheless, people should find ways of expressing disagreement without violence.

Bibliography

Thoreau, Henry. Civil Disobedience. Boston: Hayes Barton Press, 2012.

Thoreau, Henry. A Plea For Captain John Brown. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2012.

Footnotes

¹ Henry, Thoreau. Civil Disobedience. (Boston: Hayes Barton Press, 2012), p. 5

² Ibid. p. 9

³ Henry, Thoreau. A Plea For Captain John Brown. (New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2012), p. 7.

In the past, violence was often used as a means of bringing changes to the society, and even now such a strategy is perceived as something can be morally justified. In the course of its history, the United States also passed through periods when violent actions appealed to many people who tried to eradicate different forms of injustice such as slavery.

In his famous essay Civil Disobedience, Henry Thoreau describes the actions of a citizen who believes that a state is either unable or unwilling to serve people. This author is very cautious when he discusses the resistance to the state. In particular, he believes that there are cases when people have a moral right to rebel and revolutionanize¹.

However, he believes that it should be the last resort for people when they think that there is no other way of affecting the policies of a state. They should remember that it is usually not necessary to rely on brutal force, when a person tries to express his/her disagreement with the policies of political leaders.

Overall, it is possible to argue that violence cannot be regarded as a legitimate way of civil disobedience because it implies that an individual rejects the idea of law and dialogue between a person and the government. Such an approach will not bring sufficient improvements into the life of the community.

It should be noted that in his essay, Henry Thoreau openly criticizes the government of the United States. In particular, he pays close attention to the existence of slavery in the country and the legitimate status of this social phenomenon. This is why he believes that a person should act as counter-friction to stop the machine of cruelty and injustice. ²

From his point of view, it is immoral for a person to tolerate the existence of a political system that condones slavery. It is a duty of an individual to express his/her civil discontent. This argument is even more explicit when one speaks about Henry Thoreaus defense of a famous rebel John Brown who took violent actions against slave-owners in the United States.

In Thoreaus opinion, this person was a noble rebel, rather than a terrorist³ and his actions might have some ethical justifications. Therefore, one should not assume that this writer advocated only non-violent means of resistance. Such an assumption would be too idealistic and inaccurate. This is one of the main points that should be made.

Admittedly, Thoreaus viewpoints concerning the vicious aspects of slavery were correct, but he was too radical when he considered the possibility to use violence to fight various social wrongs. This view of civil disobedience can be dangerous.

The problem is that in the course of history even the noblest intentions of individuals could turn into violence and bloodshed that can be extremely devastating. This argument is particular important when one speaks about French and Russian revolutions that lead to the creation of totalitarian and unjust regimes.

This is the main dangers that people should be aware of when they discuss different forms of civil disobedience. Their public protest must not involve violence because it may completely undermine the efforts of many activists.

It is important to remember about the cost of violent protest. Thousands of people should not die to make politicians think differently and try to address really important issues. More importantly, one should keep in mind that brutal force does not usually help people to develop rational solutions.

Therefore, even if people achieve their objectives through violence, it is not likely that they will create a well-functioning and just state. Thoreau also suggested that people did not have to pay taxes if they wanted to express their discontent. Nonetheless, this behavior could give rise to violence against citizens.

Refusal to pay taxes is regarded as a crime against the state itself, and it could result in a conflict between an individual and the state. In fact, this type of civil disobedience suggested by Thoreau can disrupt the dialogue between the community and the government.

On the whole, the idea of civil disobedience is still relevant to modern people who may not be content with the policies of the government. In his essay, Henry Thoreau attempts to describe the ways of public protests. It is possible to agree with the idea that an individual should not tolerate the existence of injustice.

Nevertheless, rebellion or revolution should not be regarded as a means of expressing disagreement. Very often, it can only bring bloodshed and violence, and in this way, one cannot create any improvements in the lives of people. Certainly, it is not permissible to tolerate the existence of corrupt governments or cruel laws in a society.

This argument is particularly relevant when one speaks about slavery. Nevertheless, people should find ways of expressing disagreement without violence.

Bibliography

Thoreau, Henry. Civil Disobedience. Boston: Hayes Barton Press, 2012.

Thoreau, Henry. A Plea For Captain John Brown. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2012.

Footnotes

¹ Henry, Thoreau. Civil Disobedience. (Boston: Hayes Barton Press, 2012), p. 5

² Ibid. p. 9

³ Henry, Thoreau. A Plea For Captain John Brown. (New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2012), p. 7.

Civil Disobedience, also called passive resistance, has its meaning on refusing the to obey the law in a nonviolent act. It was first used by Henry David Thoreau. His ideology was based on disobedience. He believed people can change things by disobeying because it was an act that does not need violence. Henry David Thoreau was born on July 12, 1817, in Concord, Massachusetts. Thoreau went to Harvard University. According to “Biography.com” “He graduated from college in 1837 and struggled with what do to next” (par 3). According to some reports, Thoreau had to take a break from his schooling for a time because of illness. At the time, an educated man like Thoreau probably will start a career in Engineering or Medicine. However, he decides to set up a school in 1838. His School collapsed a few years later after his brother became ill. Thoreau then went to work with his father for a time. He began writing nature poetry in the 1840s, with poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, his friend. He is one of America’s most famous writers, Henry David Thoreau is remembered for his philosophical writings and his desire of disobedience. The two major issues being debated in the United States during Thoreau’s life were slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues play an important part in Thoreau’s essay. He wrote “Civil Disobedience” as a protest against injustice. He practiced Civil Disobedience by not paying taxes. Thoreau refused to pay taxes to an unjust government that supported slavery and was fighting an unjust war. This form of protest inspired leaders for generations. Civil disobedience is an active form of nonviolent protest. Those who practice civil disobedience are strong people who believe in justice.

Thoreau begins his essay by arguing that the government hardly proves itself useful and that it derives its power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they justify their viewpoint. He contends that people’s first obligation is to do what they believe is right and not to follow the law the majority follow. Thoreau further argues that the United States government is unjust because it supports slavery and an aggressive war. He argued that voting sometimes does not change anything, and he asserts that actions are the real change. Although Thoreau asserts that a man cannot eradicate the government issues, he argued that at least a man should not be guilty through compliance. He made reference to how in some point, citizens serve the government in one way or another. Thoreau uses the word serve suggesting that people have a lack of freedom, and the word machine suggesting a lack of control. If a man lack of control, he tends to serve the majority decisions and many times that includes the unjust actions of the State. Even when men consider themselves free men or against war and slavery, they serve the government and do not even know it. Thoreau presents his own experiences as a model of the unjust government by describing his experience in the Concord jail after refusing to pay the taxes for six years. He declares that he cannot allow himself to recognize a government that supports slavery and unjust war. In the essay, Thoreau introduces the right of revolution. He describes the American Revolution and how the colonist refused to obey the laws of a corrupt British government, and how they broke those laws and declared their independence. Thoreau ends by making a reminder that the government must recognize individuals as the most important power in society. He also points out that the government should always have the consent of each individual in the important decisions. He believes that this is the key to create a glorious state that treats all men justly and with respect.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, most known as Mahatma Gandhi, the great soul was an Indian Lawyer born in Hindu. He was influenced by his mother, a religious woman. She taught him that every person matter and people must respect others’ lives. While living in South Africa, Gandhi experienced discrimination against all people of color. When he was traveling on a train where the police made him sit in a third-class section even though he had purchased a first-class ticket, Gandhi refused, and he was forced off the train. This event changed his life. Gandhi started to refuse to obey laws that made him get arrested. However, he did not stop in his ideology of disobeying what it is wrong. He went to jail many times and while in jail he read the essay “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau. Gandhi used the term civil disobedience to describe his non-violently strategy. His strategies include negotiations, sacrifice, non-violence, selflessness, and cooperation. He believes that people should be brave and not cowards. Gandhi was decided to change the Indian’s lives. He fought against the injustice of a government that did not respect the civil rights of Indians. He organized the Indians and asked them to fight with a nonviolent resisting war. His goal was to stand in protest and used his body and words to made the government listen. In 1930 Gandhi organized a revolution against the British, the Salt March. The Salt March was the most symbolic act of Gandhi’s life. His protest helped India to become independent on August 15, 1947. Gandhi drew a nonviolent change. This inspired Civil Rights Movements in the United States of America with Martin Luther King Jr. and it inspired Nelson Mandela’s leadership.

The Civil Rights Movement came out of the need and desire for freedom and equality. Thoreau and Gandhi were a big inspiration for many people, especially for Martin Luther King Jr. He was one of the most famous advocates for nonviolent change. Martin Luther King Jr. Had exceptional oratorical skills and that helped him to draw attention. He influenced people to protest against discrimination acts and to demand their civil rights. Even though he influenced people to protest, all his actions were nonviolent. He believed in nonviolent protests as well as Gandhi. His leadership was important to a successful end with the segregation of African Americans in the south. Martin Luther King worked hard in his desire to provide black people the right to vote and he succeeds. During the march on Washington, D.C, his message moved many supporters from all parts of society. Martin Luther King delivered his most famous speech called “I Have a Dream.” In this speech, he argued that he had the dream of one day the nation will live inequality. The speech called for freedom and equality not only for black people but for all people. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. was honored with the Nobel Peace Prize. He is an icon of the Civil Rights Movement.

Human rights are a very important part of every individual. Human rights protect vulnerable people from abuse. If someone abuses their power against our rights, we stand up and protect them. Thoreau introduced the Civil disobedience as an act of protest against the unjust laws of a government. However, this act can be used in many ways. For example, Gandhi used to gain the independence of his country. Martin Luther King Jr. used it to protest and gain freedom and equality. In my opinion, civil disobedience is a right each individual has. Everybody has the right to protest and protect their rights. In Thoreau’s ideology, each person is responsible for their own critical thinking. Thoreau states, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right” (5). He believed each person should do what they think, especially if the decision they are making is about an important event. This might sometimes imply disobeying the law. Sometimes disobeying is necessary. Martin Luther King Jr. asserts, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” He means that is our responsibility to stop unfairness. I agree with disobeying the law if this act will make a change for better in our society of course. Nowadays, many people practice disobedience in many aspects of life. For example, in 2018, Sally Yates refused to defend President Trump’s travel ban. She defended the justice even though she knew this will have consequences. She was fired, but afterward, she became an idol of disobedience. Probably her disobedience did not have a big impact, but she did what she thought was right. People use disobedience all the time, however, almost always these acts end up in violence. Many times, the government force people to stop protesting. It is important to emphasize that Civil Disobedience started as a desire for protest without implying in violent acts. I want to end by remembering this quote from Mahatma Gandhi. He says, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” We should never give up on fairness.

Work Cited

1. “Gandhi and Civil Disobedience.” Constitutional Rights Foundation, https://www.crfusa.org/black-history-month/gandhi-and-civil-disobedience. Accessed 09 Feb. 2020.
2. “Gandhi’s first act of civil disobedience.” History, 28 Jul. 2020, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/gandhis-first-act-of-civil-disobedience. Accessed 09 Feb. 2020.
3. Garrow, David J. “Facts, information and articles about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. a civil rights leader prominent figure in Black History.” American History Magazine, Aug. 2003, https://www.historynet.com/martin-luther-king-jr. Accessed 09 Feb. 2020.
4. Chakraborty, Roshni. “Civil Disobedience in the Trump Era.” Harvard Political Review, 03. Jan. 2018, https://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/civil-disobedience-in-the-trump-era/. Accessed 09 Feb. 2020.
5. Thoreau, Henry David. “On the duty of civil disobedience.” http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Thoreau/Civil%20Disobedience.pdf. Accessed 09 Feb. 2020.

In this paper, I will argue that Martin Luther King’s views about civil disobedience makes him more reliable compared to Plato’s beliefs because Martin Luther King utilizes emotional language and concrete examples to build his credibility and gain the trust of others. Furthermore, I will discuss Plato and Martin Luther King’s viewpoints about disobeying the law and how each of them establish their own credibility. In King’s speech, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King discusses the prevalence of racial segregation and discrimination, and believes it is important to disobey the laws if that is necessary to establish equality within the African community. In the speech entitled “Crito” by Plato, Socrates believes it is essential to follow all laws and regulations to avoid committing an immoral act.

In order to emotionally connect with the audience and deliver an effective argument, Martin Luther King Jr. shares his own personal revelations regarding how he and his family had been victimized by the growth of racial segregation (Course Reader King). For instance, King’s letter uses morbid imagery to illustrate the deprecating behavior Blacks faced: ‘when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will… drown your sisters and brothers at whim… seen hate-filled policeman curse, kick, and brutalize… your black brothers and sisters with impunity… you will understand why we find it difficult to wait [to take an] action’ (Course Reader King 4). King uses this personal example to encourage individuals to work toward eradicating segregation and help all individuals, irrespective of their color, to unite together. King also displays empathy and his words show that he is able to relate to those who may have faced similar situations. This establishes a strong sense of trust among his readers, allowing them to better understand King’s argument (Course Reader King).

Furthermore, Martin Luther King Jr. implores that individuals participate “in [a] nonviolent campaign” to help combat the suppression individuals have endured (Course Reader King 3). In addition, Martin Luther King Jr. provides another example where he states that ‘when you suddenly find your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-old daughter why she cannot go to the amusement park… and see tears welling up in her little eyes when she is told… [that the park] is closed to colored children’ (Course Reader King 4). Through the use of emotional language, Martin Luther King Jr. explains how stereotypes can be misleading (since they only contain partial truths) and advises them to expand their perspectives. This example increases Martin Luther King Jr.’s credibility because when emotions such as compassion and empathy are expressed, the audience is able to envision and understand the pain and suffering these individuals had been through. Moreover, Martin Luther King Jr. reiterates his beliefs about the need to disintegrate unfair laws through peaceful and nonviolent methods in a consistent manner, which further strengthens his credibility (Course Reader King).

Throughout the speech, Martin Luther King Jr. emphasizes that it is very important to not follow unfair laws, especially when the growth of racial segregation is rapidly increasing. In his speech, King recommends following four different steps in order to prevent the prevalence of segregation and discrimination: “[Gathering reliable information] to determine whether injustices are [present], negotiation, self-purification, and direct action” (Course Reader King 3). For the first step, individuals should gather important and reliable information that highlights the presence of unfair treatments and determine if this information is harmful to the human population (Course Reader King 3). For the second step, individuals should discuss about racial segregation and come to a consensus of whether the information portrayed is accurate or inaccurate; and provide alternative solutions if there are no agreements between each groups (Course Reader King 3). For the third step, “self-purification,” Martin Luther King suggested to reiterate the following “questions, are you able to accept blows without [any retaliation] and are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?” (Course Reader King 4). For the last step, Martin Luther King Jr. recommended to take a “direct action” in a peaceful manner if there are no agreements between the members of each groups (Course Reader 4). By remaining hopeful and maintaining a persuasive tone, Martin Luther King utilizes concrete examples and emotional language to develop a sense of trust among the audience; this will eventually help lessen the negative impacts of segregation. This indicates that Martin Luther King Jr. is more credible and trustworthy because since he provides first-hand knowledge (series of steps mentioned above), his arguments appear stronger and powerful.

Furthermore, Martin Luther King Jr. advises individuals to not develop preconceived judgements for any ethnic groups and explains that eventually “oppressed people [will not] remain oppressed forever… the urge for freedom will eventually come” (Course Reader King 6). When emotions such as empathy and compassion are expressed, this enhances Martin Luther King Jr.’s credibility; this makes his arguments sound and more persuasive since he has been able to connect with the audience in an emotional manner. Additionally, King argues that it is important to not follow the laws if that is necessary to help create equality and justice among the African community, through “nonviolent” methods (Course Reader King). Although many proponents would argue that it is not justifiable to disobey the laws for any particular reasons (even if the protest is performed peacefully and nonviolently), some individuals believe that during certain situations when the case (segregation) is very extreme, it is important to not follow the laws.

According to the article entitled Crito by Plato, Socrates emphasized that it is important to follow all laws and regulations, which is shown when he states that “one must never do wrong… nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong” (Plato 49). Socrates explains that if an individual has harmed another human being, regardless of whether it is done intentionally or unintentionally, one should continue to respect the laws. Furthermore, Crito believed that “[he does] not think what [Socrates] is doing is just, to give up [his] life when [he] can save it, and… [believes that Socrates is] betraying his sons by going away… when [he] could bring them up and educate them” (Plato 45-46). Crito emphasizes that it is important to consider about the well-being of one’s family and persuades Socrates to escape his imprisonment by refusing to follow the laws (Plato). When Socrates emphasizes that it is important to always follow the laws, even when it causes his friends and family pain, this indicates why his strategies are not strong; and therefore, increases Martin Luther King’s credibility. For example, if an individual who was starving, stole fruits from a vegetable garden without the owner’s permission, then the law may state that this individual should be imprisoned. In this situation, Martin Luther King may suggest educating this person that stealing is not correct and give him a second chance. Perhaps, the reason may be that this individual had chosen to steal in order to feed his young starving children. This example depicts that perhaps it is possible that individuals may have committed wrongful acts during some point in their lives, and this will cause Martin Luther King to gain the trust of many others. This indicates that Martin Luther King’s strategies are stronger which makes him more credible and trustworthy, since he can relate to those who have faced these situations.

In order to further strengthen his argument, Crito reiterates his beliefs by stating that Socrates’ children ‘will probably have the usual fate of orphans [and suggests that] one should share with them to the end toil of upbringing and education’ (Plato 46). Despite Crito’s advice, Socrates refuses to disobey the laws because he believes that all regulations must be respected regardless of whether they are fair or unfair (Plato). For example, Socrates provides an example of the “human body”, where he explains that when an individual performs exercises, he should only listen to the teachings of the instructor who has expertise in that particular field (Plato 47). He further concludes that if this individual refuses to ‘[obey] the one, and disregards his opinions… then the harm is [inflicted] to his body’ (Plato 47). Socrates uses this analogy to explain that if an individual cares about the beliefs of the majority and ignores the views of the instructor, then the individual is causing more damage because one is not following the advice of the instructor and focusing more on what other people would say (Plato 47). Although Socrates provides an adequate amount of examples, Martin Luther King Jr.’s views are more credible regarding civil disobedience, since his strategies and arguments are stronger.

In conclusion, Martin Luther King’s views regarding civil disobedience are more credible than Socrates’ beliefs because King utilizes emotional language and concrete examples to support his arguments. By remaining hopeful and optimistic, Martin Luther King Jr. encourages individuals to disobey the laws because he can relate to other individuals who may have also experienced segregation. Ultimately, this displays that Martin Luther King Jr.’s views are more credible than Socrates’ views about civil disobedience.

“One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Background information strategy used during the 1950-1965, strategy used in North Carolina, and Alabama. Strategy used to get more rights that the black people should have. Strategy used by Rosa Parks, Greensboro four, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Nonviolence civil disobedience has proved to be the best strategy used during the Civil Rights Movement. Though there are many strategies to choose from during the Civil Rights Movement nonviolence is the best strategy out of all of them.

First, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was an event that used nonviolence and was extremely effective; it was led by Rosa Parks. The public awareness such as telling people about the event. Many people found out about this because Rosa Parks was a strong representation and was a well-known person. Communicating was also a reason, they communicated with the public many people across the community became aware of the boycott by the connection of Ms. Rosa Park. As a member of the African American community protested non-violence. The press and news stations were active in documenting their actions as well as the negative response from the police. The public soon realized that this protest was fighting against social injustice. The boycott also made an impact on the bus company’s income. According to Stanford, 75% of the riders were African Americans. During the boycott, 90% of the riders banned the busing system as this led to a huge economic impact for the city of Montgomery. Pressing the city to make changes segregation. Final reason why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful was because of the way it was organized. With the help of Martin Luther King Jr. and various organizations, activists were able to share information with other supporters to encourage them to be involved in the boycott. This event is one of the many reasons why the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement was effective to fight injustice.

Next, the sit-in was another event that used nonviolence, and it was also effective; this important event was led by the Greensboro Four. National media coverage of the Greensboro sit-ins sparked a sit-in movement that spread quickly to college towns throughout the South and into the North, as young Black and white people joined in various forms of peaceful protest against segregation in libraries, beaches, hotels and other establishments According to History.com, in response to the success of the sit-in movement, dining facilities across the South were being integrated by the summer of 1960. The men that organized the sit-in were Ezell Blair Jr., David Richmond, Franklin McCain and Joseph McNeil. They wanted the sit-in to be perfect that they used the nonviolent protest techniques practiced by Mohandas Gandhi, as well as the Freedom Rides. The sit-in impacted the economy drastically, the sit-in stopped the normal flow of business resulting in a decrease in profit, not only that it created disruption, and drawed unwanted publicity. This is another event that is one of the many reasons why the nonviolent Civil Rights Movement was effective to fight injustice.

Some people may think that the Black Power movement was the most effective because it was a peaceful march and was effective. However, this claim is invalid, because the protesters were being threatened with death threats, arrests, and threatened with tear gas, at one point James Meredith the leader of the protest was shot. Due to the information given we can conclude that the Black Power movement is a bad strategy, and that nonviolence is the only effective strategy.

The goal was to tell you why nonviolence civil disobedience is better than other strategies during the Civil Rights Movement. Some positive effects that happened when using this strategy led many people to join, and there was a bus strategy law change, and a law for voting rights. Using my strategy, you can fight injustice in today’s society, and make a difference in your local community.

Reference

1. History.com Editors. “Greensboro Sit-In”. History.com.

For most Americans, the ideological struggle between the Civil Rights and Black Power movements were centered on two individuals, Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X respectively. It is also generally socially accepted that Martin Luther’s philosophy prevailed and as such has been held up as the model for enacting social change in America, although often used to criticize the methods used by activists in the time since. This winner-loser dichotomy also ignored the similarities and resonance each leader found in the other towards the end of their lives. To further explore how effective Martin Luther King Jr.’s most famous philosophy has been since his untimely death, this paper will examine several instances of civil disobedience and the effect each had on either government policy, or social attitudes. This paper will start with a distillation of Martin Luther King Jr.’s methods and the intended effects then go on to look at different protests during the Vietnam War era, economic protest in the 1990s, and lastly modern day police reform movements. Hopefully, by examining several different instances, we can form a well rounded picture of how effective these methods are in solving social issues in a modern setting, or how otherwise to approach the problem of enacting change in America.

Martin Luther King Jr.’s most famous ideals in regards to action can be pretty completely found in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, written in April of 1963.The text was written after King and his followers were arrested in the City of Birmingham, Alabama, due to their protests in regards to the treatment of Black American citizens in the city. The text itself is a response to King’s fellow clergymen, who lodged criticisms against his direction action movement, and is a justification for the disruption caused by King’s comrades. King explicitly states that the purpose of his nonviolent direct action is to “create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.” While King isn’t content to sit back and wait for change to happen, as he says, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed” he recognizes the utility of exercising restraint, which is very in line with his Christian values. It is worth noting that King articulates how many options he and his compatriots have exhausted in trying to deal with the City of Birmingham, and thus breaking the law is his last resort. He elaborates that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws…and unjust law is no law at all.” This is an important detail to note as King’s nonviolence is often used as an example of the “right” way to protest while forgetting that he simultaneously endorsed civil disobedience as a way to draw attention to issues. King’s aim in Birmingham was clearly to intentionally provoke a response from the state, a response that many might see as poorly measured or excessive, thus drawing attention and sympathy for the cause. This is consistent with the concept of martyrdom that exists in the religious texts of not just Abrahamic faiths, but other religions around the world, creating a relatable, noble ideal that many people can connect with and admire. By doing so, King is leveraging Ethos and Pathos to garner support. It is also worth noting that by willing enduring hardship, King takes advantage of the paradox of authority, a concept that posits that the state’s power and legitimacy is derived from being able to utilize force, but each time it does so, it loses legitimacy in the eyes of the citizens. Ideally, the state exists to protect its constituents, and by exercising force, fails in its duty to do so. Interestingly, by undermining the authority of the state, King pushed people to find the status quo unacceptable, which was the environment that Malcolm X and many of his followers already inhabited at the time, showing that the two were more similar than popularly thought, further reinforced by how the two eventually became friends and hybridized their viewpoints and efforts.

Muhammad Ali, born Cassius Clay, is remembered as one of the greatest athletes ever, and most certainly the most famous prizefighter of all time. What separates Ali from many other notable athletes in history, however, is his willingness to sacrifice his career in the name of civil disobedience. A staunch civil rights supporter, Ali was affiliated with Elijah Muhammad and The Nation of Islam, later following Malcolm X during his split with Muhammad. Ali was heavily influenced by Malcolm X’s ideas in regards to the exploitation of Black Americans by sending them overseas to fight in wars, while White Americans waged war on their communities domestically. At this point in his career, Ali was already established as the heavyweight champion of the world at the age of 25, and during a time when boxing was a much bigger sport, he was truly a global icon in his athletic prime. Ali saw the influence he had, and decided to take a stand as a conscientious objector, at a time when there was still a large amount of support for the war. As a result, Ali was arrested, and found guilty of violating selective service laws, resulting in his passport being taken and every state suspending his license, in addition to stripping him of his championship belt. This was eventually overturned by the US Supreme Court, but not until four years later, when Ali was 29, which is a tremendous amount of time for anyone to be virtually unemployed, and a lifetime for a fighter to be out of competition. Giving up the greatest accomplishment in his field at the peak of his athletic prime brought Ali to the forefront of the anti-war movement, and before long he was going on tour to talk at universities about his philosophy and pacifism. This coincided with a larger change in social opinion to the war, the effects and causes of which will be explored later. Much like Martin Luther King Jr. before him, Ali was fully willing to bear the punishment of the state in a very public forum, exposing the hypocrisy of a nation founded on religious freedom forcing him to betray the teachings of his faith, or failing that, to punish him for keeping true to his faith. By bringing light to this hypocrisy from a position of visibility, he showed that no one was truly safe from the reach of the state.

While it is important to look at the leaders of historical movements, equally, or perhaps even more important, are their followers. The people marching in the streets behind Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the protestors around the country, all the draft dodgers, each played a small but crucial role in changing how society felt at those times and places. In this section we will examine the result the aforementioned leaders had on a more societal level using two examples, The Chicago Ten and The Kent State Massacre. These two instances are examples of what happens when individuals protest in both a law abiding non-violent manner, and the opposite. Both protests were in regards to the Vietnam War, and generally a display of a growing disillusionment among the American public towards the conflict. The Chicago protest occurred in 1968, while the Kent State Massacre occurred two years later in 1970, partially in regards to concerns that a new Cambodian offensive would delay the ending of the conflict in South East Asia. Additionally, both these examples are similar because they both are eventualities of the process and philosophy utilized by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. In both instances, groups of citizens had become extremely disillusioned by the lack of progress by the state. This tension had reached a breaking point, resulting in mass organization to express the frustrations of the group. In the case of The Chicago 10, the Democratic National Convention was being held in the city of Chicago at the time, and as such, a political group known as The Yippies organized a festival in the city to disrupt the convention and force the leaders of the Democratic Party to negotiate with them. Due to an issue with securing permits, and tensions stemming from the shooting of a 17-year-old boy by police for curfew violation, a large police force was assembled to contain or disperse the protestors, with things eventually escalating into a riot. Although the protest turned violent, and a lot of police officers and protestors were hurt, no one was killed during the riot. Eight individuals were put on trial for inciting the riot, notably including Black Panther founder Bobby Seale, despite him not being an organizing member of the protest, and only having been in town for two days. Seale eventually was tried separately from the other members of “The Chicago Eight” and while all were convicted, Seale was the only one to serve time, before having his sentence suspended in 1972. The Kent State Massacre is quite a bit better known so the background will be covered in less detail. In comparison to the Chicago protests, the one at Kent state was a lot more peaceful, while including people who would be considered more respectable by conventional measure. However, the response by the state was much more severe. National Guard were called in to manage the situation and ended up firing on the crowd, killing several students and wounding more. The discrepancy in how each group acted and was subsequently treated is important for examining the effect each incident had on The Vietnam War. It is also important to note that the Chicago Protests occurred at a time when there was less relative support for the Vietnam War, compared to the Kent State Massacre. Of the two, it should be safe to say that the state’s reaction to the Kent State protest was disproportionately more severe, and as thus has become a more notable part of the nation’s history. It is widely cited and taught as a major turning point for public opinion against the war. The comparison of both events seems to suggest that at that time, Martin Luther King Jr.’s martyrdom approach, when taken to the extreme, is more successful in shocking the public and exposing hypocrisy. Which is not to minimize the efforts of The Chicago Ten, who were also very influential in shaping anti-war sentiment and drawing attention to the inaction of politicians, which had a definite butterfly effect impact on the Kent State students. Furthermore, and perhaps more interestingly, these two examples also show that the dichotomy of punishments for protest aren’t always exactly straightforward, highlighting one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s main points in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail. Simply obeying the law does not prevent the law from coming down on you, as evidenced at Kent State.

The next significant direct action protest that should be discussed is the 1999 Seattle WTO protests. Examining this incident will be useful as it is close to modern times, and should show how the ideals of Martin Luther King Jr. have evolved in their implementation and how society’s reaction to these ideals have changed. Many of the protestors were environmentalists, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, and people concerned with labor issues. The idea of the direct action was to both disrupt the conference, thus delaying policy counter to the goals of the groups involved, while also raising awareness of globalism and trade issues, which at the point in time, did not get much attention from the mainstream media. Much like the protests in Chicago, the initial plan was to occupy much of the streets around the hotels of the delegates and convention center in order to stop people from convening and otherwise cause issues for the easy facilitation of talks. These efforts were largely more successful in the primary phase, due to new methods of communication allowing for more precise organization by the protestors, but much like Chicago and Kent State, it eventually devolved into violence with the arrival of militarized police, the National Guard, and out of state agencies. While many on both sides were injured, and more than 500 of the approximately 40,000 protestors were arrested, no one died, likely a result of policy and training implemented in the aftermath of the Kent State massacre. So how successful was the direct action? While the “Battle in Seattle” didn’t end a war, it did achieve the goal of bringing certain issues to the forefront of public consciousness, such as globalization and foreign exploitation of labor, issues that would become hot topic points of conversation in the coming years. This heightened attention has led to it being a major topic for politicians to address and subsequently has likely had a strong effect on policy. The protests also had major ramification for the WTO, as it was the first significant operational roadblock they had encountered, and their subsequent round of negotiations, known as The Doha round and started in 2001, have yet to be concluded, essentially stalling the organization. There was also immediate fallout in local politics, with the Seattle chief of police resigning immediately, and the sitting mayor losing his next reelection, which many attribute to how his administration reacted to the protests. This example serves to show how as the responses of the state change over time, the actions and tactics of protestors must also evolve, and that similar actions in different points of time can yield very different results.

The last instance for examination is much more recent and refocused on the original issue, rather than extrapolating theory to other examples. At the start of the 2016 NFL season, San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick became a national talking point for taking a stand against police brutality by sitting during the pre-game national anthem ceremony. During the last game of the preseason, Kaepernick switched to kneeling for the anthem after a conversation with Seahawks long snapper and former Green Beret Nate Boyer, as a compromise between protesting and minimizing disrespect for the armed forces, which was a key criticism lodged against Kaepernick. The kneeling was part of a general social discussion regarding police brutality after the deaths of Eric Garner and Tamir Rice, although many more victims were included. The protests coincided with the birth of the Black Lives Matter movement, and soon spread not only to other teams, but other sports, including such notable figures as US Women’s National Team super star Megan Rapinoe and Formula 1 driver Lewis Hamilton showing support for Kaepernick. The movement and Kaepernick also received backlash in equal measure, with President Donald Trump famously encouraging action against Kaepernick and the NFL, as well as other athletes who joined Kaepernick is his protest. Kaepernick eventually requested a release from his contract form the 49ers, and after being unable to find a position with any other team, left football to pursue activism, leading many to posit that he had been blackballed from the league as a result of his actions. Kaepernick’s story holds many similarities to Muhammad Ali’s protest of the Vietnam War, as both were athletes who used their position to bring attention to an issue they felt passionate about, and in doing so were branded traitors or unpatriotic for disrespecting the military, and thus risking their professional careers. It is worth noting that Kaepernick has repeatedly stated he is not disrespecting the military, which is supported by his change in protest style following a meeting with Nate Boyer. It’s still a bit early to tell what the complete effect this movement might have in the US, but it is undeniable that Kaepernick contributed heavily to bringing the conversation to a much bigger scale and prolonged the cultural relevancy of the topic. It is also important to note that in comparison to the other examples, police brutality isn’t as universally relevant to Americans, namely due to it being primarily a black and Hispanic issue, so the social backlash against this movement has been stronger than the others.

There’s a sort of running joke in social science, particularly economics, which states that all theories go to hell once you bring them into the real world and introduce real people. As such, the application or assertion that one particular mode of protest is “right” or more effective, without taking into consideration an exponentially increasing vector of contextual details is minimizing at best. That isn’t to say that strategies and philosophy can’t be passed down, but to expect things to turn out consistently despite a constantly changing society is unreasonable. As demonstrated by these examples, the same approach can yield wildly different results.

How do the ideas of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X illustrate the similarities and differences in their perspective on social civil rights? Dr. King and Malcolm X were both civil rights leaders and they both wanted freedom for all people, but just in a different way. In “Stride Toward Freedom” by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he believed that violence was not a way of achieving racial justice and that it was both impractical and immoral. On the other hand, in Malcolm X’s interview with Crane, he stated that he believed African Americans accomplished more obstacles and got their freedom by letting the violence happens, and also joining the violence, so that the government is willing to deal with the problems happening in society.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. felt as though non-violence represented the love for each other instead of hatred towards each other. King wrote, “Nonviolence is imperative in order to bring about ultimate community” (King, 11, 4). King believed that violence is unpleasant and evil. Dr. King felt like God created this Earth so that people and can experience life by connecting with others and showing love towards each other. King led non-violent protests to fight for the rights of all people including African Americans. He hopes that America would come together as a society to look passed race so it wouldn’t impact people civil rights.

On the other hand, in contrast to King belief, Malcolm X wanted violence to happen. Malcolm X felt as though the government wasn’t willing to protect the lives of the people and that Americans should do whatever it takes to protect themselves against humanity. As Malcolm X says in his interview with Crane, “It’s only fair to expect us to do whatever is necessary to protect ourselves” (X, 4, 2). Malcolm X believed that Americans wouldn’t get your freedom nor self-respect if they let a different person treat them like they are nothing to them. Malcolm X believed that African Americans and White Americans felt as though you should fight for freedom and violence the key to getting towards that goal you are trying to accomplish.

Both men fought to stop segregation and both of them worked hard to get equal rights. Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. Even though both men didn’t see eye to eye on methods to solve racial problems, they felt like they both had great abilities to achieve their goal of getting freedom. Dr. Martin Luther King felt he should have non-violent protests to get Americans their freedom or rights and Malcolm X felt like violence was the key to getting what they deserve and that was freedom.

Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X messages on social civil rights in many different ways. Dr. King wanted peaceful protests, while Malcolm X was willing to do whatever it takes to get equality. All though both men wanted to achieve the same goal, they had different ideas and ways of getting what they needed. They had their differences, but at the end of the struggle, they both had a dream and that was to make life better.

I will be talking about the works of Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau. I will also be including my opinion on them.Thoreau first talks about how glad he is that people are fighting for what is right..He also talks about how people should not participate in the misleading government and then mentions how they are not being pressured to participate in the misleading government.Thoreau then talks about how a government is not really useful and doesn’t really represent what people really think.He talks about how corrupt the government usually get and how abused it is.He also talks about how it would be better to have a government that doesn’t really govern the people.

‘Civil disobedience’ was written by Henry Thoreau.He does civil disobedience himself in his daily life. He also prioritizes one’s sense of right and wrong over the rule of law.He thinks that people shouldn’t follow the unjust government and also adds all the harm the government does and how it can’t be justified.He talked about the unjust government and the rules they had in Civil Disobedience.He also talked about how if he broke the unjust rules and was unjustly locked up in prison. He said “the true place for a just man is also a prison” while he was locked up.He took responsibility for breaking the law.Thoreau believed that reality exists only in the spiritual world, and the solution to people’s problems was the free development of emotions .Henry believed in many spiritual and natural ideas.He would include this in restructuring towards a better government. He believed transcendentalism which means he was very optimistic and believed in the self.

The ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ was written by Martin Luther King Jr. during the Birmingham protest of 1963. He wrote this when he was falsely arrested and sent to prison. He also wrote about many unjust things that were going on in that time period and how the people of color were treated.The primary aim of the ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ is to promote his organizations like the Civil Rights Movement. He also wrote it so that people wouldn’t use violent resistance for the injustice they felt. He replied to the numerous criticisms of his incarceration. He then introduced a set of methods to do a nonviolent campaign.What Martin Luther King Jr meant by civil disobedience is to have a peaceful protest against the injustice. Many people of the time used violence as a way to get freedom.He didn’t like violence and wanted to solve the unjust with a peaceful method.Using a peaceful method would bring more positive results than the violent method.

Civil disobedience is not protected by the first amendment. Individuals who participate in civil disobedience can be punished or charged. It is not protected under the First Amendment and it is regarded as unlawful.It is considered violating the law such that it has its pros and cons from both perspectives.Both of the literature works have common civil issues during their time period. They both speak about how unfair the government is. They all have similar but different reasoning for their aim.Martin also has more views on nonviolent actions compared to Thoreau. Thoreau speaks further about the corrupt government and how horrible it was.I think that thoughts are still relevant in today’s society. I think the issue is still relevant because it is still happening till this day. It got bigger recently because of the black lives matter movement.I support civil disobedience and I participate in many protests on many similar matters.

Nobody has the same morals, beliefs, or even opinions. Morality does not have a true right or wrong because of everyone’s individuality. Since everyone has their own opinions, they should have the right to voice those opinions; there are several ways of doing so. As a citizen, an individual with my own beliefs, I believe I have the right to not comply with laws if I feel morally obligated to do so. In certain ways it seems as if it’s the only way to make any progress, is to speak up.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white man, it was one of the most notable civil disobedience events that occured in the u.s in 1955. Her denying her seat provoked the beginning of the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It’s success produced efforts from coast to coast to end racial segregation of public places and businesses. Civil disobedience is the moral refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands by a government and uses non-violent demonstrations. Sit-ins, blockades, marches, and hunger strikes were all staged tactics used by people who are trying to raise awareness about issues in our society. Citizens should have the right to refuse to obey a law if it breaks their own morals because of it.

Throughout his life, Thoreau gave an emphasis to the importance of one’s individuality and self-reliance. He practiced civil disobedience in his life and from that he spent a night in jail for refusing to pay his taxes in protest of the Mexican War. While he was in jail for that night there a speculations that this is when it prompted Thoreau to write Civil Disobedience. Thoreau himself claimed that, “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies…

In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well” (Thoreau 3). Thoreau is demonstrating that this mentality does not help to make moral decisions because there is a rational sense of conformity to regulations that people feel they should follow. He explains that to be an individual you have to realize that you need to put your beliefs before the conformist’s idea.