The sixties was a decade full of notable events. It continues to live on in the hearts of many people today, and not just to those who were there to witness the intriguing happenings of this popular decade, but also to the succeeding generations who try to re-live some of the excitement as well as pain that was experienced then. From fashion to politics, successful landing on the moon to decolonization in Africa, painful assassinations to revolution in the music and film industries, the sixties is here to stay. This paper will focus on some of the social protests that took place in the sixties.
Two major events brought about social protests in the sixties, and these are the Civil Rights Movements and the Vietnam War.
By the 1960s, it had been almost a hundred years since the end of the civil war, which had been one of the deadliest wars ever fought in American history. This war caused thousands of deaths of soldiers and civilians and undetermined number of casualties. It brought an end to slavery in the United States and strengthened the role of the federal government, shaping events that led the USA to be the Super Power that it is today. The fact that an end to slavery had been realized did not immediately bring the equivalent social changes. Discrimination was still on an all-time high and the whites could not in any way mingle with the blacks (Mc Adam, Doug; Process and the development of Black insurgency, 1930-1970). There was segregation in the buses, places of eating, at work places, and even at water points. Many groups and organizations had been formed to look into issues of racial injustice and equality in the US, albeit at very slow progress. It was therefore in the sixties that a hundred years of effort erupted and movements began protesting in order to gather the attention that would bring this change once and for all. While some groups advocated for peaceful methods to bring about the change, other groups believed in the “eye for an eye” response and a division of the races.
Dr. Martin Luther King was a significant civil rights leader in the sixties and is renowned for the ‘I have a dream’ speech, found himself as the main spokesperson for peaceful protests. King endorsed peaceful methods and believed that nonviolent confrontation with the authorities as well as probing the conscience of the white people would bring about the change that they were fighting for ( Branch, Taylor; At Canaan’s Edge: America in the King years). He was the president of the Southern Leadership Christian Council and together with his followers organized countless marches, rallies and protests. On March 25th 1965, he managed to organize one of the most notable marches of the civil rights era. His supporters marched from Selma, Alabama, to the courthouse in Montgomery, which was a fifty-mile walk where about forty thousand men, women and children were estimated to have participated.
King was assassinated on the evening of April 4th 1968. He had gone to Memphis to support sanitation workers who were protesting discrimination in their workplaces. As expected, fighting and rage immediately followed, as many of King’s supporters took to the streets to protest the assassination.
Other notable people who led riots in the sixties include Malcolm X, Eldridge Cleaver and Leroi Jones. They however had a different idea of ending inequality and racial injustices. They led groups that advocated for complete separation of the races, promoting black power and arguing that the black race was superior to the white race.
The Vietnam War remains to be controversial till today many claiming that it was a war that had neither clear beginning nor ending (Loure, Alf; Tell me lies about Vietnam: Cultural battles for the meaning of the war).
The American government began supporting the government of South Vietnam so that they could win against North Vietnam and the USSR, which were mounting a guerilla war. They did this by first sending them military advisors. In 1964, the US Senate approved the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving support to President Johnson to increase US involvement in the war and to take whatever actions he deemed necessary to defend the South Vietnamese. In 1965, 1,500 marine troops were sent to Vietnam and by 1968, 500,000 troops were stationed there. Every Thursday, the toll on the American soldiers killed, which was over a hundred a week, was reported (www.vietnam-war.info).
With the war not coming to an end, protests began as to the validity of it in the first place. The Johnson administration reacted by guaranteeing the American people that the ‘next round’ of troops would bring victory. The faith of the Americans diminished when the enemy, allegedly on the brink of caving in, mounted the Tet Offensive in 1968. Americans began to feel deceived by their own government. Critics, both military and civilian, started voicing their disapproval, with the former pointing out that the war was political and therefore the military mission had no clear objectives and the former arguing that the government of South Vietnam was not valid and that supporting them was morally wrong.
Opposition to the war continued to escalate. Young men feared being sent to the war, hundreds of them fleeing to Canada and Sweden. Others found compassionate doctors who exempted them from being drafted on a medical basis while college-going students took advantage of the student deferment. Still, others joined the National Guard or the Peace Corps knowing that this would exempt them from the war.
At the beginning of the war, few Americans opposed it. The first protest actually took place in December of 1964. Twenty-five thousand people marched to Washington on that day. It was the largest march against the war in the history of America and it brought to the open the sentiments of the people about the war. Some people even publicly burnt themselves to death just so they could make a point to the government. Others burnt their draft cards in large anti-war meetings after being inspired by David Miller in 1965 who was the first to publicly burn his draft card. The government started prosecuting when it was apparent that young men were refusing to be drafted into the army. The most well-known of those that refused to be drafted was Mohammed Ali, the renowned boxing champion.
Blacks and other minorities felt that the war was too expensive as it was costing the taxpayers sixty-six million dollars daily. The poor people who could not afford college felt victimized as they could not enjoy the student deferment. This prompted riots in many black neighborhoods. These demonstrations continued to gradually increase throughout the sixties. Over a million Americans took part in one protest march in New York. The most remarkable protest was when members of the armed forces themselves left Vietnam, many of them questioning the morality of the war. In 1967, heroes of the war staged a demonstration all over America, with many of them injured. They discarded the medals they had won fighting in the war.
Non-violent protest is a way of passing the message across without employing forceful means. Gandhi (2001) considers non-violent protest to be the kind of protest that has no defeat. Gandhi (2001) further tells us about its principles, “The first principle of non-violence is the non-compliance with everything that is humiliating.” In this case, it is not a sign of fear but stronger than violence. Further, he gives more explanation on this. He says, “The power of disposal of a non-violent person is always greater than he would have if he was violent.”
Human beings are the only creatures who can differentiate between good and evil. They, therefore, need to use their intellect and will to guide their reactions to oppression in the best way possible. It is important to realize that violence for violence is more destructive. Shelley (2012) trusted the idea of the power of the human mind. He believed that the mind is very useful in changing circumstances using non-violent ways. His last few stanzas of the poem The Mask of Anarchy show that non-violent is the best means of countering slavery.
Shelley (2012) proclaimed “… Like a forest close and mute,/ With folded arms and looks which are/ Weapons of unvanquished war Here, he reveals how people can approach their protest. Those who use violent ways will not last. The last laugh goes to those who approach it using non-violent protest. It is the best way to solve a problem.
When one engages in non-violent means to solve a problem, they reduce the physical suffering of the people. Non-violence does oppose the physical punishment to the victims. It respects the first moral principles that apply to all beings. It always encourages doing well and avoiding evil. It links all human beings to the true meaning of creation. This type of protest is simpler to take. It utilizes the human intellect and will. This is contrary to using violence that can lead to the use of manufactured weapons.
Non-violent protest is the most influential type of protest. This is because those involved use peace to attract the masses for their support. Their communication is always attractive, making their oppressors agree to listen to them. The oppressors get ashamed of disrupting peace if they employ force. In this case, they do not use force to reject their ideas. They employ dialogue that is the best means of solving crises.
According to the poem, The Mask of Anarchy, the consequences of violence are deaths, damages, slavery, and destruction among others. However, the last stanzas call for non-violent means to counter all damages. Gandhi (2001) cautions those who still think that violence is the way to go. He states that “So long as one wants to retain one’s sword, one has not attained complete fearlessness.” This is evident that man can obtain complete courage through non-violent means.
Non-violence brings about fewer losses to property and life. It is a professional way of countering looting and killing. It values property belonging to fellow human beings. Its main target is the freedom of the human race as it is, God made us be free. It uses the simplest means available to achieve the peace we seek every day. It is the only way to get out of violence as Gandhi (2001) puts it, “Mankind has to get out of violence only through non-violence.” He added that hatred is a vice that encourages violence. It is the worst action in which human beings can be involved. Love is the answer.
It is cheaper to train people to use non-violent means than using violent means. Gandhi (2001) argues that “Human dignity is best preserved not by developing the capacity to deal with destruction but by refusing to retaliate.” In this case, he views the training of humankind to adopt non-violent ways simpler compared to the training of people to use violence. He wonders why people still think that non-violence is difficult to learn. He considers it to be easier to use than using violence.
It is through non-violent protest that the opposition agrees to use non-violent means to solve the problem. This shows how good the peaceful means to promote peace even to the opposition. Alternatively, if one chooses to use violence to obtain a good, there will be violent retaliation. It is worthy to note that when one uses violence to counter violence, they cause double the damage. It does not lead to a solution.
Non-violence is preferable since it counters the cycle of violence and counter-violence. We should advocate it in all conflicts that we should solve. It is a useful way of getting things in order especially when we need a long-term solution. This is contrary to violence where a party uses it to gain control of a situation. It is more permanent as the two parties reach a common agreement, unlike violence. In violence, the one who loses the war agrees to the rules set by his conqueror.
When a non-violent brings about the common agreement, there is an option for future evaluation of the cord and immediate changing if need be. This is a good way of getting the best deal compared to engaging in violence. In violence, one agrees to the rules of his/her conqueror. However, they later retaliate when they feel that they can overcome the enemy.
Violence makes it very difficult to focus on matters at hand. Society is always in fear and panic. The media focuses on coverage of war instead of focusing on the main problem and its possible solutions. It is even confusing because it is difficult to get evidence in a place affected by social unrest.
Solving crises using non-violent means is the main teaching from different denominations and religions. This means that one who employs non-violent ways in solving a problem gets support from these religious bodies. This leads to quick solving of that problem.
Non-violence creates a foundation for a way of life. It is the only method of promoting unity among the human race. It is the only way to use it in solving our problems. It opens the way to self-realization as God created human beings to love and serve each other in their best ways possible.
Violent protests are the main source of shading blood. In the world today, the major crises to people are because of violence. The major problem commonly seen in developing countries is a dictatorship. This is an issue of concern considering the percentage of a nation’s resources taken by these dictators. Due to this, there are more struggles for power in order to gain wealth. The rebel groups arise and fight the government in an attempt to gain control of the rich resources for their wealth
To conclude, the country experiences many problems if its people engage in violence as their means of solving crises. It is clear that they spend most resources to sustain war instead of developing the nation. On contrary, there is higher economic growth in the countries that use non-violence. Human Labor spends more time destroying than building the nation. Therefore, violence is not the answer to crises.
References
Gandhi, M. (2001). Non-Violent Resistance. St. Mineola, New York: Dove Publication.
Shelley P. (2012).The Masque of Anarchy (Kindle ed.) London: BiblioBazaar.
It is June 12, 2019, and Hong Kong remains as agitated and indignant as it was for several days in a row. A recently introduced bill to extradite some categories of criminals to mainland China, potentially exposing Hongkongers to unfair trials, provoked widespread resentment among the 7.5 million of the local population. The city that enjoys increased autonomy and civil liberties under “one country, two systems” arrangement ever since its return to China in 1997 remains ever-vigilant of the national government’s attempts to restrict its freedoms and erupts in protests. These remain peaceful so far – as recently as June 9, more than one million people marched across the city’s streets to demand the withdrawal of the controversial bill, and no violence occurred. However, the story does not repeat itself as peacefully on June 12. As the protestors gather outside the Legislative Council Complex to impede the bill’s second reading, clashes with the law enforcement begin, which the police disperses using tear gas and rubber bullets.
Stephen Lo Wai-chung, Commissioner of Police, categorizes the protests as “riots,” which raises the question of what will be the fate of the dozens of protestors arrested in the clashes of June 12. Several days later, as the protests grow stronger, he backpedals on his words and explains that police do not categorize any and all participants of the protest as “rioters.” According to the Commissioner, he only applied the term to those who have actively engaged the police with metal poles or bricks, and those not involved in violent clashes with law enforcement should and will not be classified as rioters. Still, five people already arrested for rioting during the first days of the protest and twice as more are charged with violent crimes. Commissioner also insists that some of the events outside the Legislative Council Complex were “rioting situations” and refuses to apologize to peaceful protestors injured in the process of dispersing them. The implications of the statement are clear: as far as the authorities are concerned, Hong Kong protestors are rioters, and even those who do not fall under the term legally still deserve the same treatment.
Main body
Riots – that is the world that has largely dominated the public discourse of Hong Kong protests for the past eleven months. After first being used by Hong Kong Police after the events of June 12, the term has become inseparable from the protests themselves. The authorities cling to it with an adamant conviction, consistent in their attempts to portray the protestors as little more than street ruffians opposed to law and order. The protestors themselves reject the official moniker as a mockery of their struggle for civil liberties. They have even made retracting it one of their core demands, along with the amnesty for the arrested prisoners, independent inquiry into police brutality, and universal suffrage for the elections to the city’s Legislative Council. The term initially used to describe the civil unrest in Hong Kong without much thought had since become a political problem in its own right. This raises a question of why, of all the colorful language used in the course of the civil unrest in Hong Kong, “riots” and “rioters” become the stumbling block worthy of including in the protestors’ political agenda.
One apparent reason to be opposed to the official word use so fiercely was offered mere days after the term was used for the first time. Indeed, “riot” is not a word to be tossed around lightly if one looks at its potential judicial implications. When using it may as well be an accusation of a serious crime with real and legally binding consequences, one would be completely right to oppose such characterization of one’s actions at all costs – if only to protect oneself from persecution. That interpretation was exactly what Commissioner Lo Wai-chung meant when explaining his first use of the term to describe the events of June 12. As long as such words as ”riot” and “rioters” remain not mere pejoratives, but charges with considerable legal implications for those accused, any person who values his or her life and liberty is entitled to oppose them. From this perspective, then, the case is solved: protesting Hongkongers make a firm stand against being called “rioters” to avoid criminal prosecution for their participation in the protests.
Yet while it would be infinitely easier to interpret the protestors’ opposition to the word in legal terms, this explanation does not hold up all too well. The major obstacle to such an interpretation is, ironically, the very fact that the protesting Hongkongers made retracting it one of their core demands. There are five of those in total – hence the unofficial slogan of the protests, “Five demands, not one less” – and one of them is the amnesty for all those arrested for the participation. The protestors are obviously concerned about their legal prospects, but there is a specific demand in their list to account for this concern – and it is not the one that addresses the authorities’ choice of words. If potential prosecution was the only reason why Hongkongers rejected the official term used to designate them, a demand to retract it would be redundant when there already is a specific and encompassing demand of an amnesty. It seems that judicial wordplay is not at the core of the problem after all, and the requirement to abolish the term “riots” when speaking about Hong Kong protests has deeper implications.
Another possible – and only slightly less obvious – explanation is that the official term used by the authorities paints the protests in a bad light. This interpretation is not without merit, as the words “riot” or “rioters” have profoundly negative connotations for most people and will likely put the unwitting audience in a desired state of mind. Should an openly derogatory term, such as “riots,” become an accepted denomination for Hong Kong protests, it may well be a catastrophe for the public image of those who participate in them and the process as a whole. As the world observes the developments in Hong Kong closely, media representation of the conflicting sides becomes more and more important. Acquiescing to the word that paints the protestors in a negative light without a fight means admitting a defeat on the symbolical battlefield – something no sensible person would do while there is at least a meager chance of victory. Thus, the protestors’ opposition to the term may be an indication that they do not want any negative associations attached to them, whether in Hong Kong, in China as a whole, or on the world stage.
It seems to be the case, at least to a certain extent, as the protesting Hongkongers have always paid careful attention to the matters of language. In the course of several months that the protests span over, the city’s denizens devised a slang of their own to describe the events they participate in. Some of these are cheerful and uplifting – for instance, protesting Hongkongers refer to each other as “Sau Zuk” (手足) or “hands and feet,” stressing that they are parts of one body and have to stick to each other. Other neologisms can also be fairly innocent – for instance, the protestors may use the Cantonese words “Cheen Laam” (淺藍) or “Sum Laam (深藍),” literally “light blue” or “deep blue,” in a figurative sense. Since blue, as opposed to the protestors’ yellow, is viewed as the color of the police and their supporters, these terms describe pro-government affiliation. With that much effort put into developing the lingua franca of the protests, it is only logical to assume that Hongkongers will pay particular attention to the terms describing themselves.
Indeed, there is a tendency for the protestors to use euphemisms as a workaround for negative terms that may not be beneficial to the depiction of their cause. Instead of openly admitting participation in the violent clashes, a person may use the term “Faht Moong” (發) – “dreaming” – and say that he or she “dreamt” about it. “Hahng Gaai” (行街), the Cantonese for “shopping” may also designate the participation in the protests without openly referring to it. “Chut Morh Faht” (出魔法), which translates as “use magic,” may refer to starting fires – a tactic sometimes used by the more radical protestors who set the barricades ablaze. In all these cases, Hongkongers refrain from using a negative and potentially incriminating term and adopt an innocent-sounding slang equivalent instead. It is easy to speculate that the terms “riots” and “rioters” face such an opposition for the exact same reason – that is, due to their unpleasant connotations.
Yet this explanation, for all its merits, cannot fully account for the protestors’ terminological preferences either. The mere fact that someone uses a disparaging word to describe the protestors does not necessarily mean they will openly oppose it as a part of their agenda. In some cases, the police referred to the protesting Hongkongers as “Gaat Zaat” (曱甴) or “cockroaches,” but this word, for all the troubling implications of dehumanization, did not make it into the Five Demands. Other derogatory monikers have even experienced a complete turnaround, as the protestors turned them into a badge of honor. This was what happened to “Zi Jau Hai” (自由閪), which may be literally translated as “freedom c*nt” – a profanity initially used to offend the protesters by then proudly adopted by them. It seems that it is not enough for the term to be derogatory and paint the protests in the negative light to earn such fierce opposition. While Hong Kong protestors are undoubtedly aware of the importance of language, there is more to their rejection of the word “rioters” than its insulting meaning.
Of all the disparaging remarks used to describe them, Hongkongers have chosen “rioters” to make their rallying cry against the government crackdown on their protests. Since this choice cannot be completely reduced to either potential legal consequences of the sheer negativity inherent in the term, it is, perhaps, the time to look at the meaning of the word more closely. Admittedly, the actual term that proved to be the stumbling block is not the English “rioter,” but the Cantonese “Bou Tou” (暴徒), which makes using the English dictionary definition a slippery slope. Still, Hong Kong protests receive wide international coverage, a considerable part of which is in English, and the perception of the events by the international community is important for both sides of the conflict. Considering this, looking at the English word “rioter” is still a reasonable way to assess the representation that the protestors struggle against.
Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “riot” as “a violent public disorder,” thus making the “rioters” the participants of such an event. It would be hard to deny that some parts of this definition are applicable to the events unfolding in Hong Kong since June 2019. While the protests started as a peaceful manifestation of Hongkongers’ political demands – “peaceful, rational, non-violent” was one of their original slogans – they escalated rather quickly, and violent clashes between the protestors and the police occurred more than once since then. The “public” part would be hard to deny as well – if anything, the sheer magnitude of the protests made it impossible for anything but the public spaces to accommodate their numbers. On the fateful day of June 12, the first clashes happened outside the Legislative Council Complex – a public space if there ever was one – and then the conflict spilled over to the streets and shopping malls. When public spaces become the battlefield between the protestors and the law enforcement, it corresponds literally to the second part of the dictionary definition of “riot.”
That brings the inquiring reader to the final and the most important question of all: are Hong Kong protests, public and occasionally violent as they are, a disorder? Answering it requires going back to June 2019 when it all began – to the initial protests when the word “riot” has not even been used yet.
On June 12, when the people marched to the Legislative Council Complex unaware of the clashes that would break out soon, there were no Five Demands yet. No one could demand amnesty for those arrested for participation, as the arrests have not occurred at that point. No one could call for retracting the term “rioters,” as the word was yet to be spoken. The only reason that brought Hongkongers to the streets of their city in a unified protest was their opposition to the extradition bill that was going through its second reading at the time. Allowing the extradition to mainland China and exposing Hongkongers to potentially unfair trials undermined one of the pillars of the city’s autonomy – and this was the sole original reason why the people protested. In June 2019, Hongkongers did not come on the streets to challenge the existing order of things – they have come to preserve this order against those who would see it undone. A bitter irony of being labeled “rioters” when they stand for the established order rather than against it was what propelled the people of Hong Kong to oppose the controversial term.
This juxtaposition of “riot” and “order” reaches to the very core of Hongkongers’ refusal to accept or rework the official moniker, as they have done with other derogatory terms thrown at them. “Cockroach,” for all its dehumanizing potential, is merely an insult shouted by an exasperated enemy, and “freedom c*nt” may even be adopted as an honorary title, as it designates its bearers as freedom fighters. Yet the connotations inherent in “riot” leave no potential for a positive reinterpretation of the term, as they already hint at the outcome of the struggle. As John Harington famously said, “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it Treason.” Should the protests succeed, they do not stay in history as “riots.” While “protests” invoke the image of responsible citizens voicing their concerns, “riots” are something to be cracked upon without mercy or hesitation. Using the term to designate Hong Kong protestors not merely goes against the definition, but implicitly suggests they are bound to lose – a perspective that no Hongkonger devoted to his or her home city would accept.
Conclusion
In the late 1860s in the United States, a former Confederate officer James Innes Randolph wrote the poem titled “O I’m a good old rebel.” Beginning with these very words and soon adopted as a folk song across the defeated South, the poem decried the outcome of the American Civil War and expressed a bitter resentment toward the victorious Northern states. Yet for all its bitterness, the very name of the song signaled the acceptance of defeat – by calling himself a “rebel,” Randolph recognized that his attempt failed and would be forever known henceforth as nothing more than a “rebellion.” Aware of the implications, Hong Kong protestors are in no rush to proclaim themselves “good old rioters.” As long as they reject the official moniker – all the more unfitting since they stand for the existing order rather than against it – they preserve hope for the victorious outcome of their struggle.
Demonstrations and protests are forms of skirmishes that are led by a group of people for a particular cause or in order to achieve a specific result. It may involve the group of people marching or gathering at a designated venue to hold rallies and voice their concerns.
Protests by the militia turn out to usually involve some form of violent actions and this necessitates the involvement of the police to safeguard the public as well as public property. Such demonstrations could well turn out to be commencement of warfare if not well handled.
As such, the department of the Police Force tasked with managing and controlling such crowds is essentially the anti-riot police. The encounters the police have with the demonstrators should however be within the law because constitutionally, it is the right of the aggrieved parties to voice their views as long as their actions remain within the acceptable limits of the law (American Library Association, 2013).
Under the Fourth Amendment, the law clearly states that, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” (Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, 2013).
Under the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute, 2013).
Arresting an individual refers to employing officially permissible power to take away their rights in regard to moving about as well as their free will to do the same. The law in the United States requires that prior to arresting someone, that person must be given the Miranda warning which is a means of clarifying the individual’s rights.
This provides an advantage for the suspects in that they cannot unintentionally incriminate themselves. The Miranda warning states that the individual should be made knowledgeable of the right to remain silent, the right to seek advice from a legal representative and have the legal representative in attendance throughout the duration of questioning, and the right to have a lawyer prearranged if one cannot afford to have one.
Without this legal process, any accusations leveled against the accused are dismissible in a court of law. Title 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 protects protestors in that whoever denies them their constitutional rights shall be answerable in the courts of law, unless a ruling was dishonored (Forsythe, 2013).
The current case law on protests is such that the legislation permits those charged with arraigning cases related to protests and demonstrations to indict any person who gains access to any structure devoid of authorization or with the objective to cause disorder to a gathering that is congregating in the name of the government, with a national misdemeanor.
This is especially the case if the Secret Service is present on the location. However, the ruling does not only limit this scenario to the presidential residential settings but also to any other construction or premise which the president takes a trip to even if it is just for a short period of time, as long as it has an implication on national matters.
Also included in this list are all other individuals under the protection of the Secret Service. This clearly means that it becomes a felony to interrupt any function attended by such personalities.
When we put into consideration that searches and seizures which are the two main ways by which the police and other law enforcement agencies gather evidence of a crime, it may be important to note that the law requires that any investigation of an individual, property as well as incarceration of crime scene substantiation must be reasonable.
One prerequisite which cannot be ignored is that of a search warrant from a judge. This entails details of the location, individuals concerned and what they may decide to confiscate; though if there is a crisis, they may be overlooked.
Also required is that in responding to a planned demonstration, the police force may employ extra law enforcement protection to deter violence during events expected to excite the interests of the public, and they may institute reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on all groups wishing to protest (Find Law, 2013).
Nonetheless, people cannot be deprived of their constitutional right to demonstrate on publicly in whatever form be it through marching, debates or rallies. All this is on condition that any assemblage must acquire authorization in form of a permit that specifies the time, venue and mode in which their activities will take place to guarantee the security and order of the public (Forsythe, 2013).
Reference List
American Library Association. (2013). First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Web.
Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. (2013). First Amendment. Web.
Find Law. (2013). Search and Seizure. Web.
Forsythe. (2013). A guide to civil rights liability under 42 u.s.c. § 1983: An overview of supreme court and eleventh circuit precedent. Web.
The world and society around us are continually changing – old traditions and foundations are being destroyed, transformations are taking place in politics, public relations, and other areas. Such events can be the beginning of social dissatisfaction and, as a result, will turn into protest. That means a protest is a reaction of citizens and expression of their opinion to a particular event and can be held in its support or more often against it. Protests are most common in response to social problems, such as inequality, and to political – in order to change the course of the government or even its representatives. These two types are closely related since social protest can quickly become political. Even though protests seem to be an ineffective means of expressing public opinion, their main strength and influence can be gradually manifested.
History knew many protests, for example, March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom headed by Martin Luther King, and previously they were more effective. The reason for this is that in the modern world, ideas as trends spread rapidly and are also quickly losing relevance. Thanks to technology, citizens widely share views and can convene a protest in a few days, unlike, for example, the last century, when it could take several years to spread ideas and attract people. This difference reduces the value of contemporary demonstrations, not allowing them to be impressive and quite useful in the short term.
The difference can be noted in ideas – successful protests are more accurate, have a more emotional response, and specific requirements. For example, the recent Black Lives Matter was a reaction to a severe and outrageous event. The authorities could not deny or hide what happened – the murder in Minnesota caused fear and undermined police reputation. Citizens forced authorities to take action, and as a result, several reforms were proposed. An example of protest that has not such a response is widespread demonstrations supporting environmental protection or the LGBT community. These topics are not so resonant; most citizens do not see the consequences of the discussed problems. For these reasons, they usually do not receive a rapid reaction, but draw attention to the issue and lead to gradual changes – people become more open and tolerant, take care of nature. Thus, the idea able to find a response in the people’s minds is part of the protest’s success.
Not only attention to problems but also the fact of uniting people and their changes speaks of protests’ effectiveness. The feeling of belonging to a movement that fights for the right ideas is vital for a person and gives strength. A passerby who participates in such actions can become an activist and change not only his life but also the lives of his family and friends. Moreover, people learn solidarity and understanding of other points of view by participating in and even observing protests. Even if it did not lead to global results, it could change several lives.
Summing up, it can be argued that most protests do not bring quick desired results to citizens. Nevertheless, they play a significant role in drawing attention to problems and their understanding. United by one idea, groups of people inspire each other and gradually inform many individuals. This way of communicating with the authorities is necessary since it should not imply violence and changes society for the better.
Eliezer Wiesel was born on September 30, 1928 in Sighet town, Romania. Sighet is a mall Balkan town in the province of Transylvania. This province had been part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the end of World War 1. This province had the Romanian majority, and was therefore captured by Romania when Austria was defeated in the war. The province was again annexed by Hungary with the support of Germany in 1940.
The Jews community of Sighet had relatively good relations with Romanian and Hungarian neighbors up until 1944. The Jew community made up more than one-third of the people inhabiting Sighet when Wiesel was born. The majority of these people were poor laborers, artisans and shopkeepers. In 1944, many Jews from Sighet and outlying villages were deported to concentration camps, where majority were harshly massacred.
Wiesel’s father died at Buchewald of dysentery and starvation shortly before the camp was liberated by the American army in 1945. On liberation, Wiesel and other Jewish orphans were placed on a train heading to Belgium. Out of compassion for children, the French General Charles De Gaulle, had it diverted to France. While in France, he began secondary education and rapidly learnt French with the assistance of generous French tutors.
The French language became his language of freedom and literature. To find some philosophical meaning in what had happened to the Jewish people, his family, and himself, Wiesel undertook studies on philosophy, psychology, and literature in 1948. Wiesel got great encouragement from Francois Mauriac, the French Roman Catholic novelist and philosopher. In 1954, when Wiesel interviewed Mauriac, he began to talk about how Christians and Jews had in common. Mauriac then narrated the sufferings of Jesus on the cross. Wiesel was angered as he informed Mauriac that only 10 years before, so many Jewish children had suffered infinitely more than Jesus. Mauriac responded to Wiesel by encouraging him to speak about it. He was told that he had the responsibility to share his concentration camp experiences with the world.
Mauriac also told him that it was wrong for him to have maintained silence all this time. These sentiments encouraged Wiesel and he began to write about the Holocaust. Wiesel has received numerous a wards and prizes over the years including a Nobel Peace Prize in 1986. The writings of Elie Wiesel can be grouped in the perspective for both literary and theology. His major works have tended to experiment with genres that are alternate. For instance, in the novels Souls on Fire (1970) and Messengers of God, Wiesel presents a Hasidic and Midrashic collection of stories. Wiesel also wrote cantata in Ani Maamin (1973).
Brief Summery of the Contents Novel Night
Wiesel has become a major spokesman in many literary works for religious protests. For instance, he portrays the evolution of his despair in his autobiographical novel, night. At the beginning of the novel, Wiesel describes himself as a youth preoccupied with the mystery of God. Wiesel’s story in the night starts in 1941, when he is twelve years old. Wiesel begins to relate the story of Moshe the Beadle. Moshe was a caretaker of Hasidic synagogue and was Wiesel’s mentor. Under Moshe, Wiesel studied the Talmud and delved in the world of Jewish mysticism through cabbala.
They were taken to the Polish territory where Gestapo killed all of them, except Moshe. Moshe returned to Sighet to tell his story, unfortunately no one believed him. The people thought he was trying to get sympathy or he was running insane. Perhaps the reaction of the people of Sighet to the story told by Moshe that informed Wiesel’s refusal to tell his story ten years after liberation. Wiesel tried to talk out his father to move to Palestine but he refused. The people of Sighet seemed to be leaving in denial figuring that the Nazis would stay at Budapest and would not reach their town.
By 1944, the Germans had arrived and took away rights from the Jews under pain of death. They were first herded into ghettos which were in deplorable conditions, then stripped of their belongings and packed into cattle cars. The majority of them did not make it in transit to the concentration camp. Wiesel feels that his father and Jews of Sighet conceded to their sufferings by obeying every German decree. The suffering of the Jews people is avidly described by Wiesel as they are transported to the concentration camps.
The Wiesel family and other community were members were deported to Birkenau, a death camp adjacent for Auschwitz. As they were brutally rounded up, not a single neighbor or friend, not a single gentile came to assist the Jews of Sighet. Most stood by the pitiful and tragic exodus. This scene repeated almost everywhere else in German and the area it occupied in Europe. This fact has haunted Wiesel for most of his life. When the train arrived in Birkenbau in the first night, Wiesel sees coils of smoke billowing from a large oven, and the first time in his life Wiesel inhaled the scent of burning human flesh:
“Never shall I forget that night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed. Never shall I forget that smoke. Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreathes of smoke beneath a silent blue sky. Never shall I forget the nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live. Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust. Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself (Wiesel, 41).”
Wiesel witnessed his mother and sister forced into an extermination gas chamber the very first night. He witnessed children hanged; babies pitch forked; prisoners killed by fellow cell mates over food; and the rest of his family members become slave workers. Wiesel was fortunate that he was able to stay with his father in the camp. Wiesel begins to lose his faith at this point. He questions God:
“Some talked of God, of mysterious ways, of sins of the Jewish people and of their future deliverance. But I had ceased to pray. How I sympathized with the job! I did not deny God existence but I doubted His Absolute justice (Wiesel, 55).”
As the novel progresses, Wiesel’s religious rebellion deepens further. He is perplexed by the incongruity of the Jewish liturgy that gives praise to God and the events of the concentration camps that indict him. He is dismayed by the new prisoners who recite the Kaddish prayer when they sense the nature of their plight. This leaves Wiesel consumed with anger:
“Why should I bless his name? He asked. The Eternal Lord, of the universe, the all powerful and terrible was silent. What had I done to thank him for” (Wiesel, 43).
Wiesel’s anger continues to intensify. At the New Year service, he refuses to bless God and praise the universe in which there is mass murder:
“This day I had ceased to plead. I was no longer capable of lamentation. On the contrary, I felt very strong. I was the accuser, God the accused” (Wiesel, 79).
On the year Kippur, Wiesel refuses to fast:
“There was no longer any reason why I should fast. I no longer accept God’s silence, as I swallowed my bowl of soup, I saw in the gesture an act. In the depths of my heart I felt a great void” (Wiesel, 80).
This void is Wiesel’s loss of faith, the recognition that God had forsaken his chosen people, leaving them to die in the elaborate machinery of concentration camps.
Conclusion
In sum, this paper has discussed the theme of religious protest against innocent and senseless suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. The author witnesses first hand the gruesome evil being committed against the Jews community. This shatters his belief and faith in God as he laments why the suffering people had been forsaken. Wiesel feels betrayed by God especially at the moment his people needed him most.
Political protests date back to over two hundred years ago with the aim of bringing about institutional change in political and social-economic cycles. Notable examples include the American Revolution that took place in the late eighteenth century and more specifically, the French Revolution of 1789. The revolutions indeed set a precedence and foundation for the various forms of political protests to realize the essential institutional changes especially against authoritarian regimes.
However, it is imperative to note from the outset that this approach should be instituted after all other diplomatic avenues of conflict resolution have failed to yield fruit as demanded by the aggrieved parties. Further, it should be noted that it is a fundamental human right for citizens to hold public gatherings and even demonstrations provided that all the constitutional requirements have been met (Ackerman and Kruegler 19).
Famous leaders of civilian groups notably Mahatma Gandhi of India, Leo Tolstoy and Luther King Junior of United States advocated for non violent protests to realize the required institutional changes. The organization and actualization of such protest has indeed brought forth the anticipated results with a high rate of effectiveness. As a matter of fact, it has been authoritatively asserted that such protests have brought about over sixty transitions from dictatorial regimes (Gene 6).
Countries such as Philippines, Lithuania, France, Israel, Liberia, Trinidad &Tobago, Iran, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Ukraine and most recently Tunisia are among nations that have been liberated from despotic leadership through political protests. These protests have contributed a great deal in ending colonial rule, promoting rights of minority groups and laying ground for good governance. Gross injustice and repressive government policies have been done away with courtesy of such protests.
Political protests are in essence direct action and have taken various forms with the advent of globalization and advancements in technology. Such forms include but are not limited to the following: public demonstrations, protest march, picketing, protest songs, information warfare including use of internet, civil disobedience, sabotage, boycotts and general strikes.
Such are organized by charismatic leaders and rapidly grow to command a large following. These protests apply as per the prevailing circumstances (Ackerman and Kruegler 31).
In order to underscore the prominent role played by mass action in form political protests, two fairly recent case studies will be analyzed. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Tunisian Revolution that led to the ouster of President Ben Ali are relevant examples of fruitful political protests. A systematic analysis of the circumstances that led to the political protests in the mentioned states will help point out the strengths of direct action.
Orange Revolution in Ukraine
The presidential election in Ukraine was marred by a series of irregularities. There were a number of allegations of poll cheating, enormous corruption and intimidation of voters.
Most observers of the election declared it a sham. Following these irregularities, public demonstrations were held in protest of the electoral outcome. Most citizens were of the opinion that the poll results were doctored in favor of Victor Yanukovych against Viktor Yushchenko. The protest therefore erupted in the capital city of Kiev between November 2004 and early 2005.
These daily protests were christened the Orange Revolution that later spread to the entire country. Citizens engaged in public protests, civil disobedience and a number of strikes to express the displeasure at the election outcome. Owing to the continued protests the Supreme Court in Ukraine nullified the results of the presidential election and immediately ordered another vote late in 2004. The rerun definitely drew global interest and worldwide observers trooped in the country to scrutinize the process (Anders and McFaul 158).
The run-off was found satisfactory by both the Ukrainian citizens and international observers. The new results released indicated that Viktor Yushchenko had won by fifty two percent against Viktor Yanukovych who now garnered forty four percent of the vote cast. The Orange Revolution came to an end once President Viktor Yushchenko was sworn in as the President of the republic of Ukraine on 23rd January 2004 (Anders and McFaul 159).
A number of lessons were drawn from this overly successful protest. Many nations and politicians of the twenty first century came to appreciate that it is futile to arm-twist democracy especially in the current dispensation.
The Tunisian Uprising
Mass protests in Tunisia were characterized by mass demonstrations in throughout out the nation from late 2010. The protests that have so far claimed over two hundred lives of Tunisian citizens were ignited by Mohamed Bouazizi on the seventeenth December 2010 when he publicly immolated himself.
The citizens decried poor living conditions, high unemployment rates, rampant corruption, curtailed freedom of expression and inflation in food. The riots gathered so much momentum that the incumbent President Abidine Ben Ali had no choice but to resign and seek asylum in Saudi Arabia on twenty third January 2011.
The unfolding of events in Tunisia has indeed set precedence in the Arab world and countries such Yemen, Jordan Egypt and Algeria have engaged in the same. The ouster of Ben Ali prompted formation of an interim government led by Mohamed Ghannouchi in preparation of elections in the next sixty days. It now remains to be seen how Tunisian authorities will handle the elections and address all issues raised in the protests (Gene 8).
Much as political protests are seen to be quite effective, there is need to have a cautious approach towards the matter since its loop side has far reaching repercussions. For instance, the protests may lead to confrontation with ruthless security officials whose outcome is death, injury and untold suffering. Further, the protest may be wrongly utilized to make citizens ungovernable. Political protests should be used to bring sanity in governance and give direction on conflict resolution.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Peter, and Christopher Kruegler. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1994. Print.
Anders, Åslund, and Michael McFaul. Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine’s Democratic Breakthrough. Boston: Porter Sargent, 2006. Print.
Gene, Sharp. The Politics of Nonviolent Action, part 1: Power and Struggle. Boston: Porter Sargent, 2002. Print.
Since August 2012, Chinese citizens in the city of Ningbo started protesting over the plans by the Chinese government to expand a chemical plant near the city (Spegele, 2012). Since the beginning of the protests, the police and local government officials tried to quell the riots.
However, the riots continued, and there were still protests on the sixth day (Jacobs, 2012). The protests turned violent and the Chinese police tried to quell the riots aggressively. However, the protests continued with the protesters accusing the government of being insensitive. On the other hand, the government accuses protester of engaging in unconventional protests (Spegele, 2012). Are the protests justified, or are they an unlawful breach of civil order as the Chinese government claims?
Over the last one decade, china has become the biggest manufacturer in the world (Jacobs, 2012). Multinational companies, most of them from Europe, have relocated their operations to China due to availability of cheap labor and raw materials in the country. The Chinese government has been encouraging this kind of investment by reluctance to enforce laws to protect the environment (Jacobs, 2012).
Many factories have been set up in china without observation of international regulations regarding the environment and waste disposal, and the Chinese people seem to have a right to protest against such actions. If such mal-practices are allowed in such a country with numerous industrial establishments, an environmental disaster may occur. Such a disaster is likely to affect the whole world including China (Gayathri, 2012).
Secondly, since establishment of a communist government in china, authorities have always been hostile to any kind of concerns over governance of the country. It has become increasingly difficult to coerce the government to observe ethical practices through any formal means. This leaves protests as the only way the Chinese people can communicate with their government (Executive Commission of China, 2012).
The Chinese government has consistently silenced any protest in the quest to protect its socialist structure. During the Ningbo protests, police used excessive force against protesters.
The protests turned more violent when the protesters retaliated with stone throwing and hurling other projectiles towards the riot police officers (Jacobs, 2012). Censuring of media has also been a common practice in China for various political reasons. This is one of the major reasons why the public in china is eventually resulting to violent protests.
One of the reasons for the ferocity of the protests in Ningbo is that the factory to be expanded was expected to produce a petrochemical that is usually a pollutant its final products are not handled with care (Gayathri, 2012. Paraxylene is widely used in manufacture of plastic containers as an alternative to other plastics and glass.
The containers used are easy to recycle, but paraxylene itself is lethal if it somehow pollutes the environment. The area in which the factory is to be built is already polluted with many chemicals from the industrial section of the city (Spegele, 2012).
The government embarked on the factory expansion project without considering the importance of opinion of the people. This has been the trend for Chinese government for most of industrial projects within the city (Gayathri, 2012). Perhaps, this is a tactic used by the government to escape criticism.
This shows lack of openness in the government’s activities. Ideally, a government should be open in all its activities in order to serve the people properly (Executive Commission of China, 2012). The manner in which police handled protesters portrays an intolerant government, which uses excess force to silence the public into accepting its will.
Over years, the Chinese government has been engaged in an economic competition with western powers. The difference in ideologies is the cause of the antagonism between china and western countries. The competition requires quick industrial growth to keep up with the financial demands in the international market.
China has been encouraging industrial growth for political reasons rather than for civil prosperity (Spegele, 2012). This makes the citizens the victims of the struggle for ideological supremacy between China and the western countries. Thus, the protesters in Ningbo have a right to protest for consideration of the environment by the Chinese government.
In past protest against industrialization by the Chinese government, the plans to industrialize some parts of the country continued even after people complained the developers were failing to observe their responsibilities towards the environment. In many of the projects, the government stopped progress when considerable amount of public money had already been spent. This was done due to public pressure rather than on government’s own volition.
Public funds were always being wasted on such incomplete projects all over China (Gayathri, 2012). To avert the possibility of the government wasting more money on incomplete projects the protesters were justified to hold protest. Some of the protesters expressed their concern over the government’s unwillingness to respond to public queries in all campaigns against irresponsible industrialization. In many occasions, the public resorts to confrontation with the authorities.
The Chinese government has also been accused of starting industrialization projects without adequate investigations to establish the impact of the industrial activities on the environment. An investigation into the nature of the project and its effects on the local environment is usually assessed after public unrest (Tam, 2012). The protesters in Ningbo had a reason to stage a protest since the government started the project without giving a full public report of the safety of the environment and the people of Ningbo.
Another reason for the protests is the unconventional control of the mass media by the Chinese government. All news and content of material broadcast over Chinese mass media is carefully filtered to favor the opinion of the communist party (Tam, 2012). This suppression of the media has sealed an important channel through which public issues can be resolved.
Consequently, the Chinese public often results to protests as the only way to express its discontent with the manner in which projects of significant public interest are being handled.
On the other hand, some people argue that the Chinese government had a reason for the apparently violent repulsion of the protesters. In addition, some people are of the opinion that the Chinese government had the right to build the factory in Ningbo for various scientific and factual reasons.
Such claims seek to legitimize the response of Chinese government and its bid to expand the factory in Ningbo (Tam, 2012). Furthermore, these arguments legitimize many other actions by the Chinese government regarding its industrialization activities in other parts of the country.
China is the largest country in terms of population. For this reason, massive industrialization is necessary to support the large population. Industrialization provides jobs for China’s huge population, which already suffers a significant unemployment rate. If the government has to observe its responsibility towards the people, then it has to set up industries to create employment and generate income (Tam, 2012).
While the protesters may have a right to protect their environment, it is also rational that some industrialization projects must be allowed for development and political stability to prevail. The protest in Ningbo may have been due to a culture of protests rather than genuine concern for the environment.
One government official claimed that protesters were ignorant of the efforts by the Chinese government to create formal forums trough which public concerns can be attended to (Zuo, 2012). The Chinese government claims that it has changed its approach in dealing with matters of public concerns over time. However, the government claims that the protesters are unwilling to acknowledge this effort. It is for this reason that the Chinese government is hostile towards the protesters (Zuo, 2012).
There are also concerns that the protesters in Ningbo are also ill- informed on their subject of protest. Most of the protesters were not informed about the formal preparation that the Chinese government may have done prior to authorization of the expansion project. Most of the protests were mobilized through social media. This was evident by the number of protesters who displayed pages of social networking sites on their mobile devices. Such protests are obviously susceptible to manipulation particularly during such a time.
The Chinese government is going to undergo a political overhaul that rarely happens and is only done once a decade (Zuo, 2012). It is possible that some politicians intending to cause civil unrest are using the industrial project as an excuse. Thus, the police and the local authorities have a right to try to stop the protests.
Most of the protests in Ningbo were considered illegal by the authorities. The local authorities did not legally sanction the protests before they began. Such protests could pose danger to civil order and stability. Protesters often turned violent and hurled projectiles at police officers (LaFraniere, 2012).
It is only reasonable that the police should stop any violent protest in any society. The local authorities accuse protesters of hooliganism and unacceptable conduct during the protest. One official expressed concern over the tendency of crowds of protesters to barricade roads by erecting barriers and sitting in the middle of the roads (LaFraniere, 2012).
Chinese government officials also accused protesters of unwillingness to engage in dialogue. The officials cite the continued protests even as the government promised to investigate the Ningbo project and the danger that is posed to the local environment (LaFraniere, 2012). In addition, the government says that it had informed the public of the planned projects and even evacuated those people who were living in unacceptable proximity of the factory in Ningbo.
Consultation with investors are said to have taken place to discuss potential environmental hazards that the plant might cause (LaFraniere, 2012). The police defended their actions by saying that all the methods used to quell the riots were used with consideration of public safety. According to authorities, no action was taken without reasonable purpose.
Finally, the authorities in china claim that the protesters were overreacting to the manufacture of paraxylene. According to the local authorities, this chemical is one of the few organic materials that enable industries produce recyclable plastic containers (“Chinese factory plan”, 2012).
The danger posed to the public is relatively mild with exposure and insignificant when production process is precisely controlled. In fact, the authorities insist that the use of the chemical is necessary to reduce impact of plastic products on the environment.
The issue of Ningbo protest presents a dilemma due to the nature of arguments by the protesters and the authorities (“Chinese factory plan”, 2012). The protesters claim that their government has consistently failed to heed public concerns regarding industrialization projects that pose danger to the immediate environment. Such unwillingness to consider the opinion of the public necessitated mass action.
Considering the scale of industrialization that is taking place in China, it is obvious that location of many chemical industries near a highly populated urban settlement poses health risks to residents (LaFraniere, 2012). It is possible that the protesters had a reason to resist the attempt to expand the Ningbo factory. The city of Ningbo is already a major industrial center with many chemical plants.
These plants are said to cause pollution and extensive environmental damage to the city of Ningbo (“Chinese factory plan”, 2012). Ti is reasonable that the protesters tried to stop the expansion of the chemical factory. On the other hand, the authorities have a duty to maintain civil order.
Thus, it was necessary to respond to violent protesters in the appropriate way. Such response is inevitably bound to lead to arrests and forceful suppression of the protests. It is also important that protests are based on genuine concerns rather than biased claims in the social media. Protests based solely on reports in the social media are prone to manipulation by political entities especially during such a period with significant political activity.
However based on the nature of the government in china and the history of political and social suppression that the country is known for, it is reasonable to conclude that the protests in china were addressing genuine concerns. Thus, the response to protests by police was not justified under the prevailing circumstances.
References
Chinese factory plan ditched after protests (2012). The Guardian. Web.
Executive Commission of China, E. C. (2012). Congressional Commision of China. U.S. Government Printing Office Home Page. Web.
Gayathri, A. (2012). Chinese Protests Over Chemical Factory Reflect Government Mistrust. International Business Times – International Business News, Financial News, Market News, Politics, Forex, Commodities. Web.
Jacobs, A. (2012). A Third Day of Protests in China against Refinery. The New York Times. Web.
The name of Martin Luther King Junior is associated in the whole world with release of African Americans from the limits, which they were put in by white Americans. However, this personality was neither revolutionist, nor warrior. He managed to achieve an enormous success in protesting without weapon, deterrence or violence. What was so influential about such a peaceful protestor? In order to know this, it is worth analyzing Martin Luther King Junior’s philosophy of non-violent protest.
Philosophy of non-violent protest
Martin Luther King Junior presented a structured system of notions and values, which were to serve as a basis for the non-violent protest. Specifically, the key points of his philosophy were:
Respect
Martin Luther King Junior encouraged his followers not to be disgraceful towards their opponents, but to show respect to them. “Not to humiliate, but to win over” – proclaimed the protestor (King, 1). Thus, the leader was convinced that there is no need to offend anyone in order to in them over.
Agape love
Explaining different kinds of love described in various cultures, Martin Luther King Junior names agape love as the one that is the most effective. He calls it “understanding, creative, redemptive good will for all men” (King, 1). Thus, mentioning the principles of Christianity, the protestor shows that even a rebellion can be benevolent.
Belief
The leader of civil rights movement also mentions existence of something “unfolding in the universe” (King, 1). Whether it is God, or another universal power, it helps the repressed to feel support and believe in justice, which is not realized by humans.
Inadaptability
One of the main points about non-violent resistance philosophy is not getting used to the horrible conditions, which people are put in. Martin Luther King Junior asked people not to adjust to bad attitude towards them, as in other case their fight will have no purpose.
History of philosophy development
While talking about Martin Luther King Junior’s philosophy, it is worth mentioning, that he was not its only originator. Obviously, some elements of the philosophy, such as its values, were borrowed from other philosophies. What is more, it should be noted, that the initial mood of African American leader was far not peaceful.
Indeed, at the beginning of the movement Martin Luther King Junior considered the Christian philosophy of love and its rejection of violence totally ineffective. He argued that the main principles of this religion were only valid for personal relations, but not for wars between different social groups. However, as far as the leader had a chance to study various religious philosophies at a theological seminary, he later got acquainted with a philosophy, which changed his vision of protest forever (Beck, 172).
The work, which influenced the protestor’s attitude to resistance, was a description of Mahatma Gandhi and his success in a non-violent protest. This served as a real life example of peaceful resistance effectiveness, which inspired Martin Luther King Junior to apply it in civil rights movement. This was a start of his scholarly and political progress. Martin Luther King Junior was awarded by a doctorate degree, which proved his competency in the sphere of philosophy (Beck, 204).
Later the protestor synthesized the philosophy of Gandhi, Buddhism, Christianity, and other peaceful religions of the world, and presented a new kind of war, which was a non-violent protest. Using the existing values, he explained the new methods of resistance, which were mentioned earlier in this essay.
Works Cited
Beck, Sanderson. World Peace Efforts since Ghandi Volume 2. Goleta: World Peace Communications, 2006.
Syria is at a critical stage following the recent domestic unrest that has attracted international attention. The anti-government protests began in mid-March this year with citizens calling for meaningful economic and political reforms. Unfortunately, the military-backed government responded to these calls violently; killing hundreds of anti-government protesters. More recently, there has been much international condemnation over the government’s use of lethal force against the protesters.
Nevertheless, the Syrian government blames armed groups of violent attacks on the citizens and “unarmed” security forces killing 300 soldiers. The Syrian unrest has many implications in the region and the government’s attack on peaceful demonstrators is likely to affect Syria’s international relations. The Syrian government’s response to the uprising has been excessive use of force to quell the violence and consolidate power.
The International Community’s Response
The Syrian government’s response to the protests is likely to affect international relations in many fronts. Firstly, the international reactions to the Syrian unrest and the Syrian government’s response have raised the concerns of Western governments including the United States and European countries.
Many Western governments have expressed condemnation over President Al-Assad’s violent response to the peaceful demonstrators. Secondly, following the uprising, many people are fleeing Syria into the neighboring Middle East countries. Many of these refugees pose a security threat to the country of destination. The Syrian government reports that 700 people, described as terrorists along with their families, escaped custody of Syrian authorities and entered Turkey.
From the human rights front, the Syrian government is accused of human rights abuse. The mass killing of protesters and dissenting military is likely to lower Syria’s international rating with respect to human rights. The London-based Syria Observatory for human rights reports that, over 1,100 civilians have died following the protests. Additionally, about 10,000 people are incarcerated in jails since the start of the uprising.
The Syrian government’s violent response to protesters that has led to mass killings, gross abuse of human rights, and the fear of terrorists infiltrating into neighboring countries like Lebanon and Turkey; will inevitably affect international relations attracting sanctions or military action to force the government to implement necessary economic and political reforms.
Following the Syrian’s uprising and the government’s violent response, the credibility of the Syrian government in the international arena is low. Instead of implementing necessary reforms, President Al-assad mobilized the military to quell the Syria’s internal strife.
The military operation has resulted into the deaths of over 300 military personnel and over 1000 civilians. The regime has deployed its army to counter the uprising resulting into an internal war. Currently, Al-Assad’s regime is fighting to stay in power and is using all means to quell the insurgency against the will of the citizens.
The mounting international pressure on the Syrian government to stop the killings and human rights abuses is an indication that in the international opinion, Syria’s current regime is illegitimate and dictatorial. President Al-Assad is under much criticism from the United States, European countries and Asia to step down and allow regime change.
The uprising is motivated by need for democratic change hence has the support of the international community. However, the regime’s response to these protests, including killings, abuse of human rights, and detention of civilian, makes Al-Assad’s regime illegitimate; hence, the international sanctions and call for regime change. The international community is calling for a guided political transition to prevent the uprising from escalating into a civil war.