When considering whether civil disobedience have a positive or a negative impact on society, we must first look at the roots of calls for civil disobedience. Resistance to laws come from a sense of injustice or a desire to change society to your own view. In the case of injustice, we can look to the words of St. Augustine: “an unjust law is no law at all”. If we live in a society dominated by unjust laws, then that society will cease to be free. At the same time, if a person or group of people choose to oppose a law because it does not benefit them, there is no justification for any sort of resistance. This brings us back to the original question: is civil disobedience good or bad in a free society? The answer is not as simple as being good …show more content…
The image of Martin Luther King, Jr. leading people in a peaceful march in Washington, DC is a great example of a peaceful fight against an unjust law. At the same time, however, the Civil Rights movement had a dark side. While Dr. King led the peaceful side, several militant groups such as the Black Panther Party rose up to fight injustice with violence. For each peaceful movement, there will always be a violent component attached. While it may not be the intention of those leading a peaceful protest to incite violence, violence often arises from non-violent resistance. This peaceful resistance can evolve over time to become something far different than what was intended. Fifty years after Dr. King led peaceful resistance against unjust laws, we are once again in a time of racial tension. Today’s fight over racial equality is rooted in the “Black Lives Matter” movement which claims to follow in the footsteps of Dr. King. With a slogan of “no justice, no peace”, it is hard to determine the connection between these two movements. It is easy to see how the non-violent actions of the 1950s and 60s had a positive impact on society while the violence sparked by the Black Panthers and Black Lives Matter has had a negative impact. The case of civil rights shows the danger of a peaceful movement: each movement has a time when it will be peaceful, but it always …show more content…
The Revolution started in the 1760s as a peaceful movement without violence (apart from the Boston Massacre in 1770) until 1775. The early Revolution featured boycotts and publications fighting the unjust laws of the British. In 1773, citizens of the city of Boston showed a tremendous act of non-violent resistance by dumping 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes put in place by Parliament. Leading up to and during the war itself, countless writers used their words to oppose the British. Much of the war was fought with ideas before conflict began. The movement that started as peaceful resistance eventually became a shooting war. Unlike the Civil Rights movement, the non-violent aspect of the American Revolution and its violent resolution were both essential to the creation of the free society. The American Revolution provides an example of how even when peaceful resistance turns violent, it can still positively impact a free society. At the same time, the American Revolution has played an important role in the rise of anti-government groups, which take the peaceful foundations of the American Revolution and seek to use acts of peaceful resistance as a justification for creating
Congressman Lewis’s powerful graphic memoir March highlights the role of nonviolent activism in challenging racial segregation and discrimination and effecting social change. Within the two books, March One and Two, we as readers see some of these nonviolent activities that were implemented by the protesters to show the world that nonviolence is the way to go to bring change in an unjust society and its bias laws. Some of these nonviolent activities that proved to be effective in the eyes of freedom fighters were sit-ins, marches and speeches. Even some minor activities such as going to jail for a cause was proven to be effective.
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
In Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," he uses a hyperbole to support his belief that "one person can make a change," an idea still relevant today. Thoreau uses many forms of literary techniques such as multiple hyperbole, emotional appeals, and paradoxes. Thoreau uses these to sustain his ideas on civil disobedience. He believes if you believe in something, and support something you should do whatever it takes to help the cause. Many people in today's society believe to just go with the flow, rather than living like Thoreau has, and supporting his own beliefs no matter what the consequence. Henry David Thoreau had a lot of personal authority, he was all about his own independence. Many different people believed in being a non-conformist, and Thoreau was one of them, and he very well showed how much he supported it. Thoreau was not the only nonconformist, they're many people who followed his beliefs and they refused to be bound by anybody, or anything they did not support. Other non-conformists were Gandhi, Galileo, Malcom X and many more.
Despite this is it important to remember there was still disagreement and tension on what would be the most effective philosophy in driving the movement forward; Armed resistance or Non-violent protest. While Rev. Martin Luther King advocated for non-violent protest and peaceful resistance it is important to remember that participants in the movement were ordinary people.
It is important to notice that if civil disobedience was not effective, then it would not be continually used to disobey the law. In "The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy” by Kayla Starr, she explains why we have the right to participate in civil disobedience. “The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it” (Starr 1). There are many examples of how effective this act of defiance could be. During the Boston Tea Party, the citizens of Massachusetts practiced civil disobedience by throwing Britain’s tea into the Boston harbor because they did not want to pay taxes on tea. Now, you can see that the Boston Tea Party played a major role in the United States becoming independent from Britain (Starr 1). Although violating the law has consequences, in this case the reward outweighed the risk. I think that by realizing the power that civil disobedience carries, we can stand up against ...
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
Civil disobedience has been around for a long time. In Bible times Christians would disobey laws that would go against their beliefs, such as the law that they couldn’t preach. (Acts 4) Christians still disobey laws in many countries that do not let them practice their faith, some end up in jail or killed.
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
Peaceful resistance itself does not affect a free society. A people-group can protest any number of laws: voting rights, taxes, and the legality of murder. A majority of society must determine what is best for itself. If the principles of a resistance aligns with the ideals of the society, the pursuit of betterment positively impacts that
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
Until the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., his life’s work was dedicated to the nonviolent actions of blacks to gain the freedoms they were promised in the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 by Abraham Lincoln. He believed that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King, 1963). These injustices had become so burdensome to blacks that they were “plunged into an abyss of despair” (King, 1963). The nonviolent actions of the sit-ins, boycotts, and marches were so the “individual could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths…to help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism” and ultimately lead to “inevitably opening the door to negotiation” (King, 1963). Not only was King’s approach effective with the older black generation, it was also successful with white people. They did not feel threatened when approached by King. White people gained a sense of empathy towards the plight of black freedom as King’s promise of nonviolence did not threaten their livelihood. Malcolm X viewed the world similarly to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., however; his beliefs to changing the status quo were slightly different from his political counterpart. Malcolm X realized that “anger could blind human vision” (X, 1965). In realizing this, X knew that in order to achieve racial freedom blacks had to “forget hypocritical politics and propaganda” (X, 1965). While Malcolm X was more so an advocate for violent forces against white people than King, X merely used force when it became necessary for defense. According to X, “I don’t go for non-violence if it also means a delayed solution. I am for violence if non-violence means we continue postponing a solution to American black man’s problem” (X, 1965). However, this le...
Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated nonviolence to suppress oppression in his essay, “The Power of Nonviolent Action.” King's factual and reasoned approach is intended to win his adversaries over by appealing to their consciences. King realized that the best strategy to liberate African-Americans and gain them justice was to use nonviolent forms of resistance. He wanted to eliminate the use of violence as a means to manage and establish cooperative ways of interacting. Moreover, King states that the “oppressed people must organize themselves into a militant and nonviolent mass movement” in order to achieve the goal of integration. The oppressed must “convince the oppressors that all he seeks is justice, for both himself and the white man” (King, 345). Furthermore, King agreed with Gandhi that if a law is unjust, it is the duty of the oppressed to break the law, and do what they believe to be right. Once a law is broken, the person must be willing to accept the ...
All in all, civil disobedience has made many positive changes in the world today. Nevertheless, the end goal or result of any act of civil disobedience is not meant to benefit the individual, but the community as a whole. The ends of such an act should not be a private gain, but a public gain. Just like in The Hunger Games, how Peeta and Katniss remained brave by risking their lives to stand up for their districts.
First, the Revolutionary War was the first instance of Americans preserving their freedoms. We were unhappy about how the British were treating us so we fought back. One issue was taxation without representation. Some people are still unhappy about how they are being treated by the government so they fight back, like the colonists. For example, Colin Kaepernick was unhappy