Comparing Rosa Parks And Gandhi's Speech On Civil Disobedience

414 Words1 Page

Gandhi once said that there were two ways to face injustice - - violently or peacefully. In 1955, Rosa Parks stood for what she believed was right by staying seated and refusing to move. Some would call it rebellious, unlawful, or justifiable. However, according to the article "An Act of Courage, The Arrest Records of Rosa Parks" and Gandhi's speech on civil disobedience it would be called, satyagraha.
To Gandhi an act of civil disobedience can only be defined as, "... seeking reform by means of nonviolent resistance" (Gandhi, 1). Furthermore, in the article it states that, "... she quietly set off a social revolution" when she stayed seated (Rosa Parks, 1). She didn't hurt anyone by staying seated. She got tired of following all these commands and being discriminated that she refused to move. She hated how she was being treated and wanted a change. Moreover, Gandhi mentions that the one "combating injustice... alone suffer the consequences..." (Gandhi, 2). Which is exactly what Rosa Parks did. She allowed them to arrest her and she was the only one punished (Rosa Parks, 2). She didn't go start a violent riot and cause multiple people to …show more content…

So it can't be called civil disobedience; however, in the eyes of the people and the government she broke the law of the land at that time. The law that white men are superior to colored men. Additionally, in the article it mentions that, "... the driver, believed he had the discretion to move the line seperating black and white passengers" and "the law was actually somewhat murky" (Rosa Parks, 2). During the 19th century the white men made the laws. So when, "the bus driver instructed her to move back, and she refused," she also refused the law (Rosa Parks, 1). Without a definite written law the whites are formulating "laws" that give them more power. This shows that when Rosa Parks peacefully objects to moving to another seat it can be labeled as

Open Document