Civil Disobedience And Nonviolence

1161 Words3 Pages

“Full demilitarization can only come about in a society in which power is shared at the grassroots. In the nineteenth century, Henry David Thoreau called upon free citizens to engage in civil disobedience and nonviolent actions whenever there is injustice. Civil disobedience and nonviolence are an integral part of any democratic society. Even in Western democracies, the state seems invincible, and as individuals we often feel powerless, unable to have much effect. We must remind ourselves that the power of the state derives solely from the consent of the governed. Without the cooperation of the people, the state cannot exist. Even as a powerful military state that is nearly invulnerable to violent force can be transformed through nonviolence …show more content…

Petra shows us that we can help out. That by using nonviolence, not letting yourself be pushed around, will get you somewhere. She goes on to quote Gandhi and King and how they use nonviolence as a way to gain support and acknowledgement from the public. “Without the cooperation of the people, the state cannot exist.” (500). This means that if the people do not like something, to not let the government force them into anything. If there is resistance, the government will have to do something that the people want, or else be abdicated (or not reelected). Some people of course will argue that nonviolence is stupid and that it won’t work but we all are allowed our opinions. This is a never-ending issue that relates to us even today. There is the war in Iraq and there are constant crimes happening in different countries today. We all need to do something to stop the violence. Everyday people are getting hurt or worse, killing or being killed. Petra suggests “demilitarization”. This is the same as “civilian based defense.” (500). This means she wants us to stop creating armies and the military. She wants us to stop making and using weapons. Basically we need to stop the killing. She mentions that we have the power, not …show more content…

That is such a strong way of saying that the mind is what is violent and not the actual act of killing. It all starts as an emotion. Anger, hate, greed, something evil that makes people do bad things. Like killing, stealing, lying, etc. The world has too much competition going on, everyone feels the need to have anything and everything that they do not stop to think about the consequences. When she mentions that children are breathing lethal toxins, it makes the reader sympathize for those poor children. They should not have to live in such an environment. They should not be exposed to death and pain. Kelly says we “need” to focus more on feeding and providing health care to these children rather then waste money on supplying and building armies. How is it that we can afford to buy and make weapons, worth billions of dollars, yet there are homeless people and starving children dying everyday because of starvation, malnutrition, and illnesses? This makes a person and stop and think about that. Petra states, “For the cost of one jet fighter, 3 million children could be inoculated against major childhood diseases.” (502). If we spent more on helping children then on wars, we could save the lives of so many children. To the reader, children have always been an issue to sympathize with. They are young, innocent,

Open Document