Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 been abolished without the use of non-violent civil disobedience? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the year all state and local laws requiring segregation ended. Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. While some people believe the use of violent disobedience to help promote their cause is more effective than using a non-violent approach, it may ultimately hurt the progress by diverting the message. Although some protestors would prefer violent disobedience to raise awareness, non-violent disobedience is the best option because it keeps the message focused without the use of violence. The next …show more content…
Mohandas Gandhi is an Indian lawyer and a spiritual leader that led a successful nonviolent resistance movement against the British colonial power. “The tactic of nonviolence civil disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement was deeply influenced by the model of Mohandas Gandhi, (...) Gandhi 's approach of non-violent civil disobedience involved provoking authorities by breaking the law peacefully, to force those in power to acknowledge existing injustice and bring it to an end”. (1) “Provoking authorities by breaking the law peacefully” this is an example of how nonviolent disobedience allows the message to stay focused and reach the point where people in power cannot ignore. Violent actions draw the media away from the message and fuels the rich and powerful; those who hide behind barriers in order to mute the underprivileged. An example of underprivileged people is African American’s during the 1950s who were treated like second class citizens. “Laws separated people of color from whites in schools, housing, jobs, and public gathering places”. (3) The types of methods used to fight against segregation are, “One of the ways African American communities fought legal segregation was through direct action protests, such as boycotts, sit-ins, and mass civil disobedience”. (1) This is how nonviolent disobedience is fought …show more content…
(...) Malcolm X exhorted blacks to cast off the shackles of racism "by any means necessary," including violence”. (4) Malcolm X was also associated to the Black Panther Party. The Black Panther Party (BPP) was a revolutionary black nationalist and socialist organization active in the United States. The BPP is accountable for numerous accounts of successful violent disobedience in effort towards the black community. An example of how violent the BPP was, “FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called the BPP the greatest threat to the internal security of the country". (5) There are scenarios that prove violence is needed to produce awareness and media 's attention in order to get a response from the people in power. Nothing sounds more convincing than a violent protest destroying your business. Dropping revenue from local businesses creates pressure; pressure that is aimed toward the city mayor. Together united the underprivileged people now have leverage over the mayor. The mayor’s best interest would be to support their demands to regain control over the city. An example would be from a movie “Battle in Seattle” activists arrive in Seattle, Washington to protest a meeting of the World Trade Organization. Riots and chaos ensue as demonstrators successfully stop the WTO meetings. Mayor Jim Tobin eventually ends up
In 1962, after a trip to India he gained a deeper understanding of what he could achieve by using the nonviolence approach. Upon his return to the United States of America, he focused his attention to Birmingham, Alabama the most segregated city in America, there he achieved two things, one was to demonstrate nonviolent marches, and protests can work to and also by using children, he could teach them that the nonviolent was the way forward. The protest in Birmingham, Alabama shock...
During the period of 20 years between 1950 and 1970, black Americans were able to improve their level of civil rights. Therefore, it is logical to say that they were at least partly successful in achieving their civil rights. This was accomplished through a variety of ways, two commonly used techniques being legal strategies and non-violent direct action. However, because they were unable to attain complete equality, there must have been factors that worked against the civil rights movement. One of these factors was the use of violence as a means of protest.
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well-known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery and second in the application against segregation. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” are the leading arguments in defining and encouraging the use of civil disobedience to produce justice from the government despite differences in their separate applications.
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.
Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a piece that denounces the role of government and promotes the individuality of man. He argues that government rarely proves itself to be useful, and that anything achieved under the influence of that government could have been even greater had the system not been involved, evident in paragraph 2, “Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way.” (Thoreau, lines 12-16) He states that the American government derives its power from the majority, not the strongest group, and not necessarily the most moral. Thoreau wants us to believe that we the people should follow what we think to be ethically just, not what the government and the majority force upon us. In my opinion, I agree with Thoreau in the aspect that we need a more improved form of government, however I disagree with the type of government that Thoreau wishes for. He believes we work better without restraint and that we must command our individual respect, but I heartily argue the opposite; a society must have order and an infrastructure, we need a system to oversee the problems that we cannot solve as humans with individual mindsets. I do not believe that the government should have the right to pry into our lives without solid evidence, but I do believe that we need a fair and balanced administration that is required to look after its’ peoples’ well being.
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: “Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other non-violent means” (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any aspect of a discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an action, while Hannah Arendt managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews.
I believe that civil disobedience is justified as a method of trying to change the law. I think that civil disobedience is an expression of one's viewpoints. If someone is willing to break a law for what they believe in, more power to them! Civil disobedience is defined as, "the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition" (Webster's Dictionary). This refusal usually takes the form of passive resistance. Its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the civil rights movement of U.S. blacks, and of labor and anti-war movements in many countries. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider it unjust and hope to call attention to it. In his essay, "Civil Disobedience," American author Henry David Thoreau set forth the basic tenets of civil disobedience for the first time. The independence of India in the 1930's was largely a result of the nonviolent resistance by Mohandas Gandhi to the British colonial laws. In the United States, the nonmilitant efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., helped bring about civil rights legislation. There are numerous examples that illustrate how civil disobedience is justified.
History, as Karl Marx suggest, is defined by human suffering. When a man is oppressed, his natural recours is rebellion. Most ost restiance movements of the past incorporated violenve. Violence has been a mean to an end for centurys. Even today our lives are chronicled through violence and human suffering. However, a paradox ensues when revolutionaries use violence to free themselves from oppression, as a mean to an end. By replacing violence with violence, you are only contuining a destructive cycle that can in no way liberate everybody. It oppresses the oppressor and depresses the depressed. Martin Luther King jr. sought to remedy this unhealthy cycle by prescribing a new approach to rebellion. Not only did he inspire millions to resist their human condition, he did so without resorting to violence. Through his pragmatic and ethical approach to civil rights reform, Martin Luther became a revolutionary revolutionist.
...rom the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement, civil disobedience has been a great tribute to the progression of humanity in striving for equal treatments, only when it does not physically harm others, nor their properties, and also when it does not contravene an already enforced just law. Those who follow civil disobedience properly, find it necessary, like King and his followers, to endure struggle and conflict in order to correct an injustice. Those true civil disobedients find strength of non violence which comes from their willingness to take risks without threatening others, or their properties. They see civil disobedience as an attribute which can help them when law and justice don't go hand in hand. Civil disobedience when used improperly can hurt many people, however when used properly can help gain equal rights and justice for all.
Civil disobedience this is how the internet defines it “The refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. The word explains it all disobeying in a Civil way. Many people have became famous for this for standing up for what they think is right. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, you can say that’s an act of civil disobedience she didn’t think it was right for her to sit in the back of the bus after a long day she disobeyed a law at that time but then we have a group of dumb people that think every law is wrong and its an act of civil disobedience. An example for this civil disobedience would be, people not obeying small laws like speeding, not paying taxes, small laws that to them they seem not right or not hurting anyone when broken. Maybe civil disobed ...
Identify an example in this country of civil disobedience that you feel was justified and explain why? Civil disobedience means, a group's disapproval to abide by the law because they place confidence that the law is corrupt. Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey unjust laws, or in other words, defying the law because you don’t agree with it. Civil disobedience is usually displayed in a peaceful way. Although, if a person commits civil disobedience they should be prepared to face the aftermath of their actions, such as jail (Audio English, 2013).
Throughout his education, Martin Luther King Jr. tried to find a way to demonstrate his belief of racial equality with the most effective means possible. He quickly realized that the best strategy to end segregation was to use nonviolent forms of protest. At Crozer, Morehouse and Boston University, he studied the teaching of Mohandas Gandhi, who used nonviolent methods to help India claim its independence from Britain. King read several books on the ideas of Gandhi, and eventually became convinced that his methods could be employed by African Americans to obtain equality in America. King knew that any violence on the part of African Americans would lead to violent responses from segregationists, which would lead to injury or maybe even death for his followers. He had to teach his followers not to respond violently to cruel attacks from segregationists. King decided to sponsor workshops to train African Americans in nonviolent beh...
The Indian pacifist Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind,”(Gandhi). Mohandas Karamchand “Mahatma” Gandhi believed fighting only makes a situation worse and abhorred committing violence in almost all forms. As a young man of privilege, Gandhi was given an excellent education, studying Indian law at the University College London and put this education to effective use back home. In protests against the tyrannical British-rule in India, the combinations of varying people and religions were instrumental, all the while garnering significant international support for the cause. Mahatma Gandhi’s policy of nonviolent, civil disobedience was highly influenced by a variety of religions and individuals and the Indian leader was able to put the various ideas gathered to effective use.
Gandhi was known first for his nonviolence behavior and would condemn his own party opposing violence. Gandhi made use of nonviolent and passive resistance through non-cooperation as his weapon of choice in the conflict against the British. The butchery of civilians by British military personnel resulted in increased public anger and acts of violence. Mahatma Gandhi criticized both the activities of British Government and the revenge of the butchery from the Indians. He extended consolation to the British victims and denounced the riots. Initially his party was opposed to his declaration. Later, however, they accepted Gandhi’s principal stating that any retaliation or violence was hurtful and could not be justified. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi success with nonviolent activism, Martin Luther King Jr. pushed forward his Civil Rights Movement with nonviolent activism as well. Although the two have personally never had contact, Dr. King learned of Gandhi 's discipline while in the seminary. His first application of the nonviolent campaign came in 1955 during the Montgomery bus boycott. Here, he had a witnessed firsthand the power of a peaceful
In society there are theoretical paths that exist based on time and place. These societal paths may have the same appearance and may even cross each other, but each path has its own road that it takes people on. Civil Disobedience is portrayed in time by two immensely influential emancipators: Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. The belief of civil disobedience is that in order to diminish an unruly leadership one must bring an end to legally executed injustice, through being peaceful and intransigent. Many credible scholars have noted the similarities between the civil right movements of Martin Luther King Jr. and the philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi. Evidently, these two men both have common themes. King and Gandhi both concur in their