Many people around the world still suffer from social injustice and subject to many forms of discrimination. Governments violate human rights when they deny their own citizens the freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, and the right to vote. When the governments prohibit an individual to criticize the government for its human rights violation, the governments in turn violate universal rule of laws. Governments also commit crimes against humanity when they use brute force to suppress people. Accordingly, Dr. King Jr. believed that citizens shouldn’t abide to the laws that cause social injustices and division among people. Gandhi advocated a more direct civil disobedience against the British laws that enslave the Indian. At the same time, San Suu Kyi believed peaceful protests to challenge the laws and actions of the suppressive government. Gandhi, Dr. King Jr., and San Suu Kyi all shared the core beliefs in promoting human rights and took actions to establish the universal truths, which the rights of everyone be protected by the rules of law. With this in mind, the civil rights movements and peaceful protests helped end segregation in United States. The actions of non-violence civil disobedience gained India independence from British rules. The peaceful actions taken against the Mayanmar Military junta led to the world condemning unlawful actions of the oppressive regime and United Nations supportive for the democratic movement in Mayanmar. Social injustices can’t be fully eradicated because the governments and the mainstream Medias continue to indoctrinate our thoughts and actions. Humans are also programmed to discriminate against the weak, the poor, and the minority. However, Gandhi, Dr. King, San Suu Kyi b...
... middle of paper ...
...in non-violence civil disobedience in order to establish a free society with respecting to human rights. In essence, allow people to live with self-respect and dignity in a more humane world. Our future generation should learn from Gandhi, Dr. King, and San Suu Kyi about their personal sacrifice for freedom and human rights, speak out against racism and sexism. People shall not just follow their exemplify actions but to advance the cause of everlasting peace on earth. In addition, we all need to respect each other regardless of sex, religions, or race. Above all, we all can support, we all can work together to find solutions for social problems and get involved in politic that held the government accountable for their actions.
Works Cited
Dr. King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail
Gandhi, Satyagrahas
San Suu Kyi, Keynotes Address, Beijing Forum on women
After abolition of slavery, new challenges became present; one of them, the readmission of the Southern states was required into the Union. " The goal of Reconstruction was to readmit the South on terms that were acceptable to the North-full political and civil equality for blacks and denial of the political rights of whites who were the leaders of the secession movement" (Wormser, 2002). Easier said than done, reconstruction, in the sense originally though by President Lincoln took many years to become a reality due to a series of issues. The "Black codes" permitted, although dubious, displayed the resistance of the South, this and the lack of opportunities for blacks to owe land, as well as the obstacles they encountered to vote were the most prominent issues to overcome during reconstruction. After these problems were ironing out, equality in education, voting rights, and land ownership were established for blacks. Many historical figures defended the rights of those marginalized. Among them President Abraham Lincoln, who instituted the abolition of slavery in 1865 and set the basis for reconstruction in 1862, Frederick Douglas, a former slave who spoke for slave's freedom and after emancipation, for the rights of the newly freed, and Susan B. Anthony, a Quaker abolitionist, whom together with others started the suffrage movement.
When comparing two essays, there are many different aspects that the reader can look at to make judgments and opinions. In the two essays that I choose, MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. 'Letter from Birmingham Jail', and FREDERICK DOUGLAS'S 'From Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave,' there were many similarities, but also many differences. Some of them being, the context, style, structure and tone. Many times when readings or articles are being compared, people over look the grammatical and structural elements, and just concentrate on the issues at hand. I believe it is important to evaluate both.
Mohandas Gandhi and Mao Zedong were two great leaders who succeeded in many ways by their actions and decisions. Gandhi was an Indian leader and Mao a Chinese leader. However, their approach to success, peace, and ultimately, a revolution, was very different. Mao favored peace through violence, and Gandhi favored peace through non-cooperation and standing up for what is right. He also believed that these changes will be accomplished by “conscious suffering”, was the way he put it. However, despite their differences, these two leaders were similar too. They were both very charismatic leaders who successfully made it through their revolutions. Mao’s revolution led to change in class structure while Gandhi’s revolution involved India as a country, and he wanted people to realize that working together is a great way to gain independence. While Mao and Gandhi both believed that each of their countries have the need of independence, their views differed when it came to the use of violence, development towards the revolution, and their thoughts on a caste system.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X both talk about the oppression that the black community suffered, and they defended their positions and their thoughts.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
Up until 1947, the British ruled in India and oppressed Indian citizens. Up until 1964, there was segregation in the United States. Eventually, two brave men stood up and fought for justice and equality. Gandhi lead the movement in India and Dr. Martin Luther King Junior lead the movement in America. Gandhi and Dr. King both employed nonviolent civil disobedience tactics and fought for a cause (to end oppression). However, the two differed greatly in that Gandhi held some “inhumane” ideals that deeply opposed Dr. King’s ideals. Though both men fought for the equality and rights of others, Dr. King had a better philosophy because he fought for a cause and for people whereas Gandhi only fought for a cause.
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. African Americans are fortunate to have leaders who have fought for a difference in Black America. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X are two powerful men in particular who brought hope to blacks in the United States. Both preached the same message about Blacks having power and strength in the midst of all the hatred that surrounded them. Even though they shared the same dream of equality for their people, the tactics they implied to make these dreams a reality were very different. The background, environment and philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were largely responsible for the distinctly varying responses to American racism.
applies the principles of civil disobedience in his procedure of a nonviolent campaign. According to him, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 262). The first step, which is “collection of the facts,” clarify whether the matter requires civil disobedience from the society (King 262). The second step, “negotiation,” is the step where civil disobedience is practiced in a formal way; to change an unjust law, both sides come to an agreement that respects each other’s demand, (King 262). Should the second step fail, comes the “self-purification,” in which the nonconformists question their willingness to endure the consequences without any retaliation that follow enactment of civil disobedience (King 262). The fourth and the last step, “direct action,” is to execute it; coordinated actions such as protests or strikes to pressure no one, but the inexpedient government to conform to them, and advocate their movement, and thus persuade others to promote the same belief (King 262). This procedure along with principles of civil disobedience is one justifiable campaign that systematically attains its objective. King not only presents, but inspires one of the most peaceful ways to void unjust
Throughout history, leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Susan B. Anthony, have helped to bring equitable balance to mankind. Individuals who represent opposing views mold and change the course of history; without such risk takers, life may never progress for the good of humanity. Works Cited Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York: Anchor Books, 1994.
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 ...
Within mainstream society it seems as if there is not a great deal of emphasis on the contributions made by theologians in society, as well as contributions by theologians to religious thought. Particularly in Christendom, ecclesiastical assemblies are so consumed with vain ideas of worship, and content on hearing biblical messages that capitulate to their personal desires, that theological studies are often neglected. Yet the contributions theologians have made in society, and the impact these contributions have had on religious assemblies have been pivotal in guiding religious discourse on subjects such as ethics, morality, and social transformation. It is for this reason, that in this essay an attempt will be made to analyze three essays from three world-renowned theologians of the 20th century. The theologians are Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Walter Wink, all of which have produced the essays used for this analysis, and have written works that have completely challenged status quo religion, and changed the landscape of Christendom forever.
After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history, such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest.
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...
Through committing myself to these various activities, I have been able to help people, as well as help myself. I have learned the importance of teamwork, gained leadership skills, and learned how to humble myself to serve others. These interactions introduced opportunities that have helped prepare me for greater things. Ten years from now, I will be able to say that the hard work was worth it, the determination paid off, and that my priorities took me to the status that I aspired to achieve.