Civil Disobedience 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. King believed that the problem with violence as a means of pursuing freedom is that revolutionaries must often employ means that threaten to subvert it therefore is illegitimate, and as Hanna Arendt states in On Revolution, “Violence has no intrinsic value, and on the human scale of relative values, will always lie beneath the human needs and interests that is serves.” Albert Camus states “Violence can only be an extreme limit which combats another form of violence, as, for example, in the case of insurrection” Both Arendt and Camus agree with King that Violence, although justifiable in extreme cases, can never be legitimate. King sought to legitimize the Civil Rights Movement by exhorting and adhering to a philosophy of non-violence grounded in morals and human ethics. When we hear the w... ... middle of paper ... ...amus’ Rieux in The Plague when he says: “I have no more than the pride that’s needed to keep me going. I have no idea what’s awaiting me, or what will happen when all this ends. For the moment I know this. There are sick people and they need curing” King, like Rieux, was a healer; he sought to mend the wounds of society rather that create new ones. It is for this vision that I deem him the ideal rebel. Bibliography: WDWGFH- Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967) WWCW- Why We Can’t We Wait (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1963) TC- The Trumpet of Conscience (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1967) GONV- Merton, Thomas Gandhi on Non-Violence (New York: New Directions, Publishers, 1965) Isaac, Jeffrey C. Arendt, Camus, and Modern Rebellion (Michigan: Yale University Press, Publishers, 1992)
...lse. “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’” Everything that Hitler did was legal, but immoral and wrong, and things that Hungarian Freedom Fighters were doing was illegal, but was the right thing. This alludes to King doing the right thing, but having it is illegal, and doing the right thing and doing the legal thing do not always go hand in hand. In addition to that, he also makes reference to the “Boston Tea Party” showing that civil disobedience as not a new idea.
The Civil Rights movement was a movement against racial segregation and discrimination in the southern States that became nationally recognized in the middle of the 1950s. Though American slaves were given basic civil rights through the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments of the Constitution, African Americans still had a hard time trying to get federal protection of their newly found rights. A man by the name of Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the American Civil rights Leaders who used nonviolence in order to reach a social change. He used nonviolent resistance to overcome injustice against African Americans like segregation laws. He wasn’t just fighting for the equality of all African American but was also fighting for the equality of all men and women. Malcolm X is another great leader who fought for what he believed in. He was a black activist who, unlike King, promoted a little violence. Malcolm X wanted the nation (African Americans) to become more active in the civil rights protests. Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. had different methods for gaining civil rights. I believe that Martin Luther King Jr. method was more effective thanMalcolm X methods. In King “’Letter from Birmingham Jail” King defends himself on writing about why he is using nonviolent resistance to racism. Throughout the letter he shows his reasoning using logic, emotion, and ethics. Throughout his life King used this same method to reach how to hundred of thousands of African Americans.
King proceeds to the latter part of his speech by declaring the need for peaceful resistance. His analogies of man “carving highways of death in the stratosphere” (3) and how non peaceful defiance will contribute to “a civilization plunged into the abyss of annihilation” (3) soundly depicts his ideals of how African Americans should reach true freedom and equality only through pacifism. He mandates this passiveness in order to bring about change insightfully because his goal is not to wage war against their oppressors but to defeat the evil sentiment held by the nation. King’s remarkable aptitude and brilliant intuition in his dialogue enables the reader to appreciate and concede to his ideals.
Doctor Martin Luther King Jr.’s essay “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” has two main features. The first feature of King’s essay is a call for action; action to bring about change. The second feature, the more easily viewed feature of this essay is a call for a specific type of action to bring about a specific type of change. The change King wishes to bring about is a peace and equality brought about through non-violent actions.
was the master of generating widespread support for the Civil Rights movement. It was his words in this letter that persuaded many, even those not of his race. However, King repeatedly states that he was immensely disappointed by those who did not take a direct stand against wrongdoings:“Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea” ( 970). King believed that the only way to combat the injustices of the world was for everyone to join forces and speak together so that everyone’s voice can be heard, not stand alone as an “outside agitator” that the government can easily ignore or quell. If social change is a necessary action, than people should not act as if they are the sole person to make a difference, as King said, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” (970). Every injustice in the world affects every person; if people do not take a stand together, then it will continue to tear apart society; people cannot just stand idly by and call out grievances every once in a while. Injustice is “like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light” (King 974). If people just continue to pick at an issue, then it will only become worse. However, if they open it wide
Martin Luther King Jr. is considered to be one of the most prominent human rights’ defenders of the XX century and the speaker for non-violent social change. He believed that building power is the most important task facing movements for human progress because the human progress comes through the tireless efforts of people, who should use powerful and true weapon – non-violence – in order to achieve positive effects. King managed to achieve brilliant success in the battle for the liberty of blacks and not pour the way to freedom by rivers of blood.
When contrasting violent and non-violent forms of civil disobedience, one can look at the contrasting doctrines of civil rights activists Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. Martin Luther King’s tactics of protest involved non-violent passive resistance to racial injustice. He once said, “unearned suffering is redemptive. Suffering,...
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.
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 ...
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.
The legacy of Dr. King propelled America into a new realm of individual liberty by introducing the peaceful protest. Dr. King’s principle indicated that violence was not an option; peace was the way to lawfully achieve their rights. He even had young followers vow that they would act in an ethical way to justify their cause for equality. This positively impacted Dr. King's contribution to history because it continued to remind citizens of America to peacefully protest their government if it is unjust. Additionally, King often told his followers that their actions would be judged, not only now, but even by future generations. This helped ease racial tensions and continued to remind his followers to act peacefully. In doing so, protesters were able to think and justify their actions before they proceeded which paved the way for future generations of America. Furthermore, Dr. King's legacy is remembered as remarkable because he made America embrace this new form of protest. He suggested reality and love rather than anger. Overall, Dr. King's principle of nonviolent protest made his legacy quite noticeable and inspiring
By definition, civil disobedience means to actively refuse to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence (Wikipedia 2007). Many of the influential people in history have felt passionately about what they believe. These passions caused them to rebel against a government or authority. Many times they felt so strongly about what they believed and how they were being treated was wrong they became disobedient. They would take physical and verbal abuse for being disobedient but would never retaliate. They believed in what they thought was wrong and tried to change the way they were governed. Albert Einstein once said 'never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.' Albert Einstein's views seem to be reasonable. The claim by Albert Einstein is accurate because people should stand up for what they believe, they should know when they are right and their government is wrong, and they should trust in themselves and their own beliefs.
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.
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 non-violent philosophy was not a movement of pacifism to Martin Luther King, it was one of action. Absolute strength was apparent in its practice, but how? The student movement caused many of its’ participants to be severely beaten, chastised, and arrested, only to continue while never fighting back. Why were they doing this? King felt the answer was that through their actions they would awaken not only the majority, but more importantly the minority to the need for equal rights. Apathy had set in among both groups causing them to accept the current state of affairs, and like the great “gadfly” Socrates, King and the students were forcing both groups to wake up and open their eyes.