More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on civil disobedience
Civil rights movement and civil disobedience
Civil rights movement and civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Civil disobedience, when peacefully done, is effective. History has many examples to prove this, the argument appears more legitimate without violence, and the repercussions for suppression of such movements often increase awareness of the movements themselves. While it may take more time to make change, the change is more likely to happen. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES Perhaps the greatest known proponent of civil disobedience is Mahatma Gandhi. His hunger strikes led to Indian independence, and inspired entire generations to enact change with peace. His goals were achieved, despite his own arrest. This peaceful protest showed the British Empire that one man could lead a crusade with no weapons. The Indian people supported Gandhi and soon protested …show more content…
During the 1960’s, protests were as common as clear skies. While many were done with violence and ended in bloodshed, the vast majority were peaceful and well-planned. The hippie and flower-power movement pressured politicians into ended the highly controversial Vietnam War. While it took years to end the war, many politicians have since spoke of the immense pressure the protests has on them. The pressure ensured that the concerns of the people were in mind when making decisions, and eventually led to the end of the conflict in 1974. Max Fisher, a journalist for the Washington Post, wrote an article (Peaceful protest is much more effective than violence for toppling dictators) on the success of peaceful protest. He cites the findings of a political scientist as proof of the success of peaceful disobedience. He claimed that all movements that 3.5% or more of populations sympathized or supported, were nonviolent; he wrote,”...every single (protest) campaign that exceeded that 3.5 percent point was a nonviolent one.” The finding compiled here also found that from years 1900-2006, 65% of peaceful protests were successful in deposing authoritarian …show more content…
The anti-Trump protesters also angered Americans as the violence fundamentally protested the peaceful transition of power that is paramount in our republic. Taking to the streets and blocking them, threatening voters, and assaulting others did not help protesters. Had all of these people chosen more collegial and sophisticated approaches, the situations may have fared better, if not for the outcomes themselves, then for the perception of the causes. History will always remember the actions of large movements, and as such, the movements should conduct themselves in a sensible manner. REPERCUSSION OF VIOLENCE VS. PEACEFUL MEANS During the 1960’s violent protests swept Soviet states as the populations of the Union demanded independence. These protests were quickly put down by Nikita Khrushchev, the General Secretary of the USSR. These protesters were not tear-gassed. They were not detained. They were set upon by Red Army tanks and shot in the streets. The use of violence bore violence. The argument that a peaceful protest would have met the same reaction is simply false, as when the peaceful protests did occur, Khrushchev allowed them to take place and ignored them
When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or
Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and now Parkland Florida students as well as students around the world; is it true that civil disobedience is the best way for people of all ages to get their voices heard, especially for students who are fighting for gun control?(hook rhetorical) Civil disobedience has been used for centuries to protest unjust laws and legislation, as well as other government decisions that many of the public do not agree with. Thoreau was one of the first to use the term “Resistance to Civil Government” know known as civil disobedience, in which he detailed that not only was the best government the one that did the least, but that laws passed by the government were no better than the people they governed(Thoreau).
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
It is important to notice that if civil disobedience was not effective, then it would not be continually used to disobey the law. In "The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy” by Kayla Starr, she explains why we have the right to participate in civil disobedience. “The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it” (Starr 1). There are many examples of how effective this act of defiance could be. During the Boston Tea Party, the citizens of Massachusetts practiced civil disobedience by throwing Britain’s tea into the Boston harbor because they did not want to pay taxes on tea. Now, you can see that the Boston Tea Party played a major role in the United States becoming independent from Britain (Starr 1). Although violating the law has consequences, in this case the reward outweighed the risk. I think that by realizing the power that civil disobedience carries, we can stand up against ...
Andrew Calabrese, Virtual non-violence? Civil disobedience and political violence in the information age (2004) 6 Emerald Info 326 available at http://spot.colorado.edu/~calabres/Calabrese%20(civl%20dis).pdf
Likewise, violent protests raise awareness in a negative and oftentimes irrational light. Following the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in the fall of 2014***, countless riots shed light on a new twist on a century-old issue; race in America. The man shot was an African-American, unarmed, young adult. He was shot by a white police officer who believed the young man to be a threat to his safety. His death became the catalyst for the modern Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on equality in American justice systems. While the movement places an emphasis on a need for change, much like Martin Luther King did in the 1960’s, the mass riots from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland contradict civil disobedience. The riots caused hundreds of vandalisms, countless injuries of police officers in both cities, and created fear for the movement. Awareness for the issues were raised because of this movement, but the violent initial spark of it derailed the solid proof of the need for change. This further proves the necessity that civil disobedience is on a free society; peaceable expression of views has a heavier weight when it comes to altering the course of a
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.
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.
Civil disobedience is the 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 nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
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.
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.
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
today, perhaps it could be justified. For one, President Donald John Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, which practically bans all foreign immigrants from residing nor entering the nation. America is what it is today because of its diversity. Yet, President Trump and a considerable number of people believe that the country should be of its natives instead of those who seek the privileges of its constitutions and hence potentially violates the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men have the right to seek asylum. Considering how the Declaration of Independence originated the U.S., it is ironic for the nation to limit it. Therefore, civil disobedience is required. As it is apprehended that the matter requires civil disobedience, the negotiation comes in; however, a president could be convinced, but not negotiated with his own nation, and thus this step is nullified. Moving on, the enactment of non-violent direct actions is legally safe from the nation’s military forces, but it could be met with a group of people, potentially possessive of deadly weapons, who support the Immigration Executive Order. As it could be life threatening to some extent, one should be ready to self-defend, but not retaliate to the extent where the other is harmed. Finally, launch coordinated systematic direct actions nationwide for the maximum effect. In doing so, President Trump would eventually have to nullify
Chenoweth seeks to explain why “nonviolent resistance often succeeds compared to violent resistance, and under what conditions nonviolence succeeds or fails”. In recent years, organized groups conducting civil disobedience have been successful using nonviolent tactics such as, “boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation”, in order to challenge the current power they were facing.1 Some successful examples of regimes that have been removed from power in recent years are, “Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-2005), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006)”.1 More recently in 2011 there were major uprising in both Egypt and Tunisia that were able to remove regimes that had been in power for decades, showing that nonviolence can work even if the regime has been in power for years.1
Have you ever wondered what it was like to make a difference and even change something in your country? How would you feel if you were considered a hero by your people? Civil disobedience is a form of protest that uses a law to show that it is not needed. The protestors intentionally violate a law that they are protesting against (Suber). For example, Rosa Parks used civil disobedience by sitting at the front of the bus because she believed that all people are the same and deserved equal rights. Although civil disobedience uses tactics of nonviolence, it is more than a little passive resistance because it is used to take action by illegal street demonstrations or by peaceful occupations (Starr). Mandela’s involvement in civil disobedience was due to his strongly hatred of racism and racial prejudice in South Africa. Mr. Mandela did achieve success by using guerrilla tactics as well as civil disobedience to stand up to what he believed was right.