Throughout history, there have been multiple occurrences of mass peaceful and civil disobedience that gained momentum and world renown. The successful movement against imperialist Britain led by Gandhi shook the world. The Gandhi-inspired Civil Rights movement led by Martin Luther King successful in reforming an aspect of American law. These movements, caused turmoil and ended with assassinations despite successfully achieving the movement goals. Peaceful resistance consequently causes negative impacts such as violence, social splits, incarceration, riots, and the abuse of peaceful resistance, although on rare occasions, a civil disobedience movement may be completely justified and grandly successful.
The changes and reforms these movements
…show more content…
Governments have harshly turned against their citizens for disobeying their laws and rulings. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement, the police force attacked African-Americans for disobeying a law deemed unconstitutional by the people. Martin Luther King was also assassinated due to the powerful influence he gained and the progression made through his movement; he peacefully disobeyed and suffered. Gandhi was also assassinated because of the level of influence he had achieved by creating a movement that would grant his nation to progress towards a free society. Splits in the society during the Civil Rights Movement occurred as well. Many Caucasian citizens supported the Civil Rights Movement, but they were also discriminated against or looked down upon because they supported the African-American movement. At times, anti-Civil Rights Americans would commit violent crimes against or aggressively spit venomous words at the people who were pro-Civil Rights of the same race. Nobody in a free society should be aggressively attacked physically or verbally yet it was indirectly caused by the movement. Recently, activists whom preformed civil disobedience to protest the Keystone XL Pipeline were arrested. Fortunately, no violence broke out although these 160 people were taken away from daily life and their beliefs for acting against what they believe is correct. Although the aforementioned movements were …show more content…
Anybody has the power to take a stand for their belief, but their belief may not be justified. As long as any movement has support, it may pose a threat for various reasons. If the movement is not led by a passionate and strong-willed leader, the movement could unfortunately result in spurts of violence. For example, The Black Lives Matter movement is not entirely organized and riots have occurred indirectly due to the spark the movement has created. “No society whether free or tyrannical can give its citizens the right to break the law. There can be no law to which obedience is optional, no command to which the state attaches an “if you please,” as stated by Morris Leibman holds a great amount of truth. Mass movements of unorganized civil disobedience creates splits and tension in such a diverse and free society. The movement must also be justified; in the situations of the Civil Rights Movement and the Non-Violent Resistance Movement, the reasons for civil disobedience were justified. This is not to discredit the goal for the Black Lives Matter Movement although without strong unification, a strong leader, and organization, the movement can become a threat through the likes of radicals. Radicals have recently associated themselves with the Black Lives Matters Movement, yet the movement doesn’t
Black Lives Matter. Women’s Marches. In today’s society, we need not look far to see various examples of civil disobedience. Yet, there is still much opposition on the people’s right to speak up - to fight for their rights. Why is this so, when our country seems to have evolved into what it is today, precisely because of it? It is my firm belief that while the United States of America remains a free society - a democracy run by the people - the protesting of unjust laws and traditions will always have a uniquely positive impact in the country.
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
While non-violent protests were politically correct, many participants often put their lives, families and property in danger. Particularly in the south, the KKK and other white supremacist groups gained a reputation for church bombings, lynching and other violent acts against minorities. Despite pacifist idealism in a public protest, it didn’t mean black were willing to let their homes, churches and loved ones go undefended. Many took it upon themselves to arm and protect their communities through any means necessary, and by acquiring as many weapons they could get their hands on. Many black southerners were prepared to meet violence with
The Civil Rights Movement was a series of actions that really peaked in the 1960's. These political actions were aimed at gaining rights for African Americans. However, there were two ways of going about the movement. There were ones who protested peacefully, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and others who wanted a more pro-active way of fighting, like the black-rights activist Malcolm X. However, which way was more proactive? Even though both had great intentions, Dr. Martin Luther King had a better way of trying to achieve rights for the African American community.
Sometimes civil disobedience can become violent as in the case in South Africa during the struggle to end apartied. It started out with passive resistance, but after years of struggling with no change, a violent group was formed and was willing to do anything to get the freedom they desired.
The 1960’s were a time of freedom, deliverance, developing and molding for African-American people all over the United States. The Civil Rights Movement consisted of black people in the south fighting for equal rights. Although, years earlier by law Africans were considered free from slavery but that wasn’t enough they wanted to be treated equal as well. Many black people were fed up with the segregation laws such as giving up their seats on a public bus to a white woman, man, or child. They didn’t want separate bathrooms and water fountains and they wanted to be able to eat in a restaurant and sit wherever they wanted to and be served just like any other person.
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.
For many years after the Civil War many African-Americans did not truly enjoy the freedoms that were granted to them by the US constitution. This was especially true in the southern states, because segregation flourished in the south wwhere African-Americans were treated as second class citizens. This racial segregation was characterized by separation of different races in daily life, such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a rest room, attending school, going to the movies, or in the rental or purchase of a home. In addition, Blacks were not afforded justice and fair trials, such as the case of the murder of Emmet Till. This unjust treatment would not be tolerated in America any more, which spurred the civil rights movement.
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
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that sometimes laws were unjust. In these cases, King would first attempt negotiating with those who were proponents for the unjust issues or laws. If the negotiations were found to be unsuccessful, King would arrange non violent direct action. Antigone on the other hand, didn’t attempt negotiations, she believed that in certain cases, civil disobedience was necessary, and would do whatever was necessary to do her part of doing what she felt was just.
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because if there isn't, how will people hear the voices of the oppressed and mistreated? Peaceful resistance comes a long way in trying to advance the rights and customs of the oppressed today. For example, The Salt March of 1930 was based on the Salt Act of 1882, which excluded the people the India from producing or getting salt, only British officials. Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of this protest. According to an article by time.com, it says that "The protest continued until Gandhi was granted bargaining rights at a negotiation in London. India didn’t see freedom until 1947, but the salt satyagraha (his brand of civil disobedience) established Gandhi as a force to be reckoned with and set a powerful precedent for future nonviolent protestors, including Martin Luther King Jr.(Sarah Begley,2015)" This means the salt march was a start for India's independence. Also, Gandhi's brand of civil disobedience set precedents for future nonviolent protests. Another Example of how peaceful protests
The White Citizens Council was formed and led opposition to school desegregation allover the South. The Citizens Council called for economic coercion of blacks who favored integrated schools, such as firing them from jobs, and the creation of
Historically, the Civil Rights Movement was a time during the 1950’s and 60’s to eliminate segregation and gain equal rights. Looking back on all the events, and dynamic figures it produced, this description is very vague. In order to fully understand the Civil Rights Movement, you have to go back to its origin. Most people believe that Rosa Parks began the whole civil rights movement. She did in fact propel the Civil Rights Movement to unprecedented heights but, its origin began in 1954 with Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka. Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka was the cornerstone for change in American History as a whole. Even before our nation birthed the controversial ruling on May 17, 1954 that stated separate educational facilities were inherently unequal, there was Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 that argued by declaring that state laws establish separate public schools for black and white students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Some may argue that Plessy vs. Ferguson is in fact backdrop for the Civil Rights Movement, but I disagree. Plessy vs. Ferguson was ahead of it’s time so to speak. “Separate but equal” thinking remained the body of teachings in America until it was later reputed by Brown vs. Board of Education. In 1955 when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, and prompted The Montgomery Bus Boycott led by one of the most pivotal leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. After the gruesome death of Emmett Till in 1955 in which the main suspects were acquitted of beating, shooting, and throwing the fourteen year old African American boy in the Tallahatchie River, for “whistling at a white woman”, this country was well overdo for change.
As long as there has been laws and human beings, there has been unrest. Those who disagree with the people who claim power and their ideals of how citizens should act. Disagree on how the government decides on their life, their well-being, all the while preaching their precious “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” to any with ears and while hearing distance. How could people that were oppressed get the rights their very government promised, bragged about, without the use of violence, without going down to their oppressors level. Coined by Henry Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, as a definition is “is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government”, and one of the most key sources for fighting for freedom, for liberty, and for the very right for people to simply exist safely.
I am a pacifist; I do not believe in nor promote violence. I do, however, promote peaceful protest. The act of civil disobedience, of protesting something that is unjust, unconstitutional is well within our constitutional rights. The right to criticize our government is one that was given, that was fought for by our founding fathers. It is an act that affects our society in a very positive way; peaceful resistance encourages others to criticize a cruel and unfair government. Peaceful protests, strikes, and boycotts have the opportunity to gain the government's attention, to try and stop these so-called "anarchists". When we look back at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we see a hero. We see someone who is intelligent, who is not afraid to argue,