In 1966, frustrated by the lack of progress in the fight for equal rights for blacks, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale founded the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense. Outraged by instances of police brutality and violence toward civil rights workers and even innocent citizens, the Party adopted a policy of self-defense and militancy recognizing that “All history has shown that this government will bring its police and military powers to bear on any group which truly seeks to free Afrikan people” (Acoli 2). This new strategy of “fighting back” differed dramatically from the non-violent rebellion that leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated. These non-violent leaders had adopted a strategy of building a respectful coexistence with the rest of society, which they hoped would eventually lead to social change. However, change was not transpirin... ... middle of paper ... ... for working to eradicate the Party.
He, as well as king, believed in opposing evil violently. This is why he was so moving to some people, because he didn’t need force to prove his point. You would think at least once king would have tried to physically fight back after one too many beatings or being arrested for protesting unfair laws, but not once did he ever try to swing back, or threaten anyone who brought harm his way. In his acceptance speech, in Oslo, he mentions “I believe that unharmed truth and uncon... ... middle of paper ... ...o desegregate the world, and that’s exactly what they did; which explains why king is the icon for civil rights today. Works Cited "About Dr.
In the film however, Agent Ward is particularly against using such tactics and avidly tries to avoid using them. Agent Anderson finally wins the argument between them and the more aggressive technique eventually prevails. The question that looms however is whether or not it is justifiable to use such hostile tactics. Can one say that because of the violence that culminated against the Black Americans it is okay to deploy the same amount of violence against the aggressors? Philosophers such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau have written about such ideas and their concepts can be directly applied to the example presented in Mississippi Burning.
His beliefs would have, according to Gandhi, been to not act violently and let our attackers have this burden on their souls. Would this have really worked? Do you think that the Afghani nation wold have just backed off had we done ... ... middle of paper ... ...dents protected out country’s rights by using a military defense and seldom used nonviolence to address issues at hand. Pacifism is a tricky subject to deal with mainly because you would be let defenseless without using violence. Gandhi was a man of great character and his decision continue to affect many people’s lives but it is almost impossible to practice committing not one act of violence thorough your lifetime of practicing Ahisma which I feel is the main reason we cannot agree with what Gandhi was trying to practice and accomplish throughout his lifetime.
Drummond is adamantly fighting for the truth throughout the trial and will not stop until he has revealed it to the people. He illustrates his persistent search for the truth and justice when he says, “You know that’s not true. I’m trying to stop you bigots and ignoramuses from controlling the education of the United States! And you know it!” (Lawrence and Lee 98). Drummond’s dedication to proving to the jury and the world of Cates’ innocence shows how he will stop at nothing to gain justice and reveal the truth behind a case where a man is convicted for the crime of free thought.
This can be used as another excuse for the whites to hate African Americans and be ten times as violent back. Malcolm X says that the African Americans should stand up and fight for their rights, as opposed to take Martin Luther King Jr.'s route of non-violent protests. He says that the government has failed the African Americans and that nobody is going to help the African Americans but themselves, and that's why they need to take actions into their own hands. (Doc. B) However, this can backfire.
The author uses several phrases that describe his nonviolent efforts and his devotion to the issue of segregation that makes the reader believe his how seriously King takes this issue. “Conversely, one has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” Dr. Martian Luther King, Jr. explains with this that an “unjust law is no law at all.” King does not feel like he has broken any laws in his protest against segregation. In his eyes, laws are made to protect the people, not degrade and punish. “The Negro has many pent up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him March.” As far as King is concerned, the Negros will continue to do whatever is necessary, preferably non-violently, to obtain the moral and legal right that is theirs.
Gandhi fought relentlessly for India’s independence from Britain, but he did not fight in the way many people today think of when they hear the word “fight”. Gandhi fought without fists but with courage, heart, empathy, and, most importantly, with love – love for self, love for others, and love for his country. Gandhi confirms that one who loves himself, others, and his country enough to sacrifice himself and devote himself to ahimsa has the power to change the world. If an individual wants to make a difference he should follow the ways in which Mahatma Gandhi lived his life; Gandhi led a life of nonviolence in his everyday life, in the form of civil disobedience, and as a foundation for independence. As Gandhi did, when one reaches a full understanding of nonviolence and acts upon it, he alone can make a difference.
“This Lincoln always publicly condemned the abolitionists who fought slavery by extra constitutional means – and condemned also the mobs who deprived them of their right of free speech and free press.” (Holfstadter, Lincoln and the Self-Made Myth) Other than that, the North had the upper hand in nearly all aspects that really mattered in times of war. With this information it is clear that without Lincoln’s conservative political stands a “Quick War” would have been much more realistic. Either way, the North had won the Civil War before it began. While the North thought about attacking and invading, the South thought about defending and causing attrition. As the Civil War came underway the South’s military, smaller than the North’s, would take heavy blows from the decisions of the Confederacy.
With Gandhi in his mind to use nonviolence as a strategy throughout his marches and speeches, he did something that inspired people to follow. Violence does not answer problems but cause even more problems. I value what King did as a person and should be remembered for what he impacted our lives. He made history and will be with us for many generations ahead.