More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of civil disobedience
Civil disobedience impacts on society
Civil disobedience impacts on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of civil disobedience
Now a days violence is still present as an approach to meet oppression but it is not as common as it used to be back then. To me violence is obsolete in certain ways given the fact that now there is rules to follow created by the law. It is also important to mention that, for example, Police officers, often use violence against civilians when they try to put the handcuffs on them or even when they want the civilian to do as they say. Sometimes we feel like we have to resort to violence or aggression to get our points across to people. In reality, this will just make things worse. With that said, nonviolent resistance is the best way to go because there is no violence required.Martin Luther King states, “Nonviolent resistance is not aimed against
...y shocks most of people who hear and see it, encouraging and moving others who also suffer. In instance, Elena screamed at Longoria to show she would not give them any information about resistances and Antonio when Longoria was about to killing her (Tobar 148). Elena sacrificed her life to protect Antonio and her friends who fought against the Guatemalan government without using any violence when she faced Longoria who tried to kill her. She showed it was important not to be daunted by fear and to keep fighting for justice. Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance as a means of seeking peace and gaining independence for the Republic of India from Britain. Justice should be served by means in the name of justice. Nonviolent resistance is a powerful way to fight against the cycle of violence and work towards the realization of a peaceful world.
Times were looking up for African Americans, their new freedom gave them the option to go down a road of either criminal actions or to make something out of themselves. But the presence of racism and hatred was still very much so alive, Klu Klux Klan, although not as strong as they were after the Civil War was still present. Laws like Jim Crow laws and “separate but equal” came into play and continued to show how racism was alive. Besides these actors of racism, blacks still started gaining a major roll in American society.
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.
As Dr. King stated in Letter from A Birmingham Jail, “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. I must confess that I am not afraid of the word, tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive tension that is necessary for growth. The purpose of direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” Such as in the case of the 1969 student site-in against the Vietnam W...
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.
If something isn’t right, there is a way to fix it. Violence of course is never the answer therefore, non-violent protests were started. Non-Violent protesting had a slow start then it spread around the world when it hit media attention. Non-violent protest also had more effectiveness than violent protests. Non-Violent protests may have taken a while, but the results were successful.
The Civil Rights Movement brought many accomplishments to African Americans such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. The key issues that African Americans fought for were voting rights, integration and racial equality. They were tired of the discrimination and humiliation they received as a result of the segregation laws imposed on them. “State laws mandated racial separation in schools, parks, playgrounds, restaurants, hotels, public transportation, theaters, restrooms and so on” (Blumberg 40). Lawsuits had been tried to gain rights such as the unsuccessful Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 and the successful Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Although, the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka declared the “separate but equal” clause unconstitutional, de facto segregation continued in the South. During the 1960s, two methods were used: nonviolence and violence. Violence proved to be ineffective since it perpetuated social tensions among Whites and Blacks. Nonviolence was the most effective method in bringing social change in America during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement because it attracted sympathy towards Black people, provoked positive media attention, and promoted unity among African Americans.
Nonviolent civil disobedience was a critical factor in gaining women the right to vote in the United States, this changed the face of the South. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) initiated modern nonviolent action for civil rights. I also believe that the gay and lesbian community is the result of direct nonviolent activism and when the ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) was formed it focused not only on AIDS but on the increase of homophobia and attacks on lesbians and gays. I believe governmental power is maintained through oppression and tactic compliance of the majority of the governed; struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice. Our struggle is not easy, and we must not think of nonviolence as a safe way to fight oppression, the strength of nonviolence comes from your willingness to take personal risks in Kohlberg’s moral stage 5 moral rights and social contract is explained in this political analysis on governmental power and the antiapartheid and central American work when they led protests on campuses with hundreds being arrested and 130 campus withdrawals.
Rodney King a black man who lived in Las Vegas was severely beaten by four white police officers. The officers were brought into court and tried on charges of assault. The officers were acquitted of the assault charges. Immediately protestors took to the streets, to express their angry over the judge’s decision. Protestors found the ruling to be unfair and was fed up with the ill-treatment. The violent protest turned into a riot. A lot of damage occurred; over 50 people were killed, over 2,300 people injured, 8,000 arrests and estimated over $1 billion in property damage. The riots exposed the police abuse, poverty, and lack of economic opportunity. If it was not for the violent protestors no light would have been shed on the way black were being
The role of violence in the fight against injustice is a tricky one. If an oppressor is willing to use violence to maintain control should not the oppressed use violence to achieve liberation? Franz Fanon would argue that the pent up anger and frustration must be released in violent action to tear down the oppressor’s regime. However, there is a better way and that is through non-violence and understanding that Martin Luther King, Jr. champions. Only through creating tension around injustice via non-violent direct action can the conversation begin around mutual understanding and justice. It is this justice achieved through non-violent means that will last as violent action is ultimately unjust in nature.
According to Martin Luther King, there are three ways that oppressed people cope with oppression; Acquiescence, basically where the oppressed get used to being oppressed. Resort to physical violence and corroding hatred, which would bring momentary solutions and establish additional and more complex problems. Nonviolent resistance, that seeks to create a balance between the acquiescence and violence by preventing the extremes and immoralities of both. In the text “Nonviolence” the term is explained as “a set of assumptions about morality, power and conflict that lead its proponents to reject the use of violence in efforts to attain social and political goals.” (p.1) As King implies, those assumptions does not imply a battle between people but a opposition between justice and injustice and by the help of nonviolent resistance the Negro can fight for equality. The hint is to create effective tactics and considering political and cultural conditions, and develop a better plan or strategy.
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 ...
It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.
“An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind” (Mahatma Gandhi), welcome to the world of non-violence, not similar to ‘disney land’ but merely a small philosophical village coated in white, decorated with crystals and abundant in doves; white resembling peace, crystals for clarity and pure spirit and doves for .. I don’t know, I guess I have been driven by my imagination.
While using violence to counteract violence may seem like a contradiction of sorts it is possibly the only recourse for the oppressed. It is impossible to create a formula of what works and doesn’t work in terms of emancipation because it is highly dependent on the particular situation but it is quite apparent that counterviolence is a necessary tool in this struggle. As we have seen, violence is not the only tool in liberation; the reconstruction of human ethics and perceptions is as, or more, important. Furthermore, it has been shown that sometimes nonviolence can create systemic change and that violence is not always applicable. Other times, violence is the only means to achieve true human emancipation.