More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the effects of disobedience in society
What are the effects of disobedience in society
How is society affected by civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Civil disobedience does positively impact a free society, and let me tell you why. To start off civil disobedience causes change, and change is good. But before the change actually happens the idea needs to come from somewhere. What i mean by this is that when people participate in civil disobedience it shines light on our nations issues. The news channels feast over these types of things. The news channels want something that will gain attention of their viewers and anything to do with laws and government is a gold mine for FOX and MSNBC. An example of this is when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. This had such a great impact because the word of what she did spread so far and so fast. But shining light on to subject is only the first step to making an …show more content…
The times of segregation between whites and blacks are a perfect time to look at when talking about how people have the power. Back then when it wasn't okay for blacks to go into any restaurant they wanted they still did it for a greater purpose. The hope to someday be free and do whatever they want and eat where ever they want. It shouldn't come as a surprise when i say it worked, and today the United States is better for it. In reality some laws that are mad are bad laws and they need people to peacefully ignore them in order to make a change. That leads into my last point that laws need to change as society changes. The Constitution written by James Madison isn't the same today as it was when he first wrote it. That because society isn't the same as it was back then. Sometimes laws fall behind because society is changing so rapidly these days and you need people to participate in Civil Disobedience in order to change them and catch them back up. An example would be after the 9/11 attacks immigration laws changed dramatically the year
People who have power are in control of the world around them. This includes the government, which in turn means the justice system. What happens when society doesn’t look like the dream of those in control? They manipulate the rules in attempt to make dreams come true. In the nineteenth century after the Civil War, the government and people in society had a particular vision in mind. Some wanted whites to still have control over African Americans, others wanted streets without the homeless and jobless. Even though these are different approaches, the primary goal was to “fix” the appearance of society, to keep the streets looking presentable, and to create contributing members of society from the less fortunate.
For 75 years following reconstruction the United States made little advancement towards racial equality. Many parts of the nation enacted Jim Crowe laws making separation of the races not just a matter of practice but a matter of law. The laws were implemented with the explicit purpose of keeping black American’s from being able to enjoy the rights and freedoms their white counterparts took for granted. Despite the efforts of so many nameless forgotten heroes, the fate of African Americans seemed to be in the hands of a racist society bent on keeping them down; however that all began to change following World War II. Thousands of African American men returned from Europe with a renewed purpose and determined to break the proverbial chains segregation had keep them in since the end of the American Civil War. With a piece of Civil Rights legislation in 1957, the federal government took its first step towards breaking the bonds that had held too many citizens down for far too long. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 was a watered down version of the law initially proposed but what has been perceived as a small step towards correcting the mistakes of the past was actually a giant leap forward for a nation still stuck in the muck of racial division. What some historians have dismissed as an insignificant and weak act was perhaps the most important law passed during the nation’s civil rights movement, because it was the first and that cannot be underestimated.
The legality of racial segregation was the result of a deeply flawed belief held by the majority of Americans that blacks were inherently inferior and would never be treated the same as whites. African Americans had been regarded as property for centuries prior to the Civil Rights Movement, and that mindset had to be changed for the creation of new laws or abolition of old laws to have any ...
Lasting hatred from the civil war, and anger towards minorities because they took jobs in the north probably set the foundation for these laws, but it has become difficult to prove. In this essay, I will explain how the Separate but Equal Laws of twentieth century America crippled minorities of that time period forever. Separate but Equal doctrine existed long before the Supreme Court accepted it into law, and on multiple occasions it arose as an issue before then. In 1865, southern states passed laws called “Black Codes,” which created restrictions on the freed African Americans in the South. This became the start of legal segregation as juries couldn’t have African Americans, public schools became segregated, and African Americans had restrictions on testifying against majorities.
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
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”.
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more responsibility and started making additional decisions, which in time helped minorities gain their civil rights. It took a couple of years, as a matter of fact till the 1900’s for the Supreme Court to get out of the “ideology of white supremacy and the practice of racism,” (Smith). Though the decisions of the Supreme Court were not all that appreciated in the beginning, following the 20th century the court really facilitated in the advancements of civil rights.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi
The civil and eventually violent disobedience of the thirteen colonies against England resulted in the birth of now one of the most powerful nations in the world. The civil disobedience of those willing to go against the norm allowed for Americans to be able to marry who they chose. It is because of Nelson Mandela getting arrested for what he believed in to allow for south Africa to be free from segregation. Civil disobedience has paved the way for society to become better because at some points society was not based on fairness. It was based on cruel ideologies and those ideologies put laws into affect that were meant to lower certain groups of people. So by breaking those laws it awakens those groups and allows them the motivation to go up against these unfair laws and in doing this allows for these unfair laws to be
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.
All in all, civil disobedience has made many positive changes in the world today. Nevertheless, the end goal or result of any act of civil disobedience is not meant to benefit the individual, but the community as a whole. The ends of such an act should not be a private gain, but a public gain. Just like in The Hunger Games, how Peeta and Katniss remained brave by risking their lives to stand up for their districts.
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation in the United States was commonly practiced in many of the Southern and Border States. This segregation while supposed to be separate but equal, was hardly that. Blacks in the South were discriminated against repeatedly while laws did nothing to protect their individual rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ridded the nation of this legal segregation and cleared a path towards equality and integration. The passage of this Act, while forever altering the relationship between blacks and whites, remains as one of history’s greatest political battles.
Civil Disobedience even has its routes in our nations founding. In the 1760's and early 1770's, American colonial citizens took to the streets to protest what they at the time thought were unjust taxes imposed on them by a parliament in which they had no meaningful representation in. These protests were the bedrock of the American revolution. In Harris G. Mirkin's piece on Thomas Jefferson, he writes that Jefferson himself even believed in the principle of civil disobedience. Jefferson wrote the Kentucky Resolution in 1800 which introduced the idea of nullification, which is basically just ignoring a law that one does not find useful or necessary. In the late 1890's and early 1900's, powerful monopolies were unchecked and had gained too much power. So groups of laborers banded together to peacefully and rightfully protest to gain better working conditions. These early unionists laid the foundation of what would become the standard American work week of 5 days a week for 8 hours a
I think civil disobedience is an effective means to creating change. Civil disobedience gets the message across and it can bring about change. Violence cannot fix any problem, as it leads to more violence and more hatred. On the other hand, civil disobedience is a way to show the enemy that you do not hate them, but you hate what they are doing or claiming. In addition, civil disobedience shows the opponent that you are willing to let them do anything to you, as long as there is a change brought about for the better. Also, another benefit of using civil disobedience is that people who practice it are showing that they are serious about what they want. They are prepared to go to any extremes of listening to the other party, and only for their own beliefs and against what they know is wrong. This can send a very powerful response, and bring about a positive change.