Martin Luther King's Civil Resistance: A Channel For Change

794 Words2 Pages

Civil Resistance: A Channel for Change Civil disobedience has long been the subject of historical and sociological debates around the world. It is a polarizing topic because it blurs the lines between morality and legality. Some view it through a strictly black-and-white lens while others identify grey areas and believe that grey areas and specific circumstances justify the breaking of laws. Watershed moments in history, however, serve to primarily advocate the use of civil disobedience and nonviolent action as a means of social change and reform. Although many argue that it disturbs the peace and order of society, peaceful resistance positively impacts a free society by forcing a confrontation with an unjust law and replacing an attitude …show more content…

Martin Luther King, Jr., used peaceful disobedience to combat racist violence and injustice in 1960s America. While imprisoned in a jail in Birmingham in 1963 for leading public demonstrations, King wrote a letter that famously became known as “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. In this critique of the justice system in America, King attributes the effectiveness of civil resistance to the inherent invasive nature of it. King writes that nonviolent direct resistance creates “such a crisis and [fosters] such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue”. Although critics argue that nonviolent resistance like peaceful protesting or sit-ins disturbs tranquility in society, King and his success in the Civil Rights Movement prove that although civil disobedience disturbs the peace in society, it does so only to elicit lasting change on issues, not to create chaos or unrest. It “seeks… to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored”, which forces society to face the issue and create plans of action to solve the problem. King explains that nonviolent resistance creates “constructive… tension which is necessary for growth”. Nonviolent action/civil disobedience finds success as a result of its inherent tendency to create tension, and while tension is uncomfortable, it is a requisite for lasting change. …show more content…

The Indian peoples struggled for independence from Britain beginning in the late-19th century and continuing until the mid-20th century, and Indians’ attempts to retaliate failed until leader Mahatma Gandhi emerged and put in action various nonviolent means of winning back freedom. Dr. Lester R. Kurtz, professor of sociology at George Mason University, writes that Gandhi’s tactics in civil resistance “seriously undermined British authority and united India’s population in a movement for independence under the leadership of the Indian National Congress”. Gandhi’s efforts both diminished the British threat and also united the Indian people. In his writings on nonviolence, Gandhi explains the benefits of nonviolence in terms of humanitarianism. He writes, “Non-violence… is a more active and more real fighting against wickedness than retaliation whose very nature is to increase wickedness… I seek entirely to blunt the edge of the tyrant's sword… by disappointing his expectation that I would be offering physical resistance”. Gandhi refused to fight violence and oppression with a “sharper-edged weapon” and instead used nonviolence. Ultimately, Gandhi’s tactics and his resolution to promote benevolence and peace proved successful–India won complete independence from Britain after their

Open Document