Civil Disobedience was always and will always be a part of society whether people like it or not. Whether it be through woman pretending to be men to fight in an army, or through refusing to give up your seat to a human of a different race, it is undeniable how massive the change that civil disobedience has caused. When one hears the phrase civil disobedience they most likely automatically think of Dr. Martin Luther King and his struggle to fight or basic equality. He inspired his followers to fight non violently and to fight for what is right. He would march peacefully through the streets, so everyone could see their efforts, he would encourage sit ins, where black people would sit benignly at all white counters, showing how they should be allowed to sit anywhere. …show more content…
If King had just sat quietly by his bedside and allowed himself to face these injustices there would be no change. If no one is complaining about the inequality, no one will make an effort to fix it. Pushing against the norm is the only way to let the minorities voice be heard. Civil Disobedience is the catalyst for change in the world. If no one fought against having to change their seats on the bus, no one would think of it as a mistreatment. The mass population will not even notice a system is sexist, racist, etc. until it is brought to their attention, and it cannot be brought to their attention in an effective way until there is civil disobedience. If the victims of the oppression allow themselves to be subjected to the inequality, their position will never change. It is the brave individuals who publicly speak out against their unfair positions that allow the privileged majority to hear their plight, and to sympathize for them. The groups must keep the resistance peaceful
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
The act of civil disobedience existed for a long time, dating back to the Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and early Christians. The height of the civil rights movement was the 1950’s to 1960’s. During this time period, many activists fought for racial equality and rights. Civil disobedience was practiced by these people who fought for racial equality and rights. Martin Luther King Jr. and Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mocking Bird used civil disobedience as an act of fighting back against injustice in order for a better society. These two people, Martin Luther King Jr. and Atticus Finch, of the time of the 20th century practiced civil disobedience in the name of justice.
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”.
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
Laws are implemented to enforce civil proceedings in society, thereby enabling individuals to operate and function within a morally stable population. But there is a delicate and uncertain balance between doing so and restricting personal freedoms--for though individuals should not be wholly free to conduct themselves as they please (for fear of anarchy), neither should they be confined to a level by which they are unable to direct their life’s course and pursue personal betterment. When citizens feel this to be the case, they have the right to peacefully display their grievances with enacted law for the advocation of positive change in the society. For if a society is truly free, the government
Throughout history, there are always laws and rules; however, these rules wouldn’t evolve and progress in a government if it weren’t for civil disobedience. Throughout the course of history, especially in democracies, civil disobedience has been used to change unright laws, and it gives people the freedom to stand for what they believe in. There are countless examples of people who have protested and changed the world. In a way, it also lets people stay true to what they believe is right, whether it be for religious reasons or just because of their ethics. Civil disobedience is, and always has been, a part of society; it is not only a part of government, but it is also necessary in a democracy where people have freedom of speech and other similar rights.
Something that is least needed, small or not as important may be something, huge, life-saving and a gift sent from above. Now the government is probably not a gift sent from our father unless it's from our forefathers, but it is rather a system that very well needed in this country. In Henry David Thoreau's famous essay "Civil Disobedience" he writes one of his very well-known verse "government is best which governs least." He talks about how unjust and wrong the government is and how he can't seem to follow his "conscience" during his experiences from going to jail to being a citizen who stopped paying taxes. However, what one forgets to realize is when and why Thoreau had written that quote. During his time, the Mexican-American War had just gone on, and slavery was still prevalent in the south. The government then seemed
Many people choose to use violence in their own ways to achieve the goals they have set upon themselves. But are there situations where violent disobedience is ever justified? You might be thinking, what is violent disobedience? Violent disobedience is the act of breaking a rule placed upon oneself, ready to accept any punishment that is to come to thee. You could violently disobey anyone such as the police, your parents, and even yourself. I believe only in certain situations one should be allowed to violently disobey an order give to him or her. No matter, one must accept ones hardships with outstanding stoicism to be able to succeed in controlling your actions for the greater good.
This Civil Rights Act is a challenge to all of us to go to work in our communities and our states, in our homes and in our hearts, to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country” (Lyndon B. Johnson). The civil rights were the hardest times for African Americans to do anything from going to school, to even going to the bathroom, they were not aloud to be associated with anything the whites were able to do. They were sprayed with water hoses when they marched the streets fighting for their rights. Most people saw them for being nasty people because of their skin color, not everyone saw them for who they were, they were just like the whites just a different skin color. It is unfair how they were treated, looking back and seeing how they were treated, us whites should be ashamed of how we treated them. When people become dissatisfied with the way they are treated they fight for their rights: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Shelley v. Kramer, and Brown v. Board of the Education.
From the Boston Tea Party of 1773, the Civil Rights Movement and the Pro-Life Movement of the 1960s, to the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street Movement of current times, “those struggling against unjust laws have engaged in acts of deliberate, open disobedience to government power to uphold higher principles regarding human rights and social justice” (DeForrest, 1998, p. 653) through nonviolent protests. Perhaps the most well-known of the non-violent protests are those associated with the Civil Rights movement. The movement was felt across the south, yet Birmingham, Alabama was known for its unequal treatment of blacks and became the focus of the Civil Rights Movement. Under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, African-Americans in Birmingham, began daily demonstrations and sit-ins to protest discrimination at lunch counters and in public facilities. These demonstrations were organized to draw attention to the injustices in the city. The demonstrations resulted in the arrest of protesters, including Martin Luther King. After King was arrested in Birmingham for taking part in a peaceful march to draw attention to the way that African-Americans were being treated there, their lack of voter rights, and the extreme injustice they faced in Alabama he wrote his now famous “Letter from Birmingham.”
The United States of America is a nation that values freedom above all, yet it fails to allow a portion of its population to be free. For centuries, African American slaves endured severe physical and mental abuse under the hands of their masters. The demise of slavery was followed by the end of the Civil War. Even though African Americans were finally emancipated, they were still unable to enjoy their newly granted freedom due to the unwillingness of white Americans to accept them as their equals. Being an African American in the U.S meant being denied basic Civil and Human Rights: the right to vote, social freedom, and equality. In order to ensure these rights for all, many great leaders, such as the late Martin Luther King Jr., rose to help
Civil disobedience is a threat to our free society, as one small example can snowball into a much larger issue within our society. Rosa Parks used civil disobedience in a very effective way, but a bank robber could use civil disobedience to explain that he was gaining rights for the poor, much like Rosa Parks did for the African American community. The problem here lies in where you can draw the line with civil disobedience. You could argue that a good argument is needed to justify someone breaking a law, but any argument can be fabricated to expose only the good details that aid their side of the argument. Civil disobedience could even end up in murder where a person decides it is in the best interest of the community to eliminate a person, preventing them from doing damage.
In analyzing the durability of liberal democracies over time, it is essential to understand how substantive institutional and legal changes are enacted, and how democracies endure internal revolutions without collapsing. Jurgen Habermas and Michael Walzer believe civil disobedience to be a vital instrument of revolution because it calls attention to injustice and facilitates systemic change. Herbert Storing rejects this principle, denouncing civil disobedience as a means to subvert institutional solutions to unjust legislation and degrade constitutional order. Habermas and Walzer dispute Storing’s condemnation of non-violent direct action, defending civil disobedience as an inherently democratic process that advances systems of governance,
The actions of Martin Luther king Jr. was necessary to acquire a real change in American culture. To civil disobey is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or of any occupying international power. It also a symbolic violation of the law, rather then rejection of the system as a whole. Martin King Jr use this a nonviolent form of resistance to change a society for the better.