Up until 1947, the British ruled in India and oppressed Indian citizens. Up until 1964, there was segregation in the United States. Eventually, two brave men stood up and fought for justice and equality. Gandhi lead the movement in India and Dr. Martin Luther King Junior lead the movement in America. Gandhi and Dr. King both employed nonviolent civil disobedience tactics and fought for a cause (to end oppression). However, the two differed greatly in that Gandhi held some “inhumane” ideals that deeply opposed Dr. King’s ideals. Though both men fought for the equality and rights of others, Dr. King had a better philosophy because he fought for a cause and for people whereas Gandhi only fought for a cause. Gandhi and Dr. King fought for equality …show more content…
King not only fights for a cause but for people as well while Gandhi does not fight for others. Dr. King wants to see “men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood” (King, p.2). He also stated “I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s antireligious laws” (King, p.4). These two quotes display that Dr. King cared for others. He did not only want to fight for the cause of the Civil Rights Movement, but he truly wanted equality for all and for everyone to have just treatment and live the good life. Gandhi, on the other hand, only fought for the movement. He thought of fighting for the cause in other situations as well such as the Holocaust. Gandhi believed that “the German Jews ought to commit collective suicide, which ‘would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to Hitler’s violence’” (Orwell, p.5-6). Gandhi also “urged nonviolent resistance against a Japanese invasion, he was ready to admit that it might cost several million deaths” (Orwell, p.6). These two examples clearly show that Gandhi was only interested in achieving a movement, and did not care for the lives of others. He was ready to exchange millions of lives in order to reach …show more content…
King’s philosophy for fighting for the good life is more effective than Gandhi’s philosophy. Since Dr. King fought for both a cause and for people, he was able to reach the goal of his movement sooner than Gandhi met his. Dr. King began working in the Civil Rights movement in 1955 and the first major Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. Gandhi began work in his movement in 1919 and did not reach his goal until the British left in 1947. This is important because it shows that in order to be a great leader, one has to fight for more than a cause. One must fight for a cause, others, and oneself. One must be able to do all these things in order to fight for the good
As we know about These hero’s I want to contrast a little about them. I want to start with Fannie Lou Hamer she was an southern sharecropper in which she was poor. She had dropped out of school when she was 12 years old to help out on the farm. But she always had been had all of her life. No she didn’t wait on a bus until an white man told her to move to make a change. She pushed herself by doing things any man think that a woman could not do. As you know she joined the SNCC. Hamer founded Mississippi’s Freedom Democratic party.
"an unjust law is no law at all."- quote by St. Augustine who was an Christian theologian and philosopher, whose writings influenced the development of Western Christianity. Martin Luther King Jr. was a baptist minister and civil rights leader that made advancements for civil rights peacefully, exclusively for African Americans in America. Mohandas Gandhi was a non-violent leader of the Indian independence movement against British rule. Accordingly, both MLK Jr. and Gandhi were leaders for civil rights that practiced and preached non-violent approaches for their freedom.Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi were both valid in their judgment to break the law for their peaceful protests.
”(Martin Luther King Jr.... ... middle of paper ... ... Gandhi is to MLK Jr. as SBA and MLK Jr. is to the people of this generation. Now, instead of getting a shoe named after them, these two Civil Rights leaders got laws changed based off of their beliefs with help from people who followed them and their dedication to this topic. These two people revolutionized people’s judgmental thoughts about others, about what they look like and believe, and instead only off of actions or what people have said.
“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear”. Nelson Mandela said. “Our language is the reflection of ourselves. A language is an exact reflection of the character and growth of its speakers,” said Cesar Chavez. Nelson Mandela and Cesar Chavez are both great leaders and they will be remembered. But both of them have different situations that went on in their lifetime. They all have a different story. For example, Nelson Mandela was fighting for the rights of the African Americans and Cesar Chavez was fighting for the rights of farmers who didn't get paid enough. But which one is more persuasive?
Martin Luther King Jr. and Cornel West both want the same thing; peace and proper freedom for all African Americans within the United States, and even on a worldwide scale. Martin Luther King Jr. stated in his letter while imprisoned in Birmingham that; "Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever. The urge for freedom will eventually come. This is what happened to the American Negro. Something within has reminded him of his birthright of freedom; something without has reminded him that he can gain it again." (Luther King Jr. 1963).
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X paved a significant path towards a racially neutral society. There is no doubt that both Martin and Malcolm influenced a whole generation of rebels to fight racism and discrimination. Martin Luther King Jr. had a more peaceful standpoint to attempt to solve racism. Malcolm X on the other hand used violence and force to get the necessary results. They both shared a common objective, but took different actions to achieve the goal.
King can be considered influential in his preaching of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement. King quickly realized that there were two alternatives in the struggle against “the forces of injustice'; (Ansbro, 233): violence or nonviolence. He decided against violence for
From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an inequality. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned for a night, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated his intolerance for the American government. Under British rule, India remained oppressed until Mohandas Gandhi, with his doctrine of non-violence lead the country to freedom.
History has encountered many different individuals whom have each impacted the 21 in one way or another; two important men whom have revolted against the government in order to achieve justice are Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both men impacted numerous individuals with their powerful words, their words carried the ability to inspire both men and women to do right by their morality and not follow unjust laws. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by David Henry Thoreau along with King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, allow the audience to understand what it means to protest for what is moral.
Throughout his education, Martin Luther King Jr. tried to find a way to demonstrate his belief of racial equality with the most effective means possible. He quickly realized that the best strategy to end segregation was to use nonviolent forms of protest. At Crozer, Morehouse and Boston University, he studied the teaching of Mohandas Gandhi, who used nonviolent methods to help India claim its independence from Britain. King read several books on the ideas of Gandhi, and eventually became convinced that his methods could be employed by African Americans to obtain equality in America. King knew that any violence on the part of African Americans would lead to violent responses from segregationists, which would lead to injury or maybe even death for his followers. He had to teach his followers not to respond violently to cruel attacks from segregationists. King decided to sponsor workshops to train African Americans in nonviolent beh...
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very significant during the Civil Rights Movement. Both were excellent speakers and shared one goal but had two different ways of resolving it. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to resolve the issues by using non-violence to create equality amongst all races to accomplish the goal. Malcolm X also wanted to decrease discrimination and get of segregation but by using another tactic to successfully accomplish the similar goal. The backgrounds of both men were one of the main driven forces behind the ways they executed their plans to rise above the various mistreatments. Martin Luther King Jr. was a more pronounced orator, a more refined leader, and overall saw the larger picture than Malcolm X.
Both Dr. Martin Luther King and President John F. Kennedy were the change they wished to see. They didn’t worry about the consequences or the repercussions. They were tired and fed up, but most of all they did not want their children to grow up in such a hard and harsh generation. Unlike some civil rights leaders, Dr. King was adamantly against violence. I can truly appreciate and am envious of how King kept such dignity and composure throughout the entire civil rights movement. He believed in forgiveness and sought out his commitment to non-violence while trying to educate as many Americans as he could. Reading about him being throw in jail time after time broke my heart, but nothing could hold him back from seeking out what he was so passionate about. I am forever grateful for Dr. Martin Luther King and his
By definition the word character means moral or ethical quality. My definition of character is that what defines you as a person, your personality and how you act but to have a good character you have to have honesty, courage and integrity and generally being a role model to others. There are so many people out there that have goals that would not only benefit them but would benefit everyone around them and some of those people are Gandhi, Martin Luther king Jr. and Malala Yousafzai. These are just the few people who help me shape my ideas of character but also as a person. They fight for what they think/thought was right without any violence but they use powerful words and hey speak the truth we all deserve to be equals. They all had the
Gandhi was known first for his nonviolence behavior and would condemn his own party opposing violence. Gandhi made use of nonviolent and passive resistance through non-cooperation as his weapon of choice in the conflict against the British. The butchery of civilians by British military personnel resulted in increased public anger and acts of violence. Mahatma Gandhi criticized both the activities of British Government and the revenge of the butchery from the Indians. He extended consolation to the British victims and denounced the riots. Initially his party was opposed to his declaration. Later, however, they accepted Gandhi’s principal stating that any retaliation or violence was hurtful and could not be justified. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi success with nonviolent activism, Martin Luther King Jr. pushed forward his Civil Rights Movement with nonviolent activism as well. Although the two have personally never had contact, Dr. King learned of Gandhi 's discipline while in the seminary. His first application of the nonviolent campaign came in 1955 during the Montgomery bus boycott. Here, he had a witnessed firsthand the power of a peaceful
Thesis: Actions, beliefs, and patience are characteristics that are comparable in both the lives of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.