Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What is the supreme courts role in civil rights
Essay of Montgomery bus boycotting during 1950 to 1970s
Essay on the montgomery bus boycott overcoming a challenge
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: What is the supreme courts role in civil rights
I believe that peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society as long as there’s reasonable justification for the peaceful resistance. Three possible reasons why there would be a need for peaceful resistance against laws would be if it interferes with the people’s first amendment, if its goal is to create social or lawful change, or if a large group of people do not agree with the lawmakers’ decision for not keeping the people and their rights in mind.
First, peaceful resistance ensures the people that they have the right to exercise their first amendment, specifically right to speech and assembly, in whatever way they want to, as long as they're not interfering with rights of others during the resistance, which is one of the
…show more content…
For instance, from 1950-1990, there were numerous nonviolent protests against Apartheid policies in South Africa. After decades of pursuing their goal of putting an end to the Apartheid, South Africans were able to celebrate the ending of the Apartheid in 1990. Because of their efforts, many people around the world realized and still are realizing that we wouldn’t have the rights and laws we have today without having peaceful resistances against laws in our history. Another example in history that shows why peaceful resistance needs to be used in order to have a true free society was when Rosa Parks did not move out of the front seat of the bus in 1955, even though is was illegal to sit where white people sat. This event sparked the Montgomery bus boycott that would have a goal that would eventually lead to the Civil Rights Movement. If it weren’t for Rosa Parks’s nonviolent resistance on the bus, segregation on buses wouldn't of ever been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and segregation would still be an ideology that would shape our laws and rights today. Possessing the freedom to strive for goals that could eventually lead up to social or lawful change in the future is another purpose for having peaceful resistance that positively impacts what we make of a free society
Is rebellion a childish act, or one that shows maturity? Many would argue the former, but others could claim that rebelling shows a person’s individuality, that they have grown as a person and are not afraid to show it off to the world. In A Separate Peace, John Knowles shows how rebelling can lead to learning from prior mistakes and how breaking free from the crowd can lead to learning who someone truly is. Gene is shown in the novel as a character that follows the rules and does what is expected of him. Finny, on the other hand, rarely follows the rules and is always going against what is expected of him. With the characters and events in A Separate Peace, Knowles shows how he supports the idea of rebellion by having unfortunate events
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because if there isn't, how will people hear the voices of the oppressed and mistreated? Peaceful resistance comes a long way in trying to advance the rights and customs of the oppressed today. For example, The Salt March of 1930 was based on the Salt Act of 1882, which excluded the people the India from producing or getting salt, only British officials. Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of this protest. According to an article by time.com, it says that "The protest continued until Gandhi was granted bargaining rights at a negotiation in London. India didn’t see freedom until 1947, but the salt satyagraha (his brand of civil disobedience) established Gandhi as a force to be reckoned with and set a powerful precedent for future nonviolent protestors, including Martin Luther King Jr.(Sarah Begley,2015)" This means the salt march was a start for India's independence. Also, Gandhi's brand of civil disobedience set precedents for future nonviolent protests. Another Example of how peaceful protests
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.
There are many different ways human beings deal with oppression. In his book, Stride Toward Freedom, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. expresses how people handle oppression in three characteristic ways. Acquiescence, violence, or nonviolent resistance are ways the oppressed deal with their oppressors. In King's excerpt, he expresses that nonviolent resistance is the morally and correct way of dealing with oppression. King believed it was only through nonviolent resistance that things would begin to change for the oppressed.
We must first realize that resistance was in no way a survival strategy. Yet, even when it seemed obvious that death was near inevitable, why did they not put up a fight? This argument is still puzzling to many holocaust historians, yet the arguments of Raul Hilberg and Yehuda Bauer offer insight to possible reasons why they did not fight and that resistance was more widespread than most people think.
The twentieth century saw the rise and fall of three pivotal figures in the ongoing movement for equality and justice for all peoples. Mahatma Gandhi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and Martin Luther King, Jr. all addressed the immoral and unjust actions of drastically different societies, yet all were to enact some degree of social change that would eventually result in an increased quality of life for oppressed members of their nations. A key strategy in their movements was nonviolent resistance, actively resisting unjust laws and practices and largely using only peaceful and non-harmful means to achieve their ends. This begs the question: What makes a nonviolent movement so powerful? Gandhi used nonviolence to change the minds of the British Empire,
Imagine yourself denied basic civil liberties and rights based on the color of your skin. You are told by the very government that resides over you that segregation is legal if equal but it is not . Tormented by those with blind hatred fueled by flames of racism and you can do nothing to stop it legally. Sacred and wanting some kind of change something must be done to reverse the injustice suffered by the innocent. Options are discussed by those that want change. Hopefully a leader will rise to the occasion and lead their people to the road of redemption and not to the path of total and utter destruction. For the oppressed, three paths come to mind in which they can decide to act. The first is to accept the oppression and the contempt of the oppressors. The second path is to demonstrate nonviolent resistance to prove that the system of government is flawed instead of racial groups. The last path is violence. Violence in its self is an agent of evil and anything gained from it will eventually turn to ash. The methods of each approach have their own ramifications, avenues, and cost. Oppression is a kind of hatred distilled from the lack of understanding and indifference of those that do understand.
Peaceful resistance itself does not affect a free society. A people-group can protest any number of laws: voting rights, taxes, and the legality of murder. A majority of society must determine what is best for itself. If the principles of a resistance aligns with the ideals of the society, the pursuit of betterment positively impacts that
During the movement of Imperialism in Africa, as Europeans were coming over to attempt to colonize African land, many Africans attempted to resist the Europeans attempt to take their land. They did this because of course, they did not want their land taken by the Europeans as it was theirs and they didn't want any change in their simple lifestyles. The African groups that resisted most were the Mandingos, Rabih, Asante, Arabi Pasha, Maji Maji, Mashona, and so on. Through all of the Africans attempts to resist European control, their resistances ultimately failed in the end besides Ethiopia's which succeeded. Now most the reasons these African resistance movements that were usually
“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.
The peaceful resistance of laws positively affects society as a whole. Throughout history, many men have shown this remark to be true. From the likes of Henry David Thoreau, to Martin Luther King Jr., to Mahatma Gandhi, the world has learned civil disobedience does work and positively affects everyone as a whole.
There are Henry David Thoreau’s refusal to pay taxes in abhorrence of the U.S.’s institution of slavery, Mahatma Gandhi’s 240 mile walk protesting British rule and taxation over India, John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s ‘bed-ins’ against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr.’s commitment to the principle that, in his words, “the choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.” These examples range from gestures designed to bring awareness and attract popular support to actions directed pointedly against an opposing force. Not all of these protests were entirely successful, though many, such as Gandhi’s, instigated great change. It remains to be seen whether many of today’s protests, be they march, rally, traffic blockage, boycott, or something else entirely will accomplish what they wish. The real question here not whether past, present, or future protests succeed, however, for there is value in taking a stance in victory or failure. Neither is the issue truly whether the beliefs driving that stance are right or wrong- people should have the right to believe and protest what they want. By definition, civil disobedience and ‘peaceful’ protesting do not directly harm others. So in the end, does peaceful protesting positively or negatively impact society? Can it truly create positive
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Even in a democracy there are unjust laws, the question comes down to how we handle these laws. Should we be content to obey these laws, or should we try to change them? Most people in a democracy would agree with the second course as the best. There is a right to "revolution" against injustice and one must refuse to support something that is wrong. People should try to change these laws one way to do that is through peaceful resistance.
For my book project I read the book Way of the Peaceful Warrior, by Dan Millman. Set in Berkeley California, Dan Millman a college student struggles to find the part of himself that has always been missing. One night while out walking from his dorm, Dan comes across a gas station and a strange man that is soon to turn his life upside down. This man, known as Socrates, shows Dan a side of existence that only few people had ever seen. To become a warrior like Socrates and have the mind to not allow the regular struggles of life to control a single part of you. Socrates takes Dan in and tries to create a warrior from a young star athlete with the ignorance of every other human on this earth. Through his teachings Dan comes across an elusive women named Joy. This spiritual journey shows Dan a side of life never seen by his own eyes before, and guides him to his final conflict that hopefully will help him reach his destination he has always yearned for. The missing piece of the puzzle that is Dan Millman. This book shows life in a way that I had never thought of before. It shows the many steps it takes to become, "a warrior." In most cases it is Socrates showing the ignorant Dan the differences between their
I came into the screening of Peaceful Warrior, director Victor Salva's adaptation of former gymnast/self-help writer Dan Millman's 1980 autobiography Way of the Peaceful Warrior: A Book That Changes Lives (using a screenplay written by Kevin Bernhardt), with mixed feelings. I had seen clips of the movie on "Ebert & Roeper," and they seemed a little boring. When I finally saw the movie, I wasn't bored but I did have a different negative reaction ultimately.