The relationship between the citizens and the state can be traced back to the beginning of civilizations on Earth. Mankind has witnessed civilizations fall, dictators rule, leaders rise above all, and slaves reduced to nothing but property. Throughout these events, in response, citizens rebelled either peacefully, or aggressively. For instance, the United States was founded after a revolution in which the oppressed rebelled against the oppressor; which was Great Britain at the time. King George III caused feelings of anger within those who lived in the colonies of North America. Because of feelings of oppression, those who lived in the colonies utilized that anger to motivate themselves in the fight against the British Empire. Rebellion …show more content…
This may lead to arguments claiming that due to its danger, one should not protest against their own government. However, this is answered in Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience when he brings up the point that if no one does it, who will? The danger that protesting holds cannot withstand the anger that the oppressed feel when they are rebelling. As Martin Luther King Jr. mentions in his Birmingham letter, “freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed”. Henry David brings up the point that there are people who are opposed to certain issues in the world and sit with their hands in their pockets too afraid to do anything, and claiming out in the open that they have no idea what to do. They wait, he claims, “for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret”. If one desires change, they must join in the fight to cause that change. Voting against a candidate, protesting against an unjust law, civically fighting against an unjust law, are all examples of exercising one’s civic duty. If one looks back to see how much change civil disobedience has caused, one would notice the massive differences between then and now. African-Americans are allowed to vote, they are considered Humans, and they are free from the chains of segregation in public areas. This was achieved through civil disobedience which Martin Luther King Jr., the …show more content…
But there are also those who are displeased with the results, and who are currently exercising their right to protest in public. Those are the ones who are strong, and fearless enough, to go out into the world and protest against their government. They are the ones who do not sit around and allow others to “remedy the evil” for them. They are the ones who exercise their “Moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. And best of all, these are the people that know that one must fight for their own rights, for they will not be willingly granted to them. One may say that these protests are unnecessary due to their insignificance towards the fact that Donald Trump is, and will, be the President of the United States in January. However, these are the very ideas which Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry Thoreau both denounced. We mustn’t look at the immediate outcome protests may cause, but the future outcomes they may cause. These protests will be looked upon in the future by historians, and they will be praised even more if Donald Trump’s presidency produces a negative outcome. Just how every vote in an election counts, such as the one the United States just experienced, every protester for a massive cause counts as
Letter of Birmingham Jail and Civil Disobedience Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. both tried to fight for their rights to go against the authority if there is any social injustice. Thoreau took the duty and responsibility of the people to protest and take action against the laws of the government. Although, King communicates to his people about the laws or the government against the blacks are intolerable and that “Civil Disobedience” should have an instrument of freedom. They both incredibly illustrate their thought that “Civil Disobedience” is a needed thing, and the similarities and differences of these two essays at portrayed through the time, people, speaker, tone, and strategies. Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” was wrote in the U.S. during the transcendentalism time around 1837 to about the 1840’s.
Thoreau, knowing the widely accepted value of justice, says "If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth - certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. " His goal here is to inspire individuals to break unjust laws, to ultimately achieve the perfect idea of a government. By convincing his audience that civil disobedience is ethically and morally right, he achieves that goal.
1. • Were the Colonists fighting for: It is important to establish that the colonists were a constituency of varied parties maintaining different interests. The colonial elite created a reconciliation and sustained a basic consensus regarding the general aims and concerns of the colonists. However, when met with friction, the elite’s alliance proved to be rather volatile; consequently, radical colonists emerged with much potency. For this reason it is unclear if there was a distinguished common goal amongst all of the groups within the colonies. I. Liberty – The initial revolt against the crown developed with the emersion of new British taxes on commerce.
In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau asserts that the government is not needed and must be disobeyed for the sake of the people. Over a hundred years later after Thoreau published his essay, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” similarly shows the need for the disobeyment of the government. Thoreau asserts that governments are not necessary, and must be dissolved. While King follows a similar ideal, he believes that the government is inherently good, but that some of the laws passed by the government are cruel to people. While they are both appealing emotionally and ethically, King’s is more sound in argument and portrays a more practical way of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is the refusal of something in a friendly manner. Politically, America is in a rough situation. America as a whole is slowly separating as a nation. For instance, African-Americans believe they are experiencing prejudice from “white” people. In Baton Rouge, Louisiana there a revolt organized by the infamous “Black Lives Matter” organization.
I consider civil disobedience to be an easily-ignored pillar upon which our democracy was founded. In fact we are only established as a nation now because our founding fathers engaged in civil disobedience themselves. We were in a “social contract” of sorts with Great Britain and when we felt that they had not upheld their part of the contract (they did not allow us to create courts to maintain order, or to create a navy to defend ourselves, or to sustain our economy due to an inability to trade with any other countries), Thomas Jefferson concluded that it was our not only our right, but also our duty to break away. And it was Thomas Jefferson that combined all of the works of the great thinkers before him such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke
2. Thoreau refers to civil disobedience as not simply a right, but as a duty merely because individuals are responsible for the actions taken by the government. The government is only what the people let it be, and it can be corrupted and abused if men allow it be. He believes men have “the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.” (942).
Like Martin Luther King Jr once said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” With these words in mind, I affirm the resolution resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. I offer the following definitions to help clarify the round: Civil disobedience is nonviolent refusal to follow the laws or demands of government to prove a point and the person participating in civil disobedience has to accept the consequences. A democracy is a government by the people, where the people elect representatives or the leader. Not everyone has to vote in a democracy but, the leaders or representatives have to be decided by the majority of eligible voters.
Throughout history there have been many political changes that are either supported, or not, by citizens. In the given passage from, "Civil Disobedience," by Thoreau, a perspective of disagreeing with the government ways, is provided. Thoreau explains how a government should be in comparison to how it really is by utilizing his words to set the tone and mode, imagery to achieve his audience's understanding, and diction to make his writing scholarly. Although tone and mode are not directly stated, you can infer that Thoreau meant for his writing to be taken as serious and powerful. His implementation of words such as, "inexpedient," "execute," " integrity," and "command," makes one think about their lawful rights and reflect on what rights are supported or
Two different writers. Two different issues. Two different time periods. Two different races. One hundred years can make Henry David Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and Martin Luther King's “Letter from Birmingham Jail” seem widely different from each other.
The colonists refused to submit to a king that was only interested in their money, causing the colonists to become irate with the British once more. Since Great Britain thought that it was superior to the colonies, Great Britain did not give colonists the opportunity to speak up for what they wanted, which lead the colonists to rebel. The arrogance of Great Britain led to the rebellion of the colonists, which sparked the Revolutionary War through social, economic, and political actions. Furthermore, Great Britain caused a tremendous amount of irritation to develop inside of the colonists. The Revolutionary War showed that it is a necessity for Americans to have their opinions voiced.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter” (Bailey). The US Constitution provides all Americans with the right to peacefully petition the laws made by the government in the First Amendment. Without the right to petition, American schools would still be segregated between African Americans and whites and most women would still mainly be housewives. Some of the everyday things experienced in America were once fought for tirelessly by protesters. Protests have changed the country and often have a ripple effect in society and in government.
There are times when people must rebel to make a change. It has happened throughout different movements to change unjust laws, and go against unjust people. One big example of civil disobedience during the civil rights movement were sit-ins. Sit-ins were when people continued to peacefully sit in on a restaurant when they were denied service. It was almost a way of life for many people.
Some may say that the most effective way to become free of oppression is in the form of insubordination or an uprising. Rebellion against government is justified only if the people of a nation are being deprived of their natural rights to live and better their lives. This has been the case in many revolutions in history, including the French and American Revolutions. Rebellion is not always justified, but can be
People's justification to engage in civil disobedience rests on the unresponsiveness that their engagement to oppose an unjust law receives. People who yearn for a change in a policy might sometimes find themselves in a dead end because their “attempts to have the laws repealed have been ignored and legal protests and demonstrations have had no success” (Rawls 373). What Rawls says is that civil disobedience is a last option to oppose an unjust law; therefore, providing civil disobedients with a justification for their cause. Civil disobedience is the spark of light that people encountered at the dead end and they hope that this spark of light will illuminate to show that an unjust law should not exist at all. Martin Luther King, Jr, in his “Letter from