CA1

.docx

School

Green River College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

MISC

Subject

Political Science

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ProfessorNeutron9196

Selma was the movie I decided to investigate. The 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights marches were led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Hosea Williams, and John Lewis, and are shown in the film Selma. Although the Civil Rights Act was implemented in 1964, Black Americans still faced severe discrimination in the South, making it extremely difficult for them to register to vote. The battleground in the struggle for suffrage was Selma, Alabama. King and his supporters staged a series of marches from Selma to Montgomery, the state capital, to press President Lyndon B. Johnson to sign federal legislation protecting Black Americans' right to vote. Local law police and white nationalist organizations violently resisted the marches. On March 7, 1965, state troopers beat and used tear gas on protesters as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in a peaceful demonstration. This incident earned the moniker "Bloody Sunday" and sparked widespread public sympathy for the voting rights struggle. Despite the fears of violence, King and his supporters carried on their march after Bloody Sunday. Finally reaching Montgomery on March 25, 1965, a sizable contingent of marchers presented Johnson with their requests. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965, guaranteeing that Black Americans would have the right to vote and outlawing discriminatory voting practices. Selma is a stirring and potent movie that depicts one of the pivotal episodes in the history of the American civil rights movement. A reminder of the strength of people to band together and fight for justice, it is a tale of bravery, tenacity, and sacrifice. The use of violence by law enforcement and white supremacist organizations against the civil rights marchers is one moral dilemma Selma raises. This violence is unethical since it violates the demonstrators' fundamental human rights, such as their freedom of assembly and speech. Due to its racial and anti-Semitic motivations, the violence is also immoral. The police assaulting and teargassing the marchers on Bloody Sunday are just two of the specific instances of brutality against demonstrators that are seen in the movie. The movie also depicts the use of violence and intimidation by the Klan and other white nationalist organizations to try to put an end to the demonstrations. Because it violates their fundamental human rights, using violence against civil rights protestors is morally problematic. The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and assembly, both of which the demonstrators were using. The use of force by the police and white nationalist organizations to repress the demonstrators' First Amendment rights was unlawful. Since it is driven by prejudice and hatred, using violence against civil rights protestors raises ethical concerns as well. All Americans should have the basic right to vote, which is what the protesters were demonstrating for. White supremacist organizations and the police attempted to disperse the protesters because they opposed Black Americans' claim to equal rights. The use of force against the civil rights protestors serves as a stark warning about the value of defending human rights and combating prejudice and hatred. When confronted with violence and intimidation, the civil rights protestors showed tremendous courage and tenacity. Their efforts enabled the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to be passed, which was a significant success for the civil rights movement. The FBI's use of monitoring and harassment of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activists raises another ethical concern in the Selma movie. The movie depicts how the FBI tracked King down, tapped his phones, and even tried to extort him. A few ethical questions are brought up by the FBI's use of monitoring and harassment against civil rights advocates. The fundamental human right to privacy is first and foremost violated. Additionally, it can chill free speech and association. Third, it has the power to frighten opponents and quiet them. The FBI's

surveillance and harassment of civil rights activists during the civil rights movement was particularly reprehensible because it was done to stifle the movement. The FBI exploited its authority to try to disrupt the civil rights movement because it saw it as a threat to national security. Additional ethical topics covered in the movie include the function of the media in the civil rights movement, the connection between activism and violence, and the difficulties of collaborating with politicians to bring about social change. Another major ethical problem raised in the movie is the FBI's use of monitoring and harassment. I consider the FBI's use of harassment and monitoring in Selma to be unethical for the following additional reasons: Because of their political views and actions, the FBI especially targeted King and other civil rights activists. King and other activists' fundamental human rights, such as their right to privacy and freedom of speech, were breached by their acts. The public's confidence in the government and the rule of law was damaged by the FBI's conduct. The ethical problem of political compromise is another one that the film Selma raises. To accomplish their objectives, King and his allies in the movie are compelled to deal with President Johnson and other politicians. Making challenging decisions and settling for less than desired are frequent components of the negotiation process. Political compromise presents several ethical questions. It can be viewed as a betrayal of one's ideals or values in the first place. Second, it might push some groups or interests into the background. Third, it may erode public confidence in the democratic system. The King and his allies had to make a challenging decision in the context of the Selma marches. They had two options: they could negotiate with President Johnson and other lawmakers to enact the Voting Rights Act, or they could keep up the protests and run the risk of more violence. In the end, King chose to make a deal, and the Voting Rights Act was approved. Some claim that because King's compromise option violated his beliefs of nonviolence and civil disobedience, it was unethical. Others have suggested that King's choice was essential to achieving the goal of granting all Americans the opportunity to vote. The film Selma does not offer simple solutions to the moral dilemmas raised by political compromise. It does, however, provide an insightful and nuanced study of this complicated problem. I classify the problem of political compromise as an ethical challenge in Selma for the following additional reasons: Political compromise frequently entails having to make tough decisions and settling for less than ideal. This may be viewed as a betrayal of one's values or principles and may push some organizations or interests to the margins. For instance, during the Selma protests, some claimed that King's bargain with President Johnson would disadvantage more extreme protestors. Public confidence in the political process can be damaged by political compromise. People may begin to think that the political system is corrupt when they witness politicians making agreements behind closed doors. Finally, the use of civil disobedience as a strategy to bring about social change is demonstrated in the film Selma. Refusing to comply with an unfair law or demand is known as civil disobedience, and it is frequently done to protest political or social injustice. Several ethical issues are brought up by the practice of civil disobedience. First, it can cause hostility and violence between the demonstrators and the police. Second, it can jeopardize respect for the law and authorities. Thirdly, it might be interpreted as a form of lawlessness or disregard for the rule of law. The use of civil disobedience during the Selma marches was a necessary and acceptable strategy. Black Americans were denied the right to vote due to unfair and discriminatory laws. The protesters were requesting that the law be followed, not breaching it. Their acts of civil

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help