Civil Obedience In The History Of The Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey the demands or certain laws of a government/ occupying power. Without resorting to violence or active events of conflict, it is typically used in the form of a peaceful protest. Civil disobedience has been seen in historical context as a main approach and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa, India, and also in the American civil rights movement. It can also be a useful tactic in labor, anti-war, and other social movements occurring in numerous countries around the world. In both Sophocles’ Antigone and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, the author describes two very different displays of civil disobedience. Antigone disobeyed “man’s law” and buried her brother. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the other hand, fought to change the law for the rights of a large group of people. For this reason, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts were more admirable than the efforts of Antigone.

“If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statue books. We will never obey them”(1). Mohandas Gandhi expressed this in his writing “On Nonviolent Resistance”. “Civil disobedience” is when people use their voice by protesting, non-violently, to stick up against unjust laws and unjust movements. The truths and values are proven and brought to attention in the writings of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Henry David Thoreau. Civil disobedience can be the solution to unjust laws and violence around the world.

In the modern age of America, there are many people who have read and abided by the beliefs of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a philosophy created by Henry Thoreau that states one must not conform to certain laws for a variety of reasons, which was also an ideology utilized by Martin Luther King Jr. The world has witnessed many acts of disobedience from the masses, and have thus portrayed the idea that this belief still operates successfully. The ideology that surrounds civil disobedience also strongly influences the individual in a particular society, which also depicts the principles of this belief have adjusted to the modern world. In the new age of America, the beliefs of Thoreau and King are still prevalent and found in society due to the influence it has on movement that brings change; thus, illustrating that American citizens commonly refer and utilize this belief.

In order to demand for a change, most people would take action and oppose by resisting. One may peacefully resist while others choose violence over logic. Civil disobedience is defined as “the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences.” Civil disobedience plays a crucial part in peaceful protests. Peaceful resistance to laws mostly cause a negative impact to a free society.

In his correspondence to his fellow clergymen entitled “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” King, a promoter of peace and brotherhood, analyzes his act of non-violent resistance to clarify the necessitate of producing creative tension. King begins by elucidating the differences between just and unjust laws. According to King, unjust laws are human laws that are not harmonized with the natural laws of God that cause the degradation of personality and damage the soul. According to this ideology, King states that when injustice occurs there is a correct approach to civil disobedience. First, King expects one to collect information regarding the immoral implication of law with the intent of proving injustice. This requires one to be able to distinguish between the laws of man and the laws of good, the immoral laws and moral laws, the unjust laws and just laws. Next, negotiation is used to establish an understanding of the endured injustice; however, this purpose is not to humiliate or defeat the adversary, but to promote friendship through a form of selfless and spiritual love known as agape. As Martin Luther King Jr. points out, “It is an overflowing love which seeks noting in return. And when you come to love on this level you begin to love men not because they are likeable, not because they do things that attract us, but because God loves them and here we love the person who does the evil deed while hating the deed that the person does” (“Non-violence” 2).

When your human rights are being stripped, it is a great way to change society, as we see in Gandhi’s peaceful revolt. However, in many cases it is not necessary. It would do even more damage, especially if there are other, safer and more human ways for addressing concerns. Laws would be threatened as well as American infrastructure and economy. Through this, civil disobedience requires us to examine the situation. It requires intelligent people to sacrifice something for the greater good, and when it is necessary. The people thinking about disobeying must ask the question “is the law I am being pushed under unjust?” before performing the act. As Gandhi once said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and

From Cherokee Indians refusing to abandon their homes in 1838 to the Sit-ins of the civil rIghts movement in the early 1960s, people have been using acts of civil disobedience to stand against injustice they saw in their communities. Although there are many examples of people abusing this benefit and causing more grief and shame than progress, many have used it to their advantage to bring about positive change for the greater good of society, therefore acts of civil disobedience can positively impact a free society if they remain peaceful, respectful, and justified.

Brilliantly put by what many deem to be America’s greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. Although many may argue that this is the sole way to keep the government in check and to make minorities heard, rational people will realize that it is not this disrespect of the law that proves the democracy of our nation.

Civil disobedience is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as "a refusal to obey governmental commands especially as a nonviolent means of protest."(Jacobus) We can see an example of this in U.S. history, when this theory was applied during the Civil Right Movement. The laws back then restricted African Americans from being able to attend public schools or use public restrooms that were designated as "white only." Even though they had paid taxes like everyone else, these types of segregation laws targeted minorities and made them second-rate citizens. Martin Luther King, who was sincere in exposing

It is imperative to understand that the United States of America was born through acts of civil disobedience. And because American freedoms are constantly in danger of being encroached on, it is also important that citizens are aware of the worth that civil disobedience can possess. Civil disobedience is when a person or people refuse to obey a demand or restriction by the state that conflicts with higher law and conscience. The act requires that the disobedient one accept whatever may be the consequence of refusing, whether it be imprisonment, moral condemnation, fines, even perhaps death. It should be done when one’s spiritual searching and sense of rightness permit no other response. (Day 65: Disobedient Friends – Quakers and Civil Disobedience) There have been many instances of civil disobedience throughout American history which have had a powerful influence on the legal system and society as a whole.

The human race doesn’t take injustice lying down. Over the past hundred years, there has been many examples of people taking a stand for their own rights and freedoms through acts of civil disobedience, defined as “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. While a quick glance at today’s society does show a much more accepting and proper view of people of every race, religion and sexuality, our world does not come without its injustices. I believe that these major injustices keep civil disobedience extremely relevant in our current, modern world.

Have you ever felt a rule you had to follow was unjust? Have you ever felt your moral instinct tell you not to follow it? Prominent figures in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, felt this way and decided to not follow the rules imposed on them by indulging in “civil disobedience”. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying laws or customs with the purpose of combating moral injustice. This form of protest has proven to be quite effective in making change in history. In “Civil Disobedience” and the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, both Thoreau and King Jr. write their justification for their actions as well as their feelings regarding the particular disputed

Not only were many laws changed and created, but even more were broken in an attempt to better our once unjust society. Martin Luther King Jr., arguably the most influential leader of this movement, was an avid supporter of civil disobedience during this era. He participated in countless sit-ins and protests, including the Montgomery Bus Boycott in 1956, in which he and almost one hundred other activists were arrested for peacefully protesting discrimination in the Montgomery public transit system. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, written in 1963 after he was arrested for partaking in a nonviolent protest, King offers explanation as to why he practices civil disobedience and what he hopes to achieve in doing so. In this letter, King admits, “In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law…that would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty”. However, he also stated that in this fight, it is necessary to “[stand] up for what is best in the American…thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence”. In his words, civil disobedience is more than ignorance of law; it is just one of the necessary measures that must be taken to restore equality in a

Furthermore, a person who acts with civil disobedience means, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “One who breaks an unjust law… openly, lovingly…, and with a willingness to accept the penalty”. In other words, civil disobedience is respectfully breaking a law that is disagreed with, and then openly accepting the consequence. During the world’s history,

Civil disobedience is the act of directly disobeying laws and rules believed to be oppressive, and when done passively is one of the better ways of changing society. Civil disobedience, as presented in Steinbeck’s novel, is shown through the actions of the African American Civil Rights Movement. Such refusals include performing sit-ins, an action where the protestors would sit in a spot designated for white people and peacefully remain where they were, and boycotts, where protesters refused to support agencies such as the transit system that enforced segregation. In his novel, Steinbeck encounters a young African American Student and has a conversation about the Civil Rights Movement. One area of particular interest is about the varying levels of protest, whether it was better to use the slow peaceful forms of disobedience proposed by Martin Luther King Jr., or whether more violent action is needed. Steinbeck’s contribution to the discussion mirrored the views of MLK, while the student held more aggressive views, as seen here, “Finally we spoke of Martin Luther King and his teaching of passive but unrelenting resistance. ‘It’s too slow,’ he said. ‘It will take too long.’ ‘There’s improvement, there’s constant improvement. Gandhi proved it’s the only weapon that can win against violence.’” It is clear that Steinbeck has more faith in the passive methods, while the student agreed that those methods worked, he questioned their proficiency, saying, “I know all that. I’ve studied