Is Civil Disobedience Enough?

Civil disobedience has been shown in a great amount of different ways throughout the years. Martin Luther king Jr. expressed his way of civil disobedience by taking direct action but in a calm way which was effective. He wanted the people to be aware of what was going on and open doors for better groups of people who weren't given the same rights as others. Henry David Thoreau on the other hand took action as well but in a different manner directly with the U.S. citizens and government because he wanted more individual rights for the people. Both had the same ideas but took action in different ways and at the end, ended up succeeding in their persuasive ways.

Civil disobedience is a crucial part of any free society, especially a society that wishes to give its citizens the most liberty possible. Looking back on American history, one can see that the colonists originally protested the laws that Britain had imposed, and had done so peacefully. By not paying taxes and by assembling outside public offices, the colonists disobeyed British laws and the British crown. Their protests not only helped spark the American Revolution, but also made light of the fact that any free society relies on its citizens to disobey the government, especially when it's done peacefully.

There are many examples of civil disobedience. One of which is the story about Cesar Chavez. Along with how he stated The United Farm Workers

Civil Disobedience is remarkably effective without the violence that many had thought necessary. Several famous examples include the Salt March of Mahatma Gandhi, the Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King Jr., and even the sit-ins of the factory workers during the industrial revolution. Although, many still argue that civil

Using civil disobedience to solve an issue may require mass protests. Using protests shows that many are on your side, and that may bring your opponent down. Some protests may not be a march, for instance, the Boston Tea Party. On December 16, 1773, colonists dressed as Native Americans and raided British Ships in the Boston Harbor. This was because the colonists were very frustrated with the Tea tax. At that time, tea was like a necessity to the colonists and the British. The problem for the colonists was that the British were the ones who controlled the tea. The British East India Company was the company that imported tea. The Boston Tea Party was a huge protest against the tea tax. On that day, 116 people threw the tea on the British ships overboard (“Participants in the Boston Tea Party” 1). This resulted in harming marine life, loss of British tea, and the contamination of the water. These negative results made the British notice the colonists’ problem about the tax and how the colonists feel about the way they are treated by the

Civil disobedience is possibly the most influential form of protest in order to change of laws. Throughout our nation's history there have been multiple examples where the people would disobey the regular norms of society to force a change in law. Even when we started off as colonist, the people refused to pay unjust taxes on British imported goods just so Great Britain could pay for their costs on the Seven Years' War. The people or the colonist, as I should say, thought it was unfair for the them be taxed as they had no representation in England to represent the people. Another peaceful protest would be the sit-ins at Woolworth. At this event, young African Americans went to a diner and sat at the front counter. This would never happen because

Civil disobedience comes in every package under the sun. Whether it be Henry David Thoreau refusing to pay his taxes to protest the Mexican-American War or Mohammed Ali refusing the draft because he believed that they were sending him to fight for rights in another country that he didn’t have in his own. The importance of civil disobedience, particularly in those with influence over the people, is often overshadowed by opposition leaders and naysayers on the other side of the argument. But civil disobedience has kept America moving forward for over 240 years and it won’t be stopping any time soon.

Boycotts. Labor Resistance. Sit-Ins. Protests. Blockades. Debt Refusals. Tax Resistance. Civil disobedience has been a prominent form of influencing governmental policy and law to accept differing perspectives. Since the birth of the nation–beginning with the Boston Tea Party and continuing into modern movements such as the women’s suffrage–the United States relies on civil disobedience in order to keep governmental growth from becoming stagnant and aiding in the optimization of benefits for its citizens. Civil disobedience is an intentional, non-violent act against the state exercised by those banned from exerting power with the purpose of bringing equality, moral conviction, an upright criminal justice system, and extensive action. Although civil disobedience invalidates governmental authority, it is a necessary trade off for the protection of liberty guaranteed by the first amendment. Civil disobedience, as a recognized procedure, is an obligation for all citizens to combat injustice among legislature.

We must be careful not to mistake for civil disobedience what is actually all too often these days, rather uncivil disobedience, in the forms of riots and looting and other forms of criminal conduct that sometimes takes place in the course of large-scale protests and demonstrations that get out of hand. The modern fathers of civil disobedience as a method of political expression and change are, of course, Martin Luther King Jr. Martin Luther King, in the 1950s and 1960s, convinced hundreds and thousands of black Americans to peacefully agitate towards full legal and political equality in the United States. Both men -- and their followers -- faced police and military might and ruthlessness, and both suffered imprisonment, and worse, for their efforts. His followers and supporters, endured tremendous brutality and degradation, but instead of responding in the way they were being treated, they reacted peacefully, offering themselves as living sacrifices for the causes in which they believed.

According to Henry David Thoreau, the term civil disobedience in the 1800’s promoted the idea that in order to create change in policies and laws that are unjust it's important to protest peacefully However, today, this same word has evolved to mean that it does not always have to be peaceful because in many situations without violence change is inevitable. It is very important to fight for what you believe in because if you don’t stand up and fight for change then who will?

Civil Disobedience; one of the most fundamental aspects of a democratic society. It allows the petitioning group to present their case nonviolently and encourage negotiation. Many have taken to using this form of dissent in order to attract attention to an injustice. Throughout history, this technique has been tested time and time again. Without it, how would we show extreme support or frustration over particular issues? Famous leaders, such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., have employed the use of passive resistance and gained admirable results. This form of petitioning also requires a level of respect for the laws set in place. As Gandhi once stated, the goal of challenging a mandate is not “to defeat or humiliate your opponents,

Throughout the course of history, society has been constantly changing as result from the various movements of the people. While some appear in the form of bloody rebellions, other attempts to change society attempt do so in a much less violent manner. Great historical leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi have advocated this concept known as civil disobedience: the peaceful denial and disobedience of a law that is considered unjust. So long as this resistance to laws does not become radical and aggressive, peaceful disobedience positively affects society because it brings to attention a disagreement between the people and the law that must be addressed one way or another and because it does so without bringing any mass

John F. Kennedy once said,”One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” If one person starts something, they create a chain reaction and by the time you know it that something no longer is a problem. Civil disobedience does bring about change, because it takes one person to change the course of the future.

Is civil disobedience effective? It has helped many groups in many different ways get their point across so they could get their own rights. There has been many cases where it shows that it has been effective. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey the demands or commands of the government without using violence. It is usually used to force concessions from the government. Do others think civil disobedience is effective?

Civil disobedience is essentially unharming unless people take their opinions to an alarming rate where they start to push the limits of their freedom of speech, such as, in today's society we have the black lives matter talk where people feel policemen are breaking the laws and being unconstitutional and take their protests too far and beat up the cops themselves to get their “statement” to the government system. Although in the statement provided, a peaceful resistance affects society positively because people understand to take a lawful route to discuss the unlawful beliefs they have for their city council up to the Supreme Court. Correctly using one’s rights and constitutionally looking at the situation and fully analyzing the “unlawful”