Martin Luther King Jr. Violence Essay

Martin Luther King Jr., he was a brilliant and potent leader of the 1960’s Civil Rights Movement was inspires by the writings of Gandhi and Thoreau. King had a commitment to try to end racial segregation and discrimination. King did speeches, petitions and got the U.S. people and government involved. Kings philosophy was a nonviolence resistance. In the Letter from Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King states “There are two kinds of laws: unjust and just laws.” (221-222). “An unjust law is no law at all,” stated Saint

Martin Luther King Jr. was one of many great civil rights activists that have fought for equal rights. Throughout the 1960’s he persevered through many things such as, “On March 7, 1965, a civil rights march, planned from Selma to Alabama's capitol in Montgomery, turned violent as police with nightsticks and tear gas met the demonstrators as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge. King was not in the march, however the attack was televised showing horrifying images of marchers being bloodied and severely injured. Seventeen demonstrators were hospitalized leading to the naming the event "Bloody Sunday." Everyone, young or old, gay or straight, women or man, everyone should get equal rights and this man shows why and how we can do it.

Martin Luther King lived his life fighting for the rights for black people and that there would be no more segregation, he did it nonviolently but

Martin Luther king jr. was a man who stood up for equal rights for all people no matter who you were. When martin was fighting for equality he said “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor ; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”This

.Martin Luther King, Jr. encouraged blacks and whites to confront racism everywhere and spoke about “militant nonviolence” which called on blacks of all ages to who had the willpower to endanger their lives in order to freedom. He wanted

Hannah Arendt sees the terms power and violence as opposites. She says that power comes from the people, and from people coming together for a common purpose. Violence, then, is an artificial form of authority because it is not legitimate; it is a temporary attempt to govern through fear. Further, when the leader has the interests of the people in mind, there is power because the people have a voice and are bonding together for the common cause. Within the United States, the government has power of the legitimate sort, because the people of the United States elect our government, and believe that we work together and do what is best for our country and its

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke a lot from religious texts and wanted to use only non violence to end the racism and injustice. He wanted to try to make America a more unified country where everyone can live a good life and have the rights they deserve. He believed that, ”we have an opportunity to avoid

There are many faces in this world and they all live in one community which we can make a better place. Martin Luther King was an amazing person who did just that because he fought effectively for peace, brought the people together, and overall, made civil rights in the world better. In many ways Martin Luther King fought very effectively. He gained respect from political leaders and for this reason it gave him the potential power to make an impact.

The media brought the disparities and refusals of essential social equality in the South to the consideration of the whole country. America in the 1950s was still an on a very basic level supremacist country, however the NAZI revulsions in Europe had made prejudice with the exception of in the South an untenable good position. Indeed, even those with supremacist perspectives would progressively deny such perspectives in courteous society and progressively dismisses government strategies limiting Black rights. Given this move in White states of mind, media scope of the uncovering the brutalities of Southern prejudice and suppression of genuine Black terminations turned the aware of a country.

Throughout history there have been times when citizens have had the need, as well as the responsibility, to violate certain societal rules/laws in order to protest against unjust treatment and bring about social or political change. It began as early as Socrates, who disobeyed an unjust decree against teaching his ideas, which led to his being condemned to death; Mahatma Gandhi’s fight against British rule over India; and Rosa Parks refusal to give up her seat on the city bus to make room for more white people, which led to her arrest, followed by the Montgomery Bus Boycott which ultimately led to the desegregation of public buses. The most famous of all cases, however, was the leader of the Civil

The main purpose of Billy O. Wireman’s article “Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi: God’s Co-Workers for Justice” is to connect Dr. King’s influences to the concept of non-violence. King led the American Civil Rights Movement with the realization that hate couldn’t exist within the hearts of those who wanted to produce change. King’s predecessor, Mohandas Gandhi also recognized the same thing. The second page of Wireman’s article reads “For 75 years – from 1893 when Gandhi went to South Africa as a 23-year-old London-educated barrister to 1968, when King was murdered in Memphis – these two inspired men fought ‘hate with love and greed with openhandedness.’” As mentioned in the article, Gandhi procured inspiration from “The Sermon on the Mount.” Within these moral teachings, Jesus Christ speaks on the beatitudes. These present a new set of ideals that focus on love and humility rather than force and exaction. The highest ideals of Jesus’ teachings on spirituality and compassion are echoed. Dr. King, being a Christian man of faith, most likely drew inspiration from this as well. The principles revealed in the sermon are relatable to those of Dr. King and Gandhi alike. The two lived to see their dreams given hope and, ultimately, both men died for their cause. Wireman writes “Like reformers everywhere, these men were scorned for their beliefs…In the end, they were destroyed by the very passions they unleashed. However,

The media is always yearning for drama, violence is just that. Human fascination with violence, causes media to lust after it, craving for the perfect scene of human incompetence to display to the world. When a figure of authority, shows their vicious tendences, media will flock around them, like hungry wolves. This is an advantage to the prey of authority, who will get seen and heard across the world. Consequently, this is why, Martin Luther King Jr.methods worked so well during the 1960s.

As mentioned in the Main Thesis, there are three specific sections in “On Violence” book. In section I, the author cites a variety of historically relevant social scientists, with a focus on their thoughts on violence, war, and power. Engels (p. 4), Hobbes (p. 5), Chomsky (p. 7), Clausewitz (p. 8), Mao Tse-tung (p. 11), and Marx (p. 11-13) are cited in an attempt to frame the author’s discussion and definitions about the dynamic of power. In section II, Wright Mills (p. 35), Weber (p. 35), Clausewitz (p. 36), Strauz-Hupé (p. 36-37) and Jouvenel (p 37), Alexander Passerin d'Entréves’ The Nation of the State (37), the author makes it very clear that violence is the opposite of power, in which she will be explaining in section III. During this

Also, "such stories parallel the kind of psychopathy of some in the corporate sector who speculate, pollute and militarize at will” (4). In this case, when someone makes violence the fundamental alternative, their fears are the ones that authority can take advantage of. They show the benefits of what can violence provide to them as well as things they care about. Resulting in violence being an open option to take due to their weaknesses.