A fair and equal law is what everyone desires. Having to fight for equality is not fair. Civil disobedience was an action which an individual does not follow a certain law or laws. Most historians used civil disobedience back then to fight against the strict government. It is important for people to take a stand on issues of justice in society. People should stand up for what is wrong so it could bring equality, change, and peace. Standing up for what one believes in can bring equality to all. In Mohandas Gandhi’s speech, “On Civil Disobedience” it states, “... we said to the government that we would never bow to its outrageous laws.” Mohandas Gandhi is saying that South Africa’s laws are too strict. The people will only ‘bow” or obey the laws if it is fair and equal. Gandhi stood up for the people in South Africa trying to bring equality. …show more content…
In Susan B. Anthony’s speech, “On Women’s Right to Vote” it states, “... oligarchy of sex, which makes fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons the oligarchs over the mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. -which ordains all men sovereigns, all women subjects.” Susan is saying that Men are seen over women. Before the 19th Amendment, men had more rights than women. Susan wanted to bring a change in rights, for all women. Susan stood up for women that could not vote.
People want peace but, sometimes people have to fight for peace. In Chief Joseph’s speech, “On Surrender At Bear Paw Mountain, 1877” it states, “... my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.” Chief Joseph is saying he is sick and sad of all of the deaths around. Chief Joseph is tired and does not want to fight anymore. Fighting for peace can end with peace all around or deaths all around. Chief Joseph still stood up for his land and
To me, civil disobedience is not following the rules or going against the rules especially if a rule you think is wrong or unjust and a good example of protest that happened recently is the protest outside of the Starbucks . Well, I also agree with your concept that everyone has the equal rights and that the civil disobedience is "disobedience to the
Reading Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience (1849) I find a parallelism between his thoughts and the coming of age of the United States as a nation. This piece was originally delivered as a speech before the Concord Lyceum in January of 1848 on the subject "On the Relation of the Individual to the State", and published under the title Resistance to Civil Government in Elizabeth Peabody's Aesthetic Papers, in May 1849. Thoreau wrote it from a personal experience: in 1846 he had been imprisoned for not paying his taxes as a protest for the actions of the government because he opposed slavery and the Mexican War. This essay is part of the literary period called The
The Civil Rights Movement is a substantial example of civil disobedience for the reason that they were peacefully protesting while accepting their consequences. On the other hand, people today believe that they're protesting peacefully however, peace can lead to violence and take away the credibility of their cause. Causing destruction in their community, where civil disobedience impacts society negatively because the situations get out of hand that cause chaotic cases which involves brutality.
Throughout history protesters have said that civil disobience is the peaceful resistance of conscience. Civil disobedience was once the route to the democratic ways of our founding fathers of the United States of America. Van Dusen views civil disobedience as a physical attack to our democracy. I believe civil disobience is a negative force in our democracy that may lead to the destruction of our government because laws are disobeyed, causing new laws to come to order that follow the protester’s actions. I too have completed acts of civil disobedience, and I think my actions contribute to the negative force in a democracy. Civil disobedience began as a revolution for many rebels but eventually allowed ordinary citizens to damage the government
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.
What is civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the opposing of a law one finds unjust by refusing to follow it and accepting the consequences. So many people have performed acts of civil disobedience from Martin Luther King Jr. to everyday people. But what people did as civil disobedience a hundred years ago is completely different today. It is such an important part of a free society because it helps to define what a free society is, shows the true meaning of freedom of speech, and shows the government that citizens are not willing to follow an unjust law without violence.
Civil Disobedience is classified as the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. This idea was brought into focus in the essay “Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience)” by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau’s opinion on the subject was that the government was involved in everyone’s business, trying to make the country better yet they had the opposite effect. His opinion was that there is a need to prioritize one’s conscious over the dictates of law. Though there are many things that Thoreau touches on, the three main issues that he discussed were The Mexican war, slavery, and the taxes that he was protesting against.
While growing up, our parents taught us what was right and what was wrong based on their beliefs and views. When we were younger, we were taught to follow and obey those who were older than us and possessed a higher authoritative status. One’s reasoning for being obedient includes: religious beliefs, background, and work ethics. Civil disobedience played a large role in America. Creating protests, riots, and sit-ins, America had many examples of disobedience. In America, we value our rights as citizens and individuals. We have the right to protest as stated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which is called Freedom of Speech. According to the Webster Dictionary, civil disobedience is said to be “the refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.” Citizens are willing to accept the legal consequences associated with their disobedient actions. How does the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Fining and jail time are the legal consequences enforced by authority but also there is a trend of change. I believe civil disobedience is justified simply by your own personal beliefs and the rights you attain as a citizen. The law is the law, if you disobey; the authoritative figure is responsible for giving a consequence.
America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.
How does the social responsibility of intellectuals to demonstrate civil disobedience differ from Lincoln and MLK’s time and today as demonstrated by Black lives matter and Antifa
I believe that peaceful resistance to laws both positively and negatively impacts a free society. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws and government demands one considers unjust, and accepting the consequences. The first amendment prohibits Congress to enact any law that would intervene with any person's civil rights. Though everybody knows this, why are there discussions about what people can and cannot refuse to do. Some people refuse to do things because it goes against their faith, which as stated earlier is allowed according to the first amendment. While others refuse to see what is right in front of them, in the very center of the Declaration of Independence.
The United States Constitution grants citizens the right to peacefully protest and petition the government; however, some people believe that civil disobedience should be expunged from the list of rights people have. I believe this would go against the notion of the United States being the "home of the free", freedom is only freedom when there are no restrictions. Yes, civil disobedience does case complications between the people and the government, but wasn't the government made " for the people, but the people"? Do they not have the right to live under laws they approve of?
Civil disobedience is the refusal to conform to certain laws as a form of harmless political protest, while being aware of the consequences that could result because of it. Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society because actions are taken due to people letting their voice be heard. While some may argue that the main reasons of this are the five basic rights mentioned in the first amendment (freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition), this issue goes far beyond that. Without civil disobedience, many historical events might have not played such an important role as they did to the point that they changed America in numerous ways; not to mention the courageous people who still take part in protests today to claim the rights they should have.
As compatriots of the United States, it is our responsibility and commitment to overthrow any type of social or civil injustice. In that process, we as American’s must ensure our rights by practicing a form of civil disobedience. In other words, we should not remain quiet in the roars of prejudice against a certain group of people. Leaders that derive from the civil rights movements like Martin Luther King Jr, Cesar Chavez, Malcolm X, Eleanor Roosevelt, and others have shown us that nothing we want will come into our laps, as humans we must work for the things that we want. In 1950’s through the 1960’s, there was a wave of activist who fought their way to the end of civil injustice, many used their orating skills and others recruited members
Protests have long been an essential part of American life, employed to to draw attention to critical issues,events, and injustices. Ranging from peaceful marches to powerful acts of civil disobedience, not only in the United States but in Central American countries such as Nicaragua. This being said, civil protests and peaceful demonstrations were not necessarily more successful in exuding change than pieces of legislation but moreso acted as a catalyst for social change, leading towards legislation that would positively impact those who protested. The concept of civil disobedience and peaceful demonstration acting as a catalyst can be examined mainly through the protests during the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. and the Sandinista