Civil Disobedience Essay

Civil Disobedience Essay
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: "Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by
the use of passive resistance or other non–violent means" (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any aspect of a
discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an
action, while Hannah Arendt managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews. But, regardless of
the fact that people relate this topic in...show more content...
Once the conscience has done its work, the process of passive resistance begins. However, passive resistance, unlike the name suggests, is in actuality
very much active. It is active because it requires a great deal of commitment; with commitment comes time and effort; with time and effort comes
patience; and with patience comes the clear–headed thinking required to bring down the forces of the oppressor. No effective act of disobedience can
be random; it must be carefully planned and executed accordingly. When the Germans wanted to impose anti–Jewish methods upon German Jews
taking refuge in Denmark, they were met with the most organized of resistance: in one such instance, Danish officials promised their "immediate
resignation" should any anti–Jewish acts occur in Denmark (Arendt, 2000). Still, in order to offer more consequential protection to the Jews the Danish
government had to employ more strategic means. The use of legal manoeuvrings enabled the Danish government to prevent the Nazis from imposing
anti–Jewish rule in Denmark. In addition, assistance from a few traitor Nazis who sabotaged orders from Berlin, including a warning of the impending
exportation of the Jews from Denmark, greatly improved the Danes' ability to protect their Jewish refugees (Arendt, 2000). Similarly, in the case of
Martin Luther King Jr., a great deal of planning and
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Essay about Civil Disobedience
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of
peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of
Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David
Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well–known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery and second
in the application against segregation. Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience" and King's "Letter from Birmingham Jail" are the leading arguments in
defining...show more content...
Thoreau makes that evident in the following quote from his essay: "There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery... who yet in effect do
nothing to put an end to [it]; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that
they know not what to do, and do nothing; and even postpone the question of freedom to the question of free–trade..." (Thoreau, 270). Thoreau
demands civil disobedience from his fellow countryman to correct the errors of the government in regards to slavery and the war of his time.
Thoreau defines this concept as a deed of willful resistance, obtained by disobeying the hypocritical laws. One deed he offers his countrymen to
consider as their deed of civil disobedience, is a refusal to pay taxes. Another deed, one Thoreau highly recommends, is to avert oneself from conspiring
with the government in refusing to actively participate in it. Most importantly civil disobedience is civil. Meaning that the resistance to the government
is peaceful and non–violent in it's methods. King's work in civil disobedience seems to be in agreement with Thoreau in regarding civil disobedience as
a duty of his fellow countrymen. King demands justice for the African Americans in the civil rights movement of the 1960s in his letter. King's famous
line to call the people out to demand justice from the government, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere," (Schulke,

Essay On Civil Disobedience
The right to express oneself through acts of Civil Disobedience is one of the unique freedoms that we are afforded as American citizens. Our founding
fathers sought for freedom from tyranny, thus laying the foundation for the people's ability to safely protest against perceived or real injustices without
fear of harm. Increasingly around the world we see examples of citizens willing to die for this right. Here at home the right to peaceful protest has
come under question of late, with many public figures protesting police brutality against African–American citizens. Many feel these protests are
disrespectful to the values we hold most dear. Upon further introspection, one may realize that these protests are possible only because of those very
same values. Free Speech and the capacity to assemble are some of the most hard–fought freedoms that our founders worked so hard to achieve, In
retrospect, it is evident that those freedoms were only provided to white males, as many of the founding fathers were owners of African slaves. Part of
the continued conflict we are experiencing today goes back to the long and continued struggle of African–American citizens to access these same
freedoms that others have long taken for granted. If it were not for the brave acts of civil disobedience by Rosa Parks, Dr. King, and other brave souls
we may not have the modest level of progress we see today. Maybe this new generation of protesters may encourage change that will impact
generations to...show more content...
The took to the streets en masse in 2007, only to be brutally silenced. This experienced taught the younger generation what their elders already knew,
that resistance against the regime was futile. This was one of the main reasons that the Right to Bear Arms was proved for in our constitution, to
prevent citizens from falling victim to such a dictatorship ever

Civil Disobedience
What is our Nature? Disobedience is the lack of obedience or the refusal to comply with one of power or authority. Many people believe that
obedience to authority will help mankind grow and expand. On the contrary, how can one grow if he/she cannot speak for himself? Individuality is the
quality or character that distinguishes them from others of the same kind. When one is obedient they are not seen as individual but as a part of a
congregation. Obedience can be best categorized as conformity. Therefore disobedience can be illustrated as individuality.
Human nature can be expounded as the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and behavioral traits of human kind. Is it in our nature to be
obedient, to conform to authority? Authority...show more content...
The Catholics from England are a great example of what Fromm means when he says, "If a man can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he
can only disobey and not obey, he is a rebel...."(640) The Catholics were slaves to the religion of England. They were only left with the choice to
move overseas for freedom. Once in the colonies, they refused to obey the king any longer. When they began to seek freedom they were considered
rebels and disobedient. Is disobedience apart of our nature? World renowned philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, Explains that, "Disobedience is the
true definition of liberty." The Catholics wanted their own religion, and no longer wanted to be a part of the religion that was forced upon them. They
wanted to be individuals. But remember as we stated earlier, individuality is synonymous to

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.
Thoreau was arrested and...show more content...
People standing up to the government and any unjust actions they make is hard for them because voicing their opinions often lead to being judged or
ignored and not helping them with the issues they are trying to express.Peaceful protests, that is a protest without violence, are a way to try and
persuade those in power to enact or not enact a certain law. This is known as acts of civil disobedience. A typical example of this are rallies or protests
against something, where people gather peacefully for or against the same thing. People engaging in civil disobedience could also engage in vows
of silence, marching, fasting, and many other peaceful ways to stand up against the inequalities or injustices that they are experiencing. The reason
that this is done and is important is because the other option is to violently protest or cause more problems. This is not a good way to go about it
because even if it comes from a justified place of hurt or anger, it could result in more harm and arrests than are already happening. Even if theses
protests or marches get intense, fights breaking out can happen but the goal is always to be nonviolent. The reasons that civil disobedience is seen in
such a negative light is because many people equate it to the violent examples. They view it as the people who are violently protesting, getting pepper
sprayed and arrested by cops. Even that isn't a justified opinion because those people getting paper sprayed and arrested often times are

Examples Of Civil Disobedience
One often looks to the examples of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. when trying to explain why civil disobedience is a good or bad thing. I
would like to start with a precursor to Gandhi and Dr. King. I would like to look at this example then start exploring civil disobedience and why it is or
is not effective. My example of civil disobedience is the Prophet Daniel from the Book of Daniel. A little background may be necessary to
understand what is happening. Daniel and his people, the Kingdom of Judah had been defeated by the Babylonians. During this time, they were
taken from their homes, resettled to a different land, and were to serve their new king. The people were slaves and could be killed at the king's
whim. Daniel had no rights at all. Daniel was told that he would serve in the king's court because he had some talents in that area. Daniel excelled at
what he did and became indispensable to the king. This is one area that is important to remember: If you are planning to get involved in civil
disobedience, you need to either be important enough that the powers that be really don't want to lose you, or you better do your civil disobedience in
a public way and hope that the public is more on your side that those you disobey....show more content...
Daniel was well aware of the atrocities committed by his new king and aware that he had been enslaved. He did not stand up to the king over these
things, but over a law that would have consequences for all of his enslaved brothers and sisters. The new law would have been a cultural
sledgehammer to the Israelites – they would have to worship the king for 30 days. If you are unaware of Israelite customs, this was a terrible insult to
their religion and to their cultural identity, but under the law, the penalty for praying to anyone other than the king was

Essay Civil Disobedience
To Speak or Not to Speak?
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other
hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory.
If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards
Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's
original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African...show more content...
He can tell his congressmen that he feels a law is unjust. If the congressman is unwilling or unable to change the law, he may make a proposition to
change the law during the voting periods. The only problem with propositions is that they are a matter of appealing to the majority. If the majority
feels that there should be a change and enough people sign the proposition, it will become enacted. However, if the law is only affecting by the
minority of people, these two routes will not create a change of a law. It is clear in such a case that civil disobedience is vital to insure that the
government does not over–extend its role.
Civil disobedience is defined by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as "a refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a
nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government." The most popular example in U.S. history when this was used
was during the Civil Right Movement in the 1960's. The Jim Crow laws at the time restricted African Americans from being able to attend public
schools or use public restrooms that were designated as "white only." Despite the fact that they had paid taxes like anybody else, these types of
segregation laws targeted minorities and made them second rate citizens. It is evident that the Jim Crow Laws were imperfect as the humans that
created them. Martin Luther King, who was sincere in exposing the government's wrongdoings,

Civil and Social Disobedience Essay
Civil disobedience is it the answer to big government control or the bigger problem to today society. This is what we all must ask ourselves in this
situation to look ahead for the future.
These are all questions we must look into ourselves and find the answer between the courage we have to get off the beaten path to the police that so
called that protect us to even injustifiable traitors such as Edward snowden. These instantces are the ones that make a difference in todays society. All
in all we are all Americans and have rights. The draft a long ago status we used to keep military numbers high in the need of war some young men
were sent to places they didn't want to go such as vietnam. This broke massive protests against the war...show more content...
So they beleive we may do what we want. Although as Americans we all must treat each other with fellow respect to live together. Now in some
cases such as riots police are forced to do things to calm it down and disperse the crowds in anyway possible. Such as Martin luther kings black
rights speech to were african American citizens should have equal rights to those of white American citizens this was a changing tide for those who
were gathered up by the police and beaten. the men who thought they were above the law. Although when cases that they actually got what they
deserved for breaking laws. Laws are there to keep us in place but one has to decide when it is taken to far to decide Americans must strike back.
The machine is strong the machine has secrets the machine is impenetrable. Thats what most people think as the government as a giant big bad
machine that create the rules we all must live by but when has the machine gone to far when and where does it stop for those who run it. The ones
who create the laws must obey them for they have created these laws for they have thought of them so its only right for the machine to obey its own
laws but when the machine breaks its own laws where is the justice. This is where a Hacktivist comes in for those who can do nothing in the civil
disobedience for the machine. They can break those laws to make it more right for the common

Civil Disobedience Essay Examples
Civil disobedience by no means developed recently. Opposing the law in order to promote change goes back hundreds of years, and often became
the backbone of positive social developments. However, similar to reactions to other types of protests, some groups believe civil disobedience holds
no place in today's society, or, for some, in any society, but, in doing so, ignore the vast number of positive effects these sorts of protests can glean, as
far back as the start of America to living in today's corporate world.
To begin with, civil disobedience became the foundation for the development of today's world. In fact, this concept remains at the backbone of any
of today's societies, all of which broke away from old governmental systems to join new ones or form their own. One of the most prolific examples
however, occurred in "1773, when a band of Bostonians dressed as Mohawk Indians boarded British ships and dumped 342 chests of tea into Boston
Harbor" in response to the outrageous taxes the British parliament instilled ("American Revolution History"). This act clearly remained a defiance of
their laws, but the reasons behind the act, to demonstrate the unfairness of the current...show more content...
Sadly, unless a protesting group's efforts directly harm the larger organization's work, the oppressors won't listen. The government can ignore letters, a
company can survive bad press, but making their operations difficult, by dumping shipments of good in the river, or even impossible, by impeding
construction, will force them to listen to the concerns of the public, concerns which often go unheard. Whereas without exposure to protestor's
concerns a larger organization may never know what they need to change, much less make plans to do so, hopefully, when they finally listen they can
see the error of their ways and come to a

Civil Disobedience
Peaceful resistances to unjust laws both positively and negatively impact a free society. After there has been enough national attention over these
protests, large opposition can ensue violence. No matter how careful, meaningful, or powerful the peaceful protestors are there has been a backlash of
violence from many different parties. Civil disobedience has been a predominant way minorities have fought for their rights. Women and African
Americans have been protesting since the beginning of the United States through civil disobedience. The Women's Rights Movement made its first
major sign of progress when the 20th Amendment of the Constitution was passed; allowing women the right to vote. This feat was only achieved
because of the peaceful protests of these powerful women. And because of these women, an entire gender is now able to actively participate in the
government that represents them. Without the free society of America and the people's...show more content...
While the women's rights movement was predominantly peaceful, the African American civil rights movement has been somewhat violent from both
sides of the issue. Since the passing of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments aka the Civil War Amendments, African Americans were now
emancipated from slavery, American citizens, and able to vote. A violent KKK group enforced Jim Crow laws that continued to segregate African
Americans from white society. African Americans were forced to omit from voting even when they had sovereignty because of poll taxes and literacy
test specifically for African Americans. This continued oppression heightened in the late 1950s. Peaceful protests lead by Martin Luther King Jr. took
a turn to violence on the protestor's side because of his death. The Black Panther party ran by Malcolm X promoted a "whatever means necessary"
stance on civil

Gandhi's acts of civil disobedience Essay
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
In 1757, Great Britain extended its empire into India. This occupation would not fully end until 1947. In the time between, there were many movements
by the Indian people to gain independence from the British. The movement that finally succeeded in winning India's independence was led by one of
the most influential figures of the 20th century, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Gandhi's methods for fighting against the occupation of the British
were very different from those of any of the freedom movements before. And that was why it worked. Gandhi did not agree with the general reasoning
of the time: that conflicts could be solved through negotiation and forceful resistance.1 Rather, his faith led him to go...show more content...
Instead of trying to fight against his opposers, he combined his effort with theirs. This worked very well in gaining the support of his opposers.6 This
experiment would influence his later thoughts.
At this time, Gandhi began to seek employment as a lawyer in India. But his London education gave him little knowledge of Hindu and Indian law,
making work very hard to find in India. He considered going to an Indian university, but at the time it was not economically feasible. Eventually he
was able to find an opportunity to practice law that would bring him to Natal, South Africa in 1893.7
In South Africa Gandhi was exposed to a level of racism that he had never experienced before. He was not allowed to wear his turban in a
courtroom and he was not allowed to ride in the same cars as Europeans on the trains. While traveling to by train to Pretoria, he was asked to leave
his seat for the van compartment. He refused and was kicked off the train.8 To get to his destination, he found a stagecoach going to Pretoria. He was
not allowed to sit in the coach–box with the white passengers, but was forced to sit with the coachman. Later, he was asked to give up his seat to sit
on the floorboard. Gandhi would not agree to this injustice. And, although he received a beating for it, he remained in his seat.9 These incidents led
Gandhi to decide to fight for the rights of Indian workers in South Africa.
In the meantime, Gandhi

Starting with one of the most famous works on civil disobedience by Thoreau, it is important to remember that "we are the resistance." The people
of America have a right to do what is moral, and to act against an order that is immoral. Especially with the state of society, and the recent election
of Donald trump as the new president as the united states, people seem to forget that the government is not the end all be all when it comes to
morality. As seen in the news and through our own eyes, people are upset with the state of the government at the moment, and it is turning the
American people against one another. In a way, it is up to the people to bring back order. It isn't uncommon for a leader to pass a bill or law in which
the outcome may be harmful to a group of people, for example the recently passed legislation to continue the DAPL pipeline....show more content...
It is possible to create change if it is peaceful, but civil disobedience, like other forms of protest, has consequences. Charles Frankel writes in his article
about how, if not peaceful, disobedient actions turn into riots and people get hurt. He mentions in his article that "Nevertheless, it is possible to
indicate some of the principal issues that are raised by civil disobedience, some of the more common mistakes that are made in thinking about these
issues, and, at least in outline, the apВproach that one man would take toВward such issues." In some cases, people forget to think before they resist,
and that is what leads a peaceful resistance, into something far more dangerous. The DAPL pipeline protests are an example of this. At first the
protests were peaceful, and making progress towards stopping the pipeline that would have been built in the middle of sacred land, but when people
began to get angry, the protests turned violent. The government had to send in the national guard to keep protesters from destroying

Question Responses to Henry David Thoreau 's Civil Disobedience
6 claims Henry David Thoreau made in his essay: "I heartily accept the motto,__ 'That government is best which governs least; ' and I should like to
see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically." (Page one; Section one)
My thoughts: This is the very first sentence in Henry Thoreau 's essay Civil Disobedience. His claim that government is best when it governs the
least is explained though out the first part of his essay. By this claim he means that by a government acting less by laws and more by moral and
conscience judgment it would lead to a better nation. He claims that IF people ,citizens of the United States, started acting on our conscience (the...show
more content...
Here he compares the government to a civilian tax collector. Saying that he only sees him once a year and at that time the tax collector taunts him
with the fact that he, as a person of the United States, has to follow this law no matter how immoral or unjust he thinks it is. Even now a tax collector
is someone no one looks forward to seeing but at this time, when the government was still being questioned on immoral and unjust laws, when the
people of the United States were questioning if they needed a government at all, tax collectors where an "unnecessary" necessary. Meaning that yes
they were there for a reason but the people never understood their purpose. By Thoreau claiming that a tax collector represented his government he
implies that the government is mainly after his money and will go to many lengths to get it. Meaning that in someway or the other a government like
this one is an "unnecessary" necessary.
"The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers,
constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a
level with wood and earth and

Civil Disobedience And The Civil War
As a people our national history was written, for the most part, as a result of civil disobedience. Breaking the laws that England imposed on the
colonies was the first step in a revolution that established a new form of representative democracy. Most of the great social changes that have
come about over the 200+ years of our existence had its roots in the embracing of breaking a law of the land dutifully enacted by a legislative body.
Civil disobedience is the deliberate disobeying of a law, or government directive prohibiting the action you are taking. Many laws established by both
the Congress and the southern states allowed slavery prior to the Civil War. Abolitionists were opposed to this concept of human beings as chattel and
knowingly broke these laws in order to encourage and protect runaway slaves. Morally they felt justified and a Great War was arguably fought to bring
about change in these laws–although, the primary reason for the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Typically, when civil disobedience
comes up, we look to the long line of heroes who put their lives on the line to help define what civil disobedience meant and how it could be
successfully used in order to effect change. Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, M.L. King and Mandela, are among the many men and women who fought
great injustices in the past by taking a stand and calling attention to an unjust law. They used civil disobedience against the established order of things
as a tool to not only

Civil Disobedience By Edward Snowden
By the lawmakers and law followers of society, civil disobedience is to spit upon their words and then ignore them, in favor of upholding their own
virtues. However, it is not just laws, but even unfair, undocumented processes that are not labeled for also undisclosed reasons. Civil disobedience does
not simply take the form of silent action, such as sit–downs and area occupation, or even protests, but can be acts of exposure that are tirades against
the government and display to the people the laws they abide under or the surreptitious acts of authority, and is positive in showing hidden injustices. In
recent, modern day news, Edward Snowden, a name that goes down in both infamy and legend in the United States, has currently spoken on Russian
...show more content...
But our system offers legal options to disgruntled government employees and contractors. They can take advantage of federal whistleblower laws;
they can bring their complaints to Congress; they can try to protest within the institutions where they work." (Toobin 1.) This implies that the system
they are a part of is sturdy enough for one to voice their opinion, however he contradicts himself by stating American democracy is flawed, as the
sentence before states that one can take a straightforward, democratic approach to appealing to higher powers, those who often cut and shroud the
American, equitable voice. In light of even more recent events, such as the Kaepernick situation where a man who expressed his ideals on the
American standard and way of life was penalized in a sport that is not directly tied to the country, it shows that perhaps voicing one's opinion will harm
oneself rather than uplift other, also accounting for the hate he garnered. Odd to note that as journalists and even student writers, we too can be seen as
Anti–Americans for our

Essay on Civil Disobedience
Civil Disobedience
Henry Thoreau wrote an essay about it in the 19th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached it in the South. Mahatma Gandhi encouraged it in India.
Nelson Mandela went to jail for promoting it. The Bible says that Paul, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were all guilty of it.
According wikipedia.org, "civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands of a government or of an
occupying power without resorting to physical violence."
As Christians, the dilemma is to follow the precepts of government to the letter and violate the commandments of God, or remain faithful to God, and
become an enemy of the government. Martin Luther King fought against government...show more content...
Being a strong man of God, there is no doubt that King saw how his disobedience to the law was in direct conflict with the word of God.
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are
sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant
talk of foolish men .
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and
considerate, and to show true humility toward all men .
So, Dr. King chose to subscribe to and to witness about the commandment to "love your neighbor as thy self." In keeping with this commandment, he
was on the wrong side of laws that were meant to keep a portion of God's creations as less than rest of the community. But he was also keeping with the
commandment of God.
The Old Testament has various examples of men of God practicing civil disobedience. When Nebuchadnezzar built huge idols and demanded that every
one worship them whenever music played, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship anything or anyone other than God himself.
Nebuchadnezzar made it clear that they would be tossed into the fiery furnace. They refused, were put into the furnace, and delivered by God .

King Darius made a decree that there would no praying in his

It is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights that it is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances." In other words, civil disobedience falls in the right of the people, so if they want to protest against something they consider an injustice, as
it is happening now with people protesting against Donald Trump's executive order that "bands travel from seven Muslim–majority countries," they
can, because it is within their civil rights.It goes the same with any other free society. A free society is characterized by the people's freedom to live
the life they wish to live as long as it doesn't interfere with another person's freedom, that includes the freedom to peacefully protest...show more
content...
Martin Luther King Jr., one of the most well know peaceful protesters in American, and perhaps the world, once said that "somewhere [he] read that the
greatness of America was the right to protest for rights," I strongly believe that to be true, because thanks to his peaceful protest African Americans
now–a–day get to live with the equality that they deserve, and that Martin Luther King Jr. could only dream of. Another example, will be one of the
most known acts of civil disobedience, an act executed by Rosa Parks. In December 1st, 1955 Rosa parks refused to give up her seat to a white male,
something that at the time was against the law, which resulted in her getting arrested. That simple act of protest led to the "Montgomery Bus Boycott,"
in which "African American refused to ride the city buses in Montgomery, Alabama, to protest segregated seating." The boycott lasted a total of 381
days, and resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court ordering " Montgomery to integrate its bus system."In conclusion, peaceful protest is never a waste of
time, if anything it can last a whole

Civil Disobedience Essay Examples
Civil disobedience is a human dilemma, an internal, moral restlessness to an act of authority. It voices the power of the people, strengthens democracy
and puts checks and balances on the Executive power. It is a non violent act that may be either positive: peacefully protesting against what one feels is
wrong. It can also be negative when external forces turn a peaceful protest violent. It is essentially a challenge to the claimed legitimacy of authority, a
declaration that the authority has done something it is not entitled to do or has failed to do something that it is responsible to do. One of the earliest
examples of civil disobedience is found in Exodus 1:15–17. The King of Egypt had commanded the Hebrew midwives to kill any boy babies born to
the Hebrews. Because these midwives feared God, they obeyed His higher law and let the babies live. From this first act, civil disobedience has
advanced many causes. Because it gives people an opportunity to force politicians to change,...show more content...
In the modern world, when people protest, typically many photographs and videos are taken, posted on social media and published by the media.
Politicians want to keep their constituents happy and news of protests make politicians look bad. These protests can encourage a politician to
introduce bills or other measures to ensure the change that his or her constituents want. An example would be the Occupy Wall Street Movement of
2011, a movement that sought to decrease income inequality and let the "99%" have more of a say in political matters. Mayor Bill de Blasio of New
York city succumbed to the protest, expanding free pre–Kindergarten, increasing affordable housing, and guaranteeing workers sick days.Without these
acts of civil disobedience, politicians would have never been pressured to adapt to what the public

Response To Civil Disobedience
Civil disobedience is a form of resistance that many people have great respect for, and with good reason. Peaceful protest through the disobedience of
law requires a dedication that most other action do not. To put your safety on the line the way Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. did
requires resilience and bravery. Throughout history, people have responded to the call to be jailed, beaten, and even killed, without raising a finger to
protect themselves, in the name of a just and righteous cause. I find this peculiar. Why would they do this? Many resisted unjust laws because they
opposed tyranny but disdained violence. The early Christians are a prime example, "turning the other cheek" to the point of being fed to lions. As it turns
...show more content...
In the 1773 when the Sons of Liberty tossed a shipload of tea in the Boston Harbor, many people portrayed them as violent criminals. Although they
did treat some wooden crates rather badly, they were very organized and even swept up spilled leaves off the ship's deck when they were done. There
have even been cases recently of people practicing peaceful, civil disobedience who were incriminated in the media, but since these events are recent
and heated, I will not discuss them. Alternately, sometimes protesters who are behaving violently and are putting other people's lives at risk are cast as
peaceful citizens concerned about the current state of political affairs. This can be dangerous, because it tries to grant legitimacy to a group that does
not need their actions condoned, and turns civil disobedience into another meaning less

Civil Disobedience Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from NeedHelpWritingAPape

More from NeedHelpWritingAPape (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Civil Disobedience Essay