Thorean starts of by saying that he believes the State will take his work of his hands, making him no better than anyone. The Constitution, though not perfect, is respectable. Many have interpret them, but he, seen from a higher perspective, states that who shall judge them and say what they are? The government doesn't bother him much. He believes that if a man is free in thought, fancy, and imagination, than anyone who is less wise cannot bother him. Everyone has different thoughts. States-men and legislatures speak of a moving society, but cannot do without it. They have certain experience and discrimination, but their wit and usefulness are limited, and believe that the world is governed by policy and expediency. Speculations will soon reveal the limits of Webster's minds range and hospitality. He is wisdom, and he contains only sensible and valuable words. But his quality is prudence. Its not truth, but consistency or a consistent expediency. He is not a leader, but a follower. He cannot fact out of its political relations. The States have nothing to do with it. They who know of no purer sources of truth wisely stands. They use the Bible and the Constitution. There is no one who has spoke out. There is no genius to answer these questions of the Legislatures. If it was up to them, America would not retain her rank among the nations. 1800 years have passed, yet not Legislature who is wise enough has step amongst us. The authority of the government is still impure. It can have no pure right over his person and property. There will never be a free State until it recognizes man as higher independent power and treats him that way. But this is left up to his imagination. It is his vision, a vision that has not...
pages: 2 (words: 307)
People have different morals, values and beliefs on certain issues but it is those few that take action who can testify why they would risk their freedom for what they believe. The act of civil disobedience is acted upon to draw public awareness and take a stand for what one believes. They must believe strongly enough to put their freedom on the line. Civil disobedience helped us learn from the past, question the present and improve the future. There are many people who have taken a stand and influenced others by using civil disobedience. People such as Rosa Parks, Thoreau and the many more that won't be known by name by for standing up for their beliefs. Civil disobedience is a form of protest and resistance usually in a non-violent way that is justifiably carried out in objection to a law. Civil disobedience is the discriminate violation of a law for a vital social purpose, which is not only justifiable but also necessary when a fundamental human right is at stake (Zinn 119). If laws are not questioned and challenged then there is no point in enforcing them. Activists such as Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Thoreau all practiced civil disobedience by questioning laws. Civil disobedience should not be tolerated but essential in keeping a society (Zinn 25). Justifying civil disobedience involves inequality being demonstrated by the government. One must prove that civil disobedience is the answer to injustice (Bedau 23). One should take a stand and go against the government if they feel a law to be morally unfair. If there is a chance to make society better by breaking a law then civil disobedience is justifiable. The purpose of civil disobedience is to raise awareness and understanding of an unjust law. To do this successfully is to do...
pages: 5 (words: 1182)
Satyagraha (civil disobedience) Gandhi's belief in a non-violent march for liberation was a key factor in creating the Indian State free of foreign occupation. His determination of patience and peace approach eventually subdued the deterrence force from creating chaos and other mishaps that usually occurs in other forms of anti movements. The historical event widely known as Satyagraha; Gandhi had coined proved to be more conducive to nonviolent results. The term Satyagraha derived from two-letter word truth and firmness, which shaped the whole resistance against the British colonial force in India, forcing them out of the Indian soil stunned the world in the history of revolution. In past no country has ever succeeded in applying such steadfast approach towards liberation, instead violent measures that resulted into deaths and destruction remained a grim fact in their history. Gandhi spoke for the rights of people in disobeying the law that were cruel and unjust, this is where he practiced civil disobedience and he therefore advocated for the justification of the cause. The acts of civil disobedience widely got attention of many people fighting against their one enemy, and many found that the non violent measure was even more effective in bringing about changes rather than committing violence which at the time couldn't make any progress in defeating the mighty enemy force. The strong enemy, which had a huge military presence, was able to sustain all sorts of uprising but was less effective in quelling the mass stubbornness. Gandhi was at the end of his leadership able to free his country ……. What can be derived from such passive resistance practiced by Gandhi and his followers, is that the acts of civil disobedience can be a very effective tool if it admits of no violence. Thus creating a generous atmosphere of making your opinion heard...
pages: 3 (words: 781)
Today people differ from their race, culture, and religeon. In the time of the play "Romeo&Juliet" people were close but not as close as modern day family's are by a personal factor. Overall I put it in the hands of the parents to decide how their relationship with their kids is. Juliet's parents were close and concerning in all the ways they shouldn't have been. Juliet's father and mother always worried about her life after the fashion of her living at home. I mean when she is older and on her own. I don't mean to sound like I have a degree in pshycology but we both know that it was Juliet's parents who needed to change and not her. Today however it is the kids who need to change and not the parents, and the anser I believe is very simple kids today lack respect, diciplin, and manners. However today parents and kids seem to be more compatible with each other overall. What their relationship lacked back then was a more personal basis to go on, instead of going on that they took for granted their power as just being parents. A first class comparison between kids back then and kids now is that the word smart allec didn't even exist back then becouse they had no need for it. Now however that's not the case at all. Like I said respect came in the earlier days through diciplin and a good old fasion whoopin every once in a while. The problem now is if you spank your kid it's almost a crime or something! I believe that's some of what is wrong, not enough is demanded of our kids anymore to keep them from having time to back talk their elders. The parents of the time of "Romeo&Juliet" were much more...
pages: 2 (words: 430)
The term civil disobedience means "refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means", theories on this term have been around for a long time. (American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg161) People like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have took up and preached their own theories on civil disobedience. The two have there own reasons why to practice civil disobedience but there view on it is in similar manner. Mahatma Gandhi wanted to stop South African government from making all Indians register with Registrar of Asiatics. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to stop the segregation of the colored people in southern parts of America. While both men fought for different causes they had a similar theme they both saw their people been treated unjustly. Martin Luther King Jr. saw colored people in southern parts of America been prosecuted on bass of there color. Mahatma Gandhi saw Indians been prosecuted on bass of there race. Both men knew that the only way to stop their prosecutors is by standing up to them. Mahatma Gandhi unlike most of Indian community wanted to stand up to Great Britain in passive resistance he called it a "weapon of weak men". Gandhi believes that the way to stop the prosecution of his people is by civil disobedience. Mahatma Gandhi used civil disobedience because he knew that it was the only way that the Indian people could fight the Great Britain laws. Gandhi's called his form of civil disobedience "Satyagrahis" and, one of the believe that Satyagrahis gave was that Indian people where strong and with that believe it made the Indian people believe they will have the power to over rule the laws that Great Britain passed. Gandhi also said that Satyagrahis was a...
pages: 6 (words: 1379)
Civil Disobedience By, H. D. Thoreau H. D. Thoreau lived in a time of slavery and taxation. He was an abolitionist and vehemently anti-establishment. Civil Disobedience is the story of his life which is laced with quotes and comparisons of history and literature. The story is also his views on the American and other governments. On page 19 he first compares the army, the tax collectors and government servers to machines and says that they have no morals. "A drab of state, a cloth-o'-silver slut, to have her train borne up and her soul trail in the dirt." This is a quote Thoreau took from Cyril Tourneur, and used it to describe how the capitalists and bureaucrats functioned in his time. Thoreau hated the fact that the American government had fallen subject to corruption and deception. When Thoreau was living Propaganda was to the democracy as violence was to a dictatorship. Thoreau believed that slaves, Native Americans, and the common people were being wronged by our government. This made him one of the first outspoken anarchists in the Boston area. He was jailed for a short time because he refused to pay his taxes. He refused because he did not support the Mexican war, he did not support the poll tax, which meant that you had to pay to vote. Thoreau took a stand and proclaimed he wouldn't support the governments ploy to scam money off of the working people in order to fight a war that wasn't necessary in the first place. Thoreau, on the other hand, did believe in paying his highway tax. This was because he wanted to be known as a "Bad subject but a good neighbor." He was a very educated man who attended Harvard. He also knew what he wanted and was willing to sacrifice his physical...
pages: 2 (words: 343)
Are we morally obliged to obey unjust laws? Do we have to follow a law regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral it may be? The only reason that these laws must be followed are because they are the law. But if your're caught in a situation were the "unjust" law needs to be broken would you create civil disobedience and take a stand for what you believe in? An unjust law according to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is "Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." "An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself." An unjust law according to Henry David Thoreau is, "…if is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." He strongly believes that an individual should stand up to the government and break a law if it condurs injustice to them. Despite the consequences, an individual should do what they personally believe is right. Thoreau, "…paid no taxes poll-tax for six years," but "never declined paying the highway tax, because I am as desirous of being a good neighbor". Despite the consequences, he would stand firm in his opinions and beliefs. In turn Thoreau spent one night in prison, but felt that his personal convictions outweighed any punishment. The argument Thoreau builds is for the importance of civil disobedience. Iin his speech "Civil Disobedience" demonstrates why a person should violate an unjust law. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. A law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law. In today's society, civil disobedience is created when the...
pages: 4 (words: 1045)
Non violent civil disobedience Non violent civil disobedience is the most powerful way to avoid violence while fighting for some major goal. Back in 1957's Congress made a decision to apply the constitutional rights of equality to the black population of USA. At that time the US had a lot of segregation and racism. Black and white population of USA were separated. The relationship between the two races was combative. One of aspects of difference was the education that children were receiving in black schools. It was much worse than in the white schools . So, after Congress passed the verdict that allowed black children to study in white schools, a couple of black children transferred to a white district school in Arkansas Little Rock. The story of Ernst green as African American took place in Central High School ,Little Rock Arkansas in 1957. Ernst Green and a couple more black children transferred from their school to Central High School . The white population in the face of most of white parents and children who were studying in this High School. Some teachers and school officials who worked in the school. General white public and finally government of the state . Were not willing to let these black children study with white children. The situation took almost combative form when the governor ordered the state troops to block the high school and not let black children enter the school. This process was accompanied with demonstrations around the school. As the governor was not willing to follow the orders of national government the President of the USA ordered the national troops to go to Little Rock to maintain order. Only after the "invasion" of national troops were black children let into the school and were being guarded. There were all kinds...
pages: 3 (words: 721)
Conscience, feelings of write and wrong have affected our actions since the dawn of man. Having observed injustices from our government, King and Thoreau could not in good conscience look the other way. The chosen actions for the two, nonviolent opposition to unjust laws, to be civilly disobedient. While both men took a similar course of action they differed in their perceived results. Thoreau refuses to be affected by laws he feels have nothing to do with him. He encourages people to be civilly disobedient rather than submit to such things. King not only refuses unjust laws but utilizes Civil disobedience as a means of direct action. Henry David Thoreau basically wants people to stand up for them self's regardless of consequence; he argues that the consequence of taking no action is far worse than doing so. Weak people don't do as they feel but do as they are told. Thoreau's strong criticism of Daniel Webster is well founded, "He well deserves to be called the defender of the constitution. He is not a leader but a follower. His leaders are the men of 87." (Thoreau; Civil Disobedience 163) "I have never made an effort…to disturb the arrangement as originally made… (Regarding slavery) because it was part of the original compact."(Daniel Webster163). Broken down, it is easy to be the defender of something if you have made no effort to change or challenge it. Webster is a follower of the men of 87 because he either fears or lacks the ability to challenge the constitution, or to, contemplate a law as being just, to see it for what it is; simply a rule created by man. Not being a mind washed fatalist Thoreau refuses to stick his head in the fire, or pay taxes on a war in Mexico, regardless of the...
pages: 3 (words: 650)
Henry David Thoreau would not believe in what Luke was fighting for. Luke was a man in jail for the destruction of municipal property. Yet he doesn't, in my mind, show any reason why he destroyed parking meters. Is Luke trying just to defy the law or does he have any reason behind what he does? Thoreau says that any man who chooses to fight should have something to fight for. Now why would he approve of Luke if Luke had no reason, other then he was drunk, to fight the law. Civil disobedience is the rebellion of government to suit the needs of the people. Thoreau had a reason to not pay taxes he didn't think he should be paying for a war he didn't agree with. If Luke had shown why he destroyed property then maybe Thoreau would have approved of the crime he committed. When Luke got to the jail he was to spend 2 years at he showed that he was willing to pay for what he had done. When his mom died and Luke got put in the box Luke got pissed and thought it was unfair to be put in just because his mom died. Now Thoreau may have approved of him running away because he has not done a crime but is getting punished for what he might do. After the bosses broke him he was willing to do everything he was told. When he stole the truck n his last attempt to get away he had no reason to run. Thoreau would not approve of the grand theft auto because Luke had promised to stay out of trouble but he lied and I don't think Thoreau would lie in order to break the law again. With these arguments I don't think Luke was falling under the...
pages: 2 (words: 361)