Civil Disobedience and Non-Violent Direct Action Seminar Synthesis
Where would you be with out people like Susan B. Anthony, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.? Each of these individuals practiced civil disobedience for the greater good of the people and to stand up for those who had had their rights stolen. They were not trying to commit crimes to anger the government, but rather to make society and Democracy what it was intended to be. I agree that this is a just and sound method in for promoting and attaining social change because we can see how it has positively created change and made the United States what it is today. There are still times in which Civil Disobedience and Non-Violent Direct Action are not immediately effective, but at least people have tried. We still have a ways to go and standing back and watching isn’t the way we will accomplish what is important.
There are times when Non-Violent Direct Action is not extremely effective. We see this in the Occupy Wall Street movement. The movement seemed to be unfocused and unorganized. Because of this confusion, the public lost sight of what the protesters were truly fighting for. But is it movements that are unfocused, or is it the public who doesn’t take the time to educate themselves and therefore movements like Occupy don’t get the support they need? Even though individuals are important, only groups can make things happen and without support from the public, protests and movements for change don’t thrive. We talked about this in the seminar when I brought up the idea that maybe economics is a topic that most people don’t have to think about. We implicitly are always involved with economics, but often times it seems too complicated. If we are not educated or extremely passionate about something, we most likely won’t go out of our way to support that cause. Maybe Martin Luther King and leaders fighting for African American Rights were able to get support because everyone could see the oppression of blacks. Civil Rights seemed to have a clear right and wrong, where as economics appears much too complicated for individuals to get involved.
Vivi talked about how our ideologies and emotions control what we choose to support and not to support. She said that race affects the soul more than economics. I agree that our ideologies force us to support a cause and take action, like the ideologies of equality that created a lot of support for the Civil Rights movement. Economics, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have that impact on our soul and in our minds. Another idea I brought up was the idea that Martin Luther King discussed in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He used the quote from Reinhold Niebuhr that states that groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We can see this in the blind allegiance to political parties. Many, if not the majority of people, support a specific party based on the majority’s ideologies. This often times causes individuals to lose sight of their own morals and take on those of the group, such as during the beginning of the Iraq war. Most people know in their own minds that war is immoral, yet these morals were pushed aside, and individuals were blinded by the frenzy of war, which lead to the support of group ideologies.
Another topic we discussed was how influential individuals were in changing the government. Through the seminar we realized, that individuals have the power to start change, but with out a large group to support that individual and their ideologies, no idea will be heard by the government. From this realization Rowan talked about how if we need a group to get ideas heard, does Democracy work? Has it ever worked? Maybe this is the time to create Democracy where we don’t have to pull teeth, but can come together with the government and create change; change that will simply add to society not take anything away. Thoreau said, “I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.” Those like Susan B. Anthony, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks did not practice civil disobedience merely because they were angry, they did it to start the cycle of change for moral purposes and to practice what the government preaches; Democracy. Thoreau states “ It is not a man’s duty, as a manner of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” We can go about our lives with out giving everything up, but if we condemn something, we should immediately stop supporting it if we want to see change. Even when Thoreau got put in jail for not paying his taxes, it didn’t create immediate change. However, at least he felt clean because he wasn’t participating in something he thought was immoral.
Where would you be with out people like Susan B. Anthony, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.? Each of these individuals practiced civil disobedience for the greater good of the people and to stand up for those who had had their rights stolen. They were not trying to commit crimes to anger the government, but rather to make society and Democracy what it was intended to be. I agree that this is a just and sound method in for promoting and attaining social change because we can see how it has positively created change and made the United States what it is today. There are still times in which Civil Disobedience and Non-Violent Direct Action are not immediately effective, but at least people have tried. We still have a ways to go and standing back and watching isn’t the way we will accomplish what is important.
There are times when Non-Violent Direct Action is not extremely effective. We see this in the Occupy Wall Street movement. The movement seemed to be unfocused and unorganized. Because of this confusion, the public lost sight of what the protesters were truly fighting for. But is it movements that are unfocused, or is it the public who doesn’t take the time to educate themselves and therefore movements like Occupy don’t get the support they need? Even though individuals are important, only groups can make things happen and without support from the public, protests and movements for change don’t thrive. We talked about this in the seminar when I brought up the idea that maybe economics is a topic that most people don’t have to think about. We implicitly are always involved with economics, but often times it seems too complicated. If we are not educated or extremely passionate about something, we most likely won’t go out of our way to support that cause. Maybe Martin Luther King and leaders fighting for African American Rights were able to get support because everyone could see the oppression of blacks. Civil Rights seemed to have a clear right and wrong, where as economics appears much too complicated for individuals to get involved.
Vivi talked about how our ideologies and emotions control what we choose to support and not to support. She said that race affects the soul more than economics. I agree that our ideologies force us to support a cause and take action, like the ideologies of equality that created a lot of support for the Civil Rights movement. Economics, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to have that impact on our soul and in our minds. Another idea I brought up was the idea that Martin Luther King discussed in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He used the quote from Reinhold Niebuhr that states that groups tend to be more immoral than individuals. We can see this in the blind allegiance to political parties. Many, if not the majority of people, support a specific party based on the majority’s ideologies. This often times causes individuals to lose sight of their own morals and take on those of the group, such as during the beginning of the Iraq war. Most people know in their own minds that war is immoral, yet these morals were pushed aside, and individuals were blinded by the frenzy of war, which lead to the support of group ideologies.
Another topic we discussed was how influential individuals were in changing the government. Through the seminar we realized, that individuals have the power to start change, but with out a large group to support that individual and their ideologies, no idea will be heard by the government. From this realization Rowan talked about how if we need a group to get ideas heard, does Democracy work? Has it ever worked? Maybe this is the time to create Democracy where we don’t have to pull teeth, but can come together with the government and create change; change that will simply add to society not take anything away. Thoreau said, “I saw that the State was half-witted, that it was timid as a lone woman with her silver spoons, and that it did not know its friends from its foes, and I lost all my remaining respect for it, and pitied it.” Those like Susan B. Anthony, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks did not practice civil disobedience merely because they were angry, they did it to start the cycle of change for moral purposes and to practice what the government preaches; Democracy. Thoreau states “ It is not a man’s duty, as a manner of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” We can go about our lives with out giving everything up, but if we condemn something, we should immediately stop supporting it if we want to see change. Even when Thoreau got put in jail for not paying his taxes, it didn’t create immediate change. However, at least he felt clean because he wasn’t participating in something he thought was immoral.