A major difference was that Gandhi campaigned against unjust laws of the British government, while Martin Luther King Jr. campaigned for rights that "colored" people were already lawfully supposed to have. For instance, according to the U.S. government, all people, regardless of skin color, had the equal right of suffrage, but many racists refused to accept this and attacked non-whites when they attempted to vote. Gandhi fought British oppression with
Like King, he supported the breaking of unjust laws and Jacobus explains the Thoreau belief in that it is not only appropriate but also a moral obligation to revolutionize against immoral laws (Thoreau, 174). He further said that although rebelling against such laws is a tough task, people should do it. Thoreau followed the same path in the American-Mexican War. He denied paying the tax imposed by the U.S government for the economic support of Mexican War. He was against the Mexican War declared by American Government, as it was unjust to colonize other nations (United States itself was separated from British colonization through revolution).
Martin Luther King, one of the most well known civil rights leaders in America, believed that some laws during his lifetime were unjust in nature and were acceptable to ignore based on ones conscience. Henry David Thoreau also believed that unjust laws were to be resisted or ignored. While Thoreau was the first American to define and use civil disobedience as a means of protest, King expanded upon it in his letter from Birmingham jail, implementing nonviolence and practical application into the traditional American protest. Henry David Thoreau believed that, “That government is best, which governs least.” Also, while Thoreau had wished for no government, he acknowledged the fact that it was logically impossible and that the government only exists because the people allow it to exist; Thoreau states, “The government does not keep the country free. It does not settle the west.
Gandhi was a man that would “strain every nerve to make Truth and Non-violence accepted in all our national activities” (i.e. Gandhi, 358). He believed that if India could get out of control and show the world that progress could be made, he would show other nations that they too, could gain their own power as a self governed nation. Gandhi and Marx would agree on terms of having self governing nations because Marx’s main goal was Communism. While Marx thought that strength in numbers mattered and how many Proletariats could take down the Bourgeois class, Gandhi believed that “strength does not come from physical capacity” (i.e.
King believed in order to stop violence we should not do anything but ignore it. He believed that violence begins more violence. He said “darkness cannot drive out of darkness; only light can do that” (Martin Luther King Jr). He believed that violence can only lead to two things hospital or cemetery. He said “at the center of non-violence stands the principle of love” (Martin Luther King Junior).
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Gandhi was desperate to get rid of caste system, whereas Mao wanted to discard the Confucianism system. Thus both wanted to get rid of two similar systems in each of their countries. However, Mao wanted to devastate KMT and Gandhi on the other hand wanted Muslims to get along with Indians. Thirdly, to gain the power politically, Gandhi has held a conference several times such as the event, burning reference books in front of citizens. Regarding mao, He actually gained support by the things he did such as, giving his people better education and giving women more rights.
Their goal was to abolish slavery completely and prevent it from harming many people. By sacrificing their lives into the war, this shows how devoted they are to putting an end to slavery even though the Reconstruction failed. The filmmakers’ goals when making this movie were to show how slavery was the reason why the Civil War was being fought. Throughout the movie, the African American soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry underwent harsh training as well as being treated unequally. They were used for manual labor and nothing else until Robert Gould Shaw stepped up for the soldiers to have them fight in the war.
Although the author was working as a police officer for the British Emperor, he strongly opposed the idea of Imperialism. His opposition is expressed throughout the story. I had already made up my mind that imperialism was an evil thing and the sooner I checked up my job and got out of it the better. Theoretically- and secretly, of course- I was all for the Burmese and all against their oppressors, the British.
Is it possible to rule the state without the use of violence? Max Weber believed that if violence is justified, then it is possible to use it. He defined state in terms of violence, but emphasized on the fact that violence is not necessarily, but rather an extreme measure. However, Gandhi suggested that state should not use violence in any form, and promoted Satyagraha. He used this idea to present a non-violent resistance against the British colonization and for Indian independence movement.