Martin Luther King And Gandhi Comparison

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi once said, “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.” What Gandhi is saying is that nonviolence is a stronger force than using destructive tools like guns or explosives. He is saying you can achieve your goals without the need to use violence like harming innocent people or causing chaos and havoc. Historical figures like Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela used non-violence civil disobedience Although non-violent civil disobedience is the best way to bring change to an unjust system, it is not always successful.

He claims “If we want to make progress, we must not repeat history, but make new history”. In the past, in order for citizens to go against their government, violent acts, such as war, were sought out. For example, the civil war was a violent war that fought issues such as slavery and unions. However, Gandhi does not believe violent disobedience,

India’s leader Mohandas Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) was influenced by David Thoreau 's Civil Disobedience arguments while sitting in jail. Gandhi loosely adopted the term “civil disobedience” for non-violent protests and refused to cooperate with injustice. Following his release, he protested the registration law by joining labor strikes and organizing a large non-violent march. After the marches, the Boer government finally agreed to end the most divisive sections of the law. In 1907, he campaigned in South Africa and wrote a translated synopsis of Thoreau 's argument for the Indian Opinion.

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are two profound African American figures in history. They both fought for equality and to better humanity. But, the tactics they used were very different. Their different views may have been rooted from the where they were raised. Martin Luther King Jr. grew up in a middle class family and received a very solid education. Malcolm X grew up in a much lesser community. His neighborhood was violent and there wasn’t much schooling. Martin Luther King Jr. was always against violence, throughout his entire lifetime and believed using nonviolent forms of protest. King would even condone being nonviolent when he was hurt physically. Malcolm X used whatever form of protest he needed to get the job done and his

One of the most famous examples of civil disobedience is Rosa Park’s refusal to sit in the back of the bus. An article on Newsuem.org named “Rosa Parks and Civil Disobedience”

Focusing specifically on the opposition of racial segregation, The Civil Rights movement symbolized the need for change across America. Between the years of 1950 and 1960, events such as; the March on Washington, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, speeches, protests, and sit-ins, directly defined such opposition. Due to such events, two outstanding leaders of their time, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X emerged into the public eye and began to impact the Civil Rights movement. At a turning point of the century, the two men took charge and became icons across the world while resonating significantly with African American minorities. With such in mind, the two men had extreme differences in their morals, ideals, and religions; however, both deemed

Both Civil Disobedience and the Gandhi article are alike based on the fact they both discuss civil disobedience, attending prison, and standing for one’s beliefs. Civil disobedience can be seen as a good thing and a bad thing depending on to what extent one is breaking the laws. Some people may break the law because they feel that it is unfair to them but others break the for the simple fact of doing what they want in order for it to benefit themselves. Laws are meant for the majority which means even if they are not pertaining to certain citizens. Thoreau targeted laws that pertained to him, Gandhi went on strike for the better of his country and people. Gandhi and Thoreau had many similarities and differences about civil disobedience.

Although, violently fighting the British may have eventually won India its independence, Gandhi choosing to be nonviolent caused India to learn how to do things on its own while still reaching its goal of actually being independent from the British significantly faster. Gandhi’s use of nonviolence was because he didn't want to hurt anyone, he just wanted India to be independent. Going to jail gained Gandhi attention, followers and respect, and lastly, Gandhi not seeing the British as his enemy contributed to a more peaceful way on how to gain India’s freedom. Gandhi doing this caused India to eventually gain it’s independence in

In 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. led a peaceful movement in Birmingham, Alabama. The purpose of the demonstration was to bring awareness and end to racial disparity in Birmingham. Later that night, King and his followers were detained by city authorities. While in custody, King wrote the famous “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” This letter voiced out his disappointment in the criticisms, and oppositions that the general public and clergy peers obtained.

is the prime example when talking about civil disobedience, for in the 1960s he was the head of the civil rights movement. MLK’s method required one to think logically; with his reasoning segregation was not only unjust but illogic. He achieved his goals through peaceful marches and sit-ins and often used rhetorical questions to accomplish his shared goal of ending segregation. MLK also did what he did for the long run and so that future generations could live peacefully while Antigone did what she did to bring respect to the gods and the dead. MLK believed an unjust law is no law at all so breaking it in his mind is moral and right.

Civil disobedience is nonviolent resistance to a government’s law in seek of change. Civil disobedience is an effective way to bring about change because it is a harmless way of fighting an unjust law or idea, it can educate people about the cause, and it has been successful many times in history. First and foremost, civil disobedience is

Civil disobedience is the act of disobeying governmental commands in a peaceful, non-violent, form of protest. Throughout history, peaceful protest have had a positive impact on free society. Peaceful protest have had the biggest impact during the Civil Rights Movement. During this time, many people have led non-violent protest for their rights, including well known African-American Activist, Martin Luther King Jr.. He was most famously known for his speech, I Have a Dream.

Three men Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr, and Gandhi have in common that have led some people to consider them heroes by having deep concerns for other people, commitment to putting ideas into practice, and moral integrity. They all showed deep concerns for other people by they all wanted to stand up to the government.

By analyzing statements of Dr. King’s word, his words shows very powerful message across the nations because his strong words motivated people to choose right path and fight for their rights. He states that the person, who breaks laws through non-violence, shows the greatest respect for the laws. By his statement, I believed that Dr. King. trying to shows an individual who follows the rule of civil disobedience will greatly shows the respect for laws; even though an individual will punish by the worse consequences. A person who has to willing to accept the result from the direct actions, self-purification. Negotiation, than she /he will be loyal to the rules

Civil Disobedience Compare and Contrast Henry Thoreau and Martin Luther King both wrote persuasive discussions that oppose many ideals and make a justification of their cause, being both central to their argument. While the similarity is obvious, the two essays, Civil Disobedience by Thoreau and Letter from a Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr. do have some similarities. King tries persuading white, southern clergymen that segregation is an evil, unfair law that ought to defeat by use of agitation of direct protesting. Thoreau, on the other hand, writes to a broader, non-addressed audience, and focuses more on the state itself. He further accepts it at its current state, in regard to the battle with Mexico and the institution of slavery.