No one believed more in the capability of a single man then Martin Luther King Jr and Henry David Thoreau did. Martin Luther King was a minister and activist leader in the African American Civil Rights Movement. He was born January 15, 1929 and later assassinated in April 4, 1968 fighting for civil rights. Henry David Thoreau was an American essayist, poet, abolitionist, and development critic who was born July 12, 1817. Although King and Thoreau were born in different centuries they both have similar views toward civil disobedience expresses in they essays; “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849)” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, they favor the role of the individual because they believe one man is capable of causing change. Even though …show more content…
They want to get rid of the injustice of the government by imposing and promoting non-violent protests. King is influenced by Mahatma Gandhi; which he mentions on his letter, he believed that civil disobedience required non violence. They want to get rid of corruption without causing any violence, they want to remain calm until the fix the issue but if the unjust event continue individuals have the right to not follow the law. King and Thoreau both believed that it is acceptable to break the law if it is unjust, “one has a responsibility to disobey unjust law” (King 3). Thoreau mentions it too, “..bt if it is of such nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law” (Thoreau 6). They both encourage the individual to break the law if they believe it is unjust, there is nothing wrong with breaking the law if following would hurt you, the individual has the right to not follow any injustice. Both King and Thoreau want to end social injustice to improve the world. It is the responsibility of the individual to resist injustice since the government acts unjust due to the lack virtue, morality, and stamina from its people and leader. Although the government is filled with injustice Thoreau and King have hope that one day one individual will put an end to social
They’re saying that most laws are written and enforced by the majority, and if the minority is forced to obey, it is an unjust law. Therefore, they believed that if a law is unjust, a citizen could break the law, if they thought it was right. For instance, Thoreau was arrested for refusing to pay his poll tax, because it funded slavery and the War on Mexico, which he despised, and King’s arrestment for parading around without a permit. Provided, Thoreau gives three means
Thoreau and M.L.K Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, published in 1849, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, published in 1963, have profound similarities while still having underlying differences. The one of the most distinct similarities in “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” is the choice of action both authors decide to use, nonviolent measures, and who they are protesting against, which is government and its actions. On the same note, both essays express the dissatisfaction in the average white citizen’s acceptance for the status quo on slavery and then segregation. For example, both essays have a strikingly similar sentence; King states, “I had hoped that the white moderate
He says, “If it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law” (Par 13). Thoreau wants justice so much; he believes if you must break a law to get it, you should. From Thoreau’s point of view, he just wants the government to do what is right, he is not asking for forgiveness. King, on the other hand, thinks that people should get what they are owed, and, in this case, it is justice. He states, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (Par 6).
Seeking out simplicity in your lifetime can be a very time consuming goal and is often frowned upon from your peers. If someone doesn't fit into societies’ social expectations they are looked upon as outcasts. Outcasts face criticism from numerous peers, giving them motivation to keep creating their own path to obtain their individual goals in life. Martin Luther King Jr., and Chris Mccandless are two of the largest social and environmental warriors known today. Creating their own pathway of obtaining their goal in some similar ways.
Both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr were civil right leaders who were well respected for their ideas. However, they had differences that would impact the success of their initiatives. Malcolm X had superior solutions for a strong centralized black community and a stable black economy, while King’s ideas made more sense in terms of his nonviolent philosophy and push for an integrated education system. Whiles Martin Luther King, Jr’s idea about blacks and whites together would work in a perfect society,America was far from a perfect society in the 1960s.
In the articles I have read about Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X I have noticed these men have very different styles on how they want to help with segregation. Malcolm was about self defence and to fight back. But Martin Luther King Jr was all about no violence and not fighting back. He believed that the best way to protest was to have a silent protest. This was when people would either go to diners or any public places and they wouldn’t get food, but they would sit on the bench and they wouldn't fight.
In Martin Luther King, Jr.’s essay, “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” and Henry David Thoreau essay “Civil Disobedience,” both share their opinions on social injustice and civil disobedience. They both believe that people can protest unfair and unjust laws imposed on them in a civil way. In addition, King and Thoreau are challenging the government with their essays, which they wrote after they got sent to jail. For protesting the treatment of blacks in Birmingham, Alabama, King spent eleven days in jail; Thoreau spent a night in jail for refusing to pay his poll tax. Both King and Thoreau’s essays present similar plans for a resolution.
Civil Disobedience In the dictionary civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest, but Thoreau and Martin Luther King have their own beliefs to civil disobedience. In Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” he writes about the need to prioritize one’s conscience over the dictates of laws. Martin Luther King uses civil disobedience as something that effectuates change in the government. Both Thoreau and Martin Luther King has similar yet different perspectives on civil disobedience.
Martin Luther was born on November 10th 1483 in Eisleben, Saxony, then he was baptized as a Catholic the next morning on the feast day of Saint Martin of Tours (November 11). His family moved to Mansfield the next year, where his Father (Hans Luther) was a leaseholder of copper mines and smelters. In 1501, at the age of 19, he entered the University of Erfurt, which he later described as a beerhouse and whorehouse. He received his master 's degree in 1505. Hans Luther was ambitious for himself and his family, and he was determined to see Martin become a lawyer.
In my opinion Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. have very similar purposes in their writings. Both author 's are writing to protest unfair laws. But they also have very different audiences. In Civil Disobediance, Thoreau writes how those who break unjust laws should suffer the consequences as a protest to the laws.
Thus that a person ought to do as he does and not agree to pay taxes to the state that is in support of such evil customs or practices. While both King and Thoreau triumph in their establishment of a firm perception of what they strongly have faith in, they both are successful in their efforts to persuade through different means. Regarding the manner in which King draws emotional appeal through passionate speech, we also see with Thoreau when he makes apparent that he is devoted in what he stands for. Thus attracting more appeal through being more troubled and concerned instead of being innocently optimistic and hopeful. Nevertheless, similarities weigh against differences as both King and Thoreau give reliability to the moral
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
Martin Luther King Jr said,“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools”. In the late 1960s, racial tension was high, African Americans were not given the right to vote, the right to a fair education, and the right to a fair judgement. This then led to the separation of schools and the destruction of a normal livelihood. Dr.King and Malcolm X, two men in the face of oppression rose up to challenge the racial barrier, thus changing the world forever. Although Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X seem to have mutual respect and an equal understanding of the inequality, their philosophies were quite different from each other.
The African Nelson Mandela and the American Martin Luther King are important and influential heroes who made the world better somehow, in terms to fight for black people rights in their country. According to (www.dictionary.com), a hero is defined as “ the man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities”. Certainly, both heroes had the courage to sacrifice for black people with extreme power to resist the racism in the past using various ways. It is clear that the two heroes met their ambitions, but Mandela made bigger change worldwide and he was inspirational leader with severe willingness to fight for justice. Nelson Mandela and Martin King lived many similar situations which led to their great effort.
Martin Luther King and Adolph Hitler were alluring speakers but with different desires. Both had the extreme ability to attract to the masses through the spoken word, this being obvious in some of their famous speeches. Putting aside Hitler 's ghastly desires and outcomes and just examining the interesting and well- liked delivery of his speeches I feel that today he would have been worthy of the trainers trainer certification. The persuasion that he learned and developed in handling crowds, even large crowds of thousands, involved pacing the objections he knew that they would have against his argument and using them in the service of persuasion. He did that by pacing and leading.