Why Is Civil Disobedience Effective

I think it is an ineffective way of social change. I think it is ineffective because there can be violence on one side, it can cause consequences, and it takes a long time to make a change. One reason that civil disobedience is ineffective, is because it creates violence on one side. For example, the Amritsar Massacre shows how civil disobedience creates violence on one side. Gandhi helped organize a nationwide protest against the Rowlatt Acts.

John F. Kennedy once said,”One person can make a difference, and everyone should try.” If one person starts something, they create a chain reaction and by the time you know it that something no longer is a problem. Civil disobedience does bring about change, because it takes one person to change the course of the future.

While it is hard to see its success in more recent issues, events in the past show the positive changes to society that civil disobedience can cause. Once again, Susan B. Anthony’s campaign for women’s suffrage is a prime example. She was willing to fight against the law even after she was arrested. When the nineteenth amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote, it was given the nickname of the Susan B. Anthony Amendment due to her sacrifices to make it possible. Personally, I am not sure I would have the courage to accept the risks of committing civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is necessary if citizens see (and believe) that their leader is turning their leadership into oppression. In Gandhi’s case, he led a march to the Indian Sea in response to the British trying to take over India and dominate every aspect of these people’s lives. The point is, Gandhi’s reasons for disobedience was justifiable. He saw that Great Britain was trying to change their lifestyle, take away their wellbeing, and did something about

One of the most famous acts of peaceful disobedience was by Rosa Parks. Rosa Parks went against the Jim Crow laws and would not give up her seat for a white man, who was at the time her superior because she was a black woman. She was arrested because she refused. When she was arrested, it sparked the protest of all public busses that lasted over a year, which was led by Martin Luther King, Jr. This also created a court case against “Alabama’s discriminatory laws” that was taken to the

The first reason why I think civil disobedience us ineffective is because it takes a really long time. For example, it took 27 years for Mahatma Gandhi to earn India its independence (“Gandhi Leads Civil Disobedience” 1). For most people, waiting 27 years for your country to earn

If we take a closer look at civil disobedience, we can better understand what it means, its goals, and its outcomes. Civil disobedience predominantly exists as direct and non-violent government defiance. Instead of voicing an opinion with a vote or a simple conversation, civil disobedience stands up for what is right using an individual’s whole influence. Therefore, some sacrifices regarding the legality of actions are made in order to preserve the integrity of the mission. In other words, why should a protester follow the law that they are trying to alter? That doesn’t make much sense, therefore civil disobedience allows unjust laws to be broken for the greater good. This method is very effective if, for example, a minority is attempting to

Civil disobedience has been responsible for some of the most important steps forward in our nation's history, and will continue to be a positive force for change well into the future. The greatest example of this came during the Civil Rights movement. Beginning with Rosa Parks' gallant stand on the bus in Montgomery, the Civil Rights Movement was a perfect example of the power of standing up against

Civil disobedience has a positive impact on society. This act brings about much needed change and helps a entire class of people. When Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. were fighting for civil rights for African Americans, following the law would have never taken them anywhere. If Rosa Parks had stood up and moved for that white man, the bus boycott would not have happened and that had a huge part on changing the segregation laws. Laws wouldn't change unless people fought for the change in them. Recently, the same sex couples were granted their right to marry each other. If people just sat around and waited for the law to change, it never would have. People got out and fought for their right to be married.People would stand outside the court

I believe that from a historical perspective, civil disobedience has had both a positive and negative impact on public policy. One of the first big examples of civil disobedience working was when Gandhi “fought”, through public protest, to free India from British rule. He used the idea of civil

Civil disobedience is the backbone of all free nations. The positive influences of this act are visible in every aspect of life. Civil disobedience is peacefully disobeying any law thought unjust while accepting all legal repercussions. Peaceful resistance instigates change, allows communication with the government, and gives nation’s citizens power.

Civil disobedience impacts a free society in a good way because the people have the right to stand up for what they believe is right. Civil disobedience means that people peacefully assemble to protest. There have been many people who have civilly disobeyed by participating in protests, marches, and speeches. Most of the speeches, protests and marches usually don’t get out of hand because they’re trying to peacefully assemble. There have been times in history where people were taking part in civil disobedience and have been mistreated for standing up for something. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. used to peacefully assemble by making speeches and marching from town to town. Cesar Chavez did the same with Mexicans during the sixties; he

Civil disobedience has been used by the people to get the attention of their government and to hopefully inspire change. Civil disobedience is an act of refusal by a large group of people against certain laws. From Ghandi to Martin Luther King Jr, people have used civil disobedience to enact change. While the concept of civil disobedience has been around for centuries, it hasn’t been called civil disobedience until recently. Protest, rallies, boycotting and worker strikes are forms of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience has been used for social change too. For example, the suffragettes, Rosa Parks and marches to legalize gay marriage have had social ramifications. Civil disobedience can be used to change laws, it publicizes important changes but it can be overshadowed by violence. Civil disobedience is a good way to change laws because it’s usually peaceful, brings attention to controversial laws and brings about social change.

It encourages conversation between a government and its people. In the United States, peaceful resistance is, in fact, celebrated. Beginning in elementary school, students are exposed to the heroics of Samuel Adams for his role in the Boston Tea Party. In his interview, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. also says that, “in our own history there’s nothing that expresses massive civil disobedience more than the Boston Tea Party, yet we give this to our young people and our students as part of the great tradition of our nation” (“MLK Interview On NBC’s Meet the Press”) Unfortunately, the tradition of civil disobedience in the United States doesn’t extend to each and every nation. Some governments prevent their citizens from having the opportunity to speak out against their government. However, civil disobedience is not only a positive force in a society, it is necessary in order to instigate

Civil disobedience is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. I believe that peaceful resistance to laws has a negative impact on society because when people are killed and property destroyed, the protesters often make enemies. These things frequency happen with situations that recently occurred. Then these people begin acting out of rage which leads to violent actions. people’s willingness to listen to others stories and come together as one to protest shows that it is fairly negative. They have constructed realities. They often say the protest is nonviolent revolutions to have advanced freedom and democracy but typically it leads to fires, destruction etc. If people can