Dr. Martin Luther King's Theory Of Civil Disobedience

First introduced by Henry Thoreau, Dr. Martin Luther King used the concept of civil disobedience in order to stress peaceful, and effective methods to obtain justice. The definition of civil disobedience, a diligent act of peacefully breaking the law in order to bring about change, can be expressed through forms of protests, sit ins or boycotts (The Archive). The reiteration of nonviolence is often emphasized, as it is supposed to be an act of peaceful protests in order to “be the bigger person.”
According to King, there are four steps to achieve this. The first step, is to gather facts. Ensure you know what you’re fighting for, and how to defend it against any oppositions. Second, is negotiation. Know what to fight for, and what to compromise …show more content…
One famous example being the sit ins that took place during the Civil Rights movement in the south. This was with the encouragement of Martin Luther King after giving his speech encouraging civil disobedience. As planned, four African American students went into a segregates diner, and sat at a “whites-only” counter, where they peacefully refused to move. They endured racial slurs, and verbal as well physical abuse. This led to national sit ins and peaceful protests all with the goal of ending segregation. And they succeeded. By using non-violent resistance, they forced our country to reconsider and eventually end legal segregation (Sit-Ins).Another renowned example is Gandhi and his successful fight for India’s independence from Britain. He led marches, undertook fasts, and was thrown off public transportation for not going to the back. This all lead to the accomplishments of British independence, and encouraged individuals all over the world to partake in civil disobedience in order to fight for what they believe. He was a great influence on the fight for civil rights with his conciliatory …show more content…
One influential activist that failed on the act of staying nonviolent is Nelson Mandela.After a long battle, he made the comment: “it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to continue preaching peace and nonviolence at a time when the government met our peaceful demands with force. It was only when all else had failed, when all channels of peaceful protest had been barred to us, that the decision was made to embark on violent forms of political struggle” (Mandela). After many unsuccessful attempts at bringing change to their system, Mandela finally changed his values he advocated, he came to the conclusion that composed and nonviolent protests were not the answer, and began urging to fight fire with fire. While his goals he was reaching for remained the same, his methods for achieving them changed, and no longer fit the characteristic of civil