Civil disobedience has been a huge part of our history, significantly impacting our growth as a country and as a free society. From the Boston Tea Party (which stretches the idea of civil disobedience since property was technically destroyed) to the Women’s March after inauguration day, there have been several instances of peaceful, purposeful resistance. Most notably, Muhammad Ali’s refusal to go to Vietnam, Rosa Parks’ demonstration on the bus, and the various Black Lives Matter protests that follow every new shooting.
Quite obviously, these demonstrations are meant to rile up emotions and pressure politicians into making a change in favor of the civilian who broke the law. From this civilian’s perspective, they are using the tools in their …show more content…
From Ali’s perspective, his disobedience was necessary in standing up for what mattered to him. From the government’s perspective and many others’, he was simply a disrespectful “draft dodger.” But what about the people who truly matter in this scene, the general public? How were they affected? As mentioned before, some believed Ali was just another man who didn’t want to serve his country, a weak-willed man with no patriotism. Others respected him for his decision to protect his right to religious freedom and accept the consequences of his actions. The necessity and integrity of his decision was and still is a matter of opinion, at least in the eyes of civilians.
So, what does this example tell us about the relationship between civil disobedience and American society as a whole? I believe it tells us that disobedience is a matter that is personal and individual from the beginning. An individual chooses to be disobedient for whatever reason, the government (lawmakers, law enforcement, the White House) chooses to react however they see fit, and the general public chooses to digest it however they want. The question of the impact of disobedience being positive or negative is irrelevant because it is subjective for every person and every
Quite obviously, these demonstrations are meant to rile up emotions and pressure politicians into making a change in favor of the civilian who broke the law. From this civilian’s perspective, they are using the tools in their …show more content…
From Ali’s perspective, his disobedience was necessary in standing up for what mattered to him. From the government’s perspective and many others’, he was simply a disrespectful “draft dodger.” But what about the people who truly matter in this scene, the general public? How were they affected? As mentioned before, some believed Ali was just another man who didn’t want to serve his country, a weak-willed man with no patriotism. Others respected him for his decision to protect his right to religious freedom and accept the consequences of his actions. The necessity and integrity of his decision was and still is a matter of opinion, at least in the eyes of civilians.
So, what does this example tell us about the relationship between civil disobedience and American society as a whole? I believe it tells us that disobedience is a matter that is personal and individual from the beginning. An individual chooses to be disobedient for whatever reason, the government (lawmakers, law enforcement, the White House) chooses to react however they see fit, and the general public chooses to digest it however they want. The question of the impact of disobedience being positive or negative is irrelevant because it is subjective for every person and every