Imagine a woman named Marissa walking to her job in a factory. She’s carrying a meager lunch to eat during her short break in the middle of her twelve hour shift. The work is tedious and the equipment is dangerous, but her boss is not required to provide her with any protective gear. Additionally, because she is a woman, she gets less pay than the men despite having the same performance. If she needs to use the restroom or drink water, she must use either the “Whites Only” or the “Colored Only” units depending on her race. She overhears some people discussing Congress’ problems of war, and she wonders, “What about my problems here at home?” This seems like a scene from the early 1900s. However, if it weren’t for the active yet appropriate
…show more content…
Their moral conviction is strong enough to accept the consequences of following their conscience. For example, on January 3,2017, the NAACP protested the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as US attorney general with a sit-in. They opposed Sessions due to his record on voting rights and police reform and didn’t believe that he’d represent their needs (PBS). Because newscasters got involved and 6 NAACP participants were arrested, Sessions’ and Congress’ future actions will now be more carefully monitored(PBS). Through effectively exercising their freedom of assembly and speech, protesters pressure the federal government to address their …show more content…
As Thoreau said, “we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” Civil disobedience reminds the government that, ultimately, people have a say in laws affecting them. However, civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily imply an anarchy. In a true democracy, if the belief is supported by the majority, the government should act upon it, yet the rights of the minority will be respected. Gandhi, King, and even Benjamin Franklin used civil disobedience to represent the views of the people and, in return, impacted nations. There is now no excuse to not express our
Their moral conviction is strong enough to accept the consequences of following their conscience. For example, on January 3,2017, the NAACP protested the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions as US attorney general with a sit-in. They opposed Sessions due to his record on voting rights and police reform and didn’t believe that he’d represent their needs (PBS). Because newscasters got involved and 6 NAACP participants were arrested, Sessions’ and Congress’ future actions will now be more carefully monitored(PBS). Through effectively exercising their freedom of assembly and speech, protesters pressure the federal government to address their …show more content…
As Thoreau said, “we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” Civil disobedience reminds the government that, ultimately, people have a say in laws affecting them. However, civil disobedience doesn’t necessarily imply an anarchy. In a true democracy, if the belief is supported by the majority, the government should act upon it, yet the rights of the minority will be respected. Gandhi, King, and even Benjamin Franklin used civil disobedience to represent the views of the people and, in return, impacted nations. There is now no excuse to not express our