Could the civil right movement have succeeded without civil disobedience?
|
Could the civil right movement have succeeded without civil disobedience?
In short: Absolutely. In my opinion.
Then would you agree with William F. Buckley, Jr. that civil disobedience is an instrument of lawlessness and therefore object to it?Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJ
Obviously it is speculative to say that . I do not believe that the civil rights movement would've gotten very far in the 1950's and 1960's without it . Perhaps as time goes on a gradual societal change would've evolved but there is nothing like revolution to jump start it . The non-violence movement is brilliant in it's concept . But the revolutionary must have justice and right on their side .
It is hard to argue with the effectiveness of civil disobedience in the 20th century. Gandhi ;MLK Jr. Desmund Tutu .It is much easier for the authorities to deal with window breakers and arsonists . Much tougher to deal with people getting in the way ;especially when the cameras are rolling .
I also think economic boycotts work real well also .
Buckley thought civil disobedience perfectly acceptable in some instances i.e. . Religious presecution.
Buckely in retrospect said that he got the civil rights movement partly wrong. He debated the leaders and intellectuals (like James Baldwin )of the movement during the heat of the moment and was more concerned with the inflamed passions then the cause .He was concerned the King movement would unleash forces that could not be controlled . In that aspect he was at least partially prophetic as the riots showed . At the time he favored gradualism .He argued that true empowerment could not be achieved through symbolism and gestures.
He later said he editorial position at National Review was a mistake and supported the creating of a day to honor MLK Jr.
But I blame a lot of the delay in civil rights directly on the Supreme Court ;which decided in 1896 Plessy v Ferguson that separate but equal is equal which was a poor interpretation of the 14th Amendment at best and helped stall the progress that blacks had made post-Civil War.I don't think it a coincidence that the civil rights movement gained traction around the same time that SCOTUS reversed Plessy .
I doubt it.
Hello DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Nahhh. And, you can't establish a country by throwing a bunch of tea into the ocean, either...
Oops!
excon
Civil disobedience, in what do you call this, Marches, protests, pickets, perhaps the "strike" for not riding busses.
MLK to me the best civil rights leader truly believed that change can happen though legal protests and though the court systems.
When MLK Jr. was tossed into that Birmingham jail it was for disobeying what he thought was an unjust law.
I agree Tom; MLK Jr. was concerned with unjust law. Thoreau on the other hand was an “individualist” who believed in the sovereignty of the individual and that they derived the legitimate power of civil order from its exercise; that, as Thomas Paine noted, sovereignty is a property of individual agents, not States. The legitimacy of a State is derived entirely from its people.
King was concerned with legislation declaring but not granting human rights; making distinction between just and unjust laws, and basing it on the conviction that there is a moral order in the universe by which human orders must be judged.
The point of civil disobedience is public discourse. It rarely has the effect of directly stopping the abuse toward which it is directed.
Obedience is the only relevant form of consent; to obey is to consent.
It appears to me that these two different strains of thought are yet today something being played out in American Politics. There is one group who would have it that the State must be held sovereign, while another group holds that it is the individual that must be held sovereign.
Hello DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Well, since I read the Constitution, you can count me amongst the latter.
Wait! Don't tell me. You're a guy who thinks the state is sovereign. Aren't you a guy who supports the state spying on Americans?? And, Americans should just consent and keep their mouths shut? I think you do.
Well, it should come as no surprise to you that I'm a guy who thinks we should cut the phone lines of the companies who help the government violate our rights. That's disobedience, all right.
excon
As I recall, and research would verify, violence followed closely wherever MLK held his lawful protests. When he got to the end of the parade route, he jumped in a limo and away; fires and lawlessness were close behind.
Guess which group is the Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal is in. Does their disobedience of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and disregard of international treaty obligations qualify as "civil" disobedience?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
They hold government positions and, as such, have a presumption that their actions are legal. Why don't you just go out there and prove that the "Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal" is disobeying a law, and not simply acting in defiance of your opinion? The lib/fascists have controlled Congress for 14 months; what have you come up with?
Hello George:Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
I don't know what kind of research you did. But the research I did shows that the violence was done BY the COPS - DURING his marches - not after them.
See for yourself: YouTube - Bridge to Freedom
excon
It's clear from some of the responses I've received that some of you simply do not understand what civil disobedience means. There is a difference between Private disobedience and its limits in public effect, and civil disobedience. American prisons are full of people who have committed crimes, and to confuse that with civil disobedience is simply silly.
Civil disobedience is more like the 1971 May Day traffic blocking in Washington, D.C. in which 13,000 people were arrested, or the 1963 March on Washington, which drew 250,000 participants.
But to cast yourself as performing civil disobedience because you read the constitution, or voice that we should cut the phone lines of the companies who help the government violate our rights, or to disregard international treaty obligations is pathetic.
Apathy in the face of injustice is a form of violence. Struggle and conflict are often necessary to correct injustice
Yes, they presume that whatever they want to do is legal. Presumptuous is a good word for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
The law says that the Government may not eavesdrop on communications within the US without first obtaining a warrant from the FISA court. They have decided that they don't have to obey the law. Pretty simple, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
"Lib/fascists"? The Democrats won their razor-thin majority in Congress fair and square in democratic elections. What they've "come up with" is a string of Presidential vetoes, sustained by the Republican enablers.Quote:
Originally Posted by George_1950
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A country that in part historically favored slavery, not permitting Blacks to drink from public drinking fountains, and was concerned with seating arrangements on buses, and had laws on books that were skewed to favor Caucasian interests. Can we all say that we would had spent time alongside MLK Jr for his effort to bring equality to the forefront of American minds? For myself, "yes." It would had been a necessity and honor.
I can remember as a younger boy some "unrest" parts of Florida and inQuote:
Originally Posted by BABRAM
Jr High and High school I can remember several times out school buses having stones and other objects thrown at them. After my move to Atlanta a few years ago, before her death I had the wonderful honor to be a body guard for Mrs King on a few occasions. During my time in Atlanta I followed and visited many of the places where Dr King held meetings and got his hair cut and talked and more. So much of his work has been a real influence on my life.
G-d bless you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck
How ugly and immoral did it get, or is it still? "Sept. 24, 1965: Asserting that civil rights laws alone are not enough to remedy discrimination, President Johnson issues Executive Order 11246, which enforces affirmative action for the first time. It requires government contractors to "take affirmative action" toward prospective minority employees in all aspects of hiring and employment."
He should have been impeached, but fell on his own sword with the Vietnam fiasco.
Isn't civil disobedience also unpatriotic? Patriotism, after all, is marked by a love of one's country, even its flaws, such as imperfect laws.
Where in history can we point and say, “There is no doubt, civil disobedience brought about social change that was both good, and passed the test of time.
Civil disobedience is immoral because there are other means of bringing about social change. One primary way of doing this is working within the law, rather than disobeying it. Civil disobedience is better in theory than it is in practice.
The truth of the matter is that today there are hundreds of examples where the nonviolent protests that constitute civil disobedience has lead to violent ones.
Hello again, DC:
There is soooo much wrong with what you said, that I'm not even going to reply - except to say... If we followed your precept, we wouldn't be the USA. We'd be an English Colony. I don't know how that fact escapes you.
Ok, I'm going to say more. Those, whose memories are short are going to do stupid things. Going along is stupid. We don't do that. We've never done that. We're never going to do that. That's not who we are. I can't imagine why you think that.
This country was BORN in dissent. This one proud American, who loves his country too, is going to continue in that vein.
excon
I think the politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate. DC - they have manipulated you.
Uh, hello excon…I'm afraid you forget our country was brought about through “Revolution,” not civil disobedience.
So far a dissent, (to disagree with a widely held or majority opinion) there are many forums where people can disagree with-out breaking the law.
Civil disobedience rather than encouraging patriotism through means of adaptation advocates selfishness.
It essentially encourages people to disobey the law if they do not thoroughly “like” it.
There is an equal chance of creating social change by working within the legal system and by obeying the law. A truly moral and practical citizen would, as a result, take this approach rather than being civilly disobedient and suffering the implications of their illogical and rash actions.
Politicians have turned the word 'patriotism' into something they can manipulate but perhaps it is you and not I that have been manipulated. Like my wife, I love the country, and unlike so many I stayed by her side in spite of her short-comings.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
To continue with your analogy - if your wife beat you senseless and stole your money you'd take it like a beaten puppy and stay around because you're 'patriotic'.
I did not say I was against revolution as a means to an end. The fact is that she did not do that and I’m not going to get into her flaws. The same is true about America…there is no law condoning government beating citizens senseless. In fact there are laws protecting citizens from being beaten senseless by anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I don't disagree with the above.
Being a sovereign, I AM selfish about MY rights. You should be too. Bummer that you're not. Don't worry, though. If fighting for MY rights also serves to save YOUR rights too, then I'm happy for you.
You, however, being a person who believes the STATE is sovereign, would have course, believe that people should stifle their dissent for the good of the state.
However, the Bill of Rights says something entirely different. It says I'M sovereign - NOT the state, as you assert. It really does say that. It says that I have certain rights... How can I have these rights if the state is sovereign??
How can you criticize my reading of the Constitution, where it's THAT particular document that tells me, in no uncertain terms, that I AM a sovereign - NOT the state??
To me, the above is as clear as a bell. Again, I haven't a clue what makes you tick...
excon
So nonviolent civil disobedience is immoral, but violent insurrection is OK? This must be where the "neo" in neo-conservative comes from, i.e. "If you want to change the social order, you'll have to kill me first." Fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
OG, my how you twist words…those are your words, not mine.
Hello again, DC:
Ok, then. Why don't you tell us the steps we should take between writing nice letters and violent revolution?
I'll tell you what the Constitution says, if you're interested… "Congress shall make no law abridging the …. right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What's wrong with that?
excon
excon
Nothing wrong with that…so far as lawful assembly is used; there is a difference you know. The Constitution nowhere say's unlawful assemble is protected under law.
Hello again, DC:
You fell right into my trap. What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? Do you go along with your government? According to you, not to go along would be immoral.
excon
The constitution doesn't say that in the course of lawful assembly a group or subgroup can damage public or private property, which is against the law and violative of the owners' constitutional rights.
excon
What if the Queen had b…s? The point is, she doesn't and we do. By the government do you mean what if both houses of Congress passed a law that made it a crime for people to assemble? Is your hypothetical realistic; I don't think so, but to play along I certainly would not call for civil disobedience…would you? Civil disobedience would not carry us another further than it does today… I would suggest that people follow the direction of Thomas Jefferson, David Walker, Thomas Paine, Che Guevara, Kwame Nkrumah, or Nelson Mandela.
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Hypothetical??
YouTube - Bridge to Freedom
I don't think you understand how things work down where the rubber meets the road. I'm sure that both houses of the Alabama Congress didn't pass a law that said people can't assemble, but that didn't stop these Alabama cops from making their own law. So, when I say “the government” I'm talking about the cops. Besides, do the marchers care whose law the cops are enforcing?? Nahhhh.
Are you going to tell me that these cops in this video are telling these marchers that they DO HAVE the right to peaceably assemble and petition their government??
Dude! You really do need to pay more attention.
excon
Exon
Spare me the sob-stories that some people today love to linger over and wallow-in self pity over… …and also the jail-house mentality- “Cops are the government.”
You ax What if the government passed a law that made all assembly illegal? And then give me that nonsense after I reply.
Well, you did say that civil disobedience is immoral, and you did say that armed revolution was acceptable "as a means to an end", so I don't see how I twisted your words. Please explain how violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Actually in many cities, you have to get permits for assembly, they can deny them. You will have to provide money for clean up, security and more before you can be allowed to have many assemblies.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Yes, violent insurrection is morally superior to nonviolent civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is carried out with-in the frame-work of a legal authority; that is, the legal authority granted by the people is not challenged but the ethic of following law is broken…a law is violated.Quote:
Originally Posted by ordinaryguy
Where-as with revolution the right of the legal authority is challenged, as for instance in America it was the declaration of independence which declared that the Thirteen Colonies in North America were "Free and Independent States" and that "all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved."
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:47 AM. |