Civil Disobedience

Muhammad Gandhi first brought up civil disobedience. He was the leader of the vast independent movement against Great Britain. During the era of civil disobedience, Great Britain was one of the most powerful countries to dominate weaker nations. Under British control, India was home to many natural resources. Indians interrupted the ambitions of Britain with a revolution. Previously in history, violence was the main component to achievement. The United States is symbolized as violence according to Howard Zinn. Howard Zinn included the views and events described opposingly to the school’s textbooks. Gandhi proved to the world that something can be achieved through nonviolent resistance.

   Gandhi realized that violence would only anger the dominate power. Coming to a compromise wouldn’t have to be forced. Unlike the United States, Gandhi used a nonviolent tactic to gain independence for India. He rallied large amounts of protestors to persuade them to practice civil disobedience. It required the people to disobey laws that were unlawful. They would be beaten without resisting. They didn’t fight back or say profound things. They accepted blows from nighsticks and punches. Surprisingly, there were less casualties than if they were to use violence. Not only did Britain decide to give independence, millions of lives were saved. Gandhi’s way of approaching disputes has prevented hatred from being spread. 

Civil disobedience is an effective method to reform the government to benefit the citizens. Civil disobedience would work in our society. The government is restricted from using violence against its people. If we were to peacefully demonstrate against an unlawful action or behavior, it would influence others, creating a widespread of movement. And if the government were to cause harm to the peaceful demonstrators, an uproar and hatred against the government will rise, the government would then be pressured to cooperate with the people.

  Violence should not be a method to rely on to make progress. Violence would erupt more hatred and dispute among society. The government would weaken and probably collapse. Innocent lives would be taken away. If we were to rely on peaceful civil disobedience, we would be able to rely on peaceful civil disobedience, we would be able to achieve far more than with violence and do not have to sacrifice lives.