# data[].attributes.body
Civil disobedience could be an effective way to achieve racial equality, however there are some who argue that civil disobedience is justified when others thing it is.  Some think that it is justified only if it leads to a positive outcome. However, people would be against civil disobedience as it could lead to a divisive force in society, and it can also encourage more than civil disobedience, it can influence disrespect of the law, disrespecting people and could lead to violence and racism.

# data[].attributes.body
The key events of the civil rights movements were the Montgomery boycott movement,  this happened the day after Rosa Parks got arrested for not giving up her bus seat. This was a boycott movement started by MLK Jr where they stopped using public transportation and started hitching rides and walking instead. Another was the Albany Movement which was when MLK chose to offer counsel rather than participating in SNCC and got arrested. Then there were also others such as the March on Washington, Bloody Sunday, Chicago Freedom Movement, Vietnam War Opposition and the Poor People's Campaign. They furthered the movement by  including sit ins, pushing wider action to include racial dignity, economic and political self-sufficiency, and freedom from oppression by white Americans, and adding rights such as the Civil rights act of 1964, and the voting rights act of 1965.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By: Cheryl Bond-Nelms Published February 09, 2018

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Key Events During the Civil Rights Movement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The civil rights movement was an unprecedented journey for equality. Here are major boycotts, movements and marches that brought about change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Before considering whether civil disobedience can be justified, we must discuss its relevance today and determine exactly what it entails. For me, an act of civil disobedience must meet three standards: righteous intention, nonviolent means and the desire to communicate the need for change.Throughout history, the most notable acts of civil disobedience have been achieved in the pursuit of equality and freedom, such as the Boston Tea Party and the civil rights movement. A specific example would be Rosa Parks' refusal to surrender her seat on a city bus in 1955.

Contemporary civil disobedience, however, is entirely different. That is not to say that the art has been lost; it means only that, rather than focusing on specific civil liberties, modern-day civil disobedience is often directed toward broader societal concerns like environmental protection and foreign policy.

Writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, lecturer Kimberley Brownlee said, "Acts of civil disobedience famously have helped to force a reassessment of society's moral parameters."

Though civil disobedience is probably one of the greatest catalysts for change, it is inescapably trapped in a moral gray area of what constitutes right and wrong. Is it ever really OK to knowingly defy the law?

Author Henry David Thoreau, who first coined the term "civil disobedience," would say "yes." In many ways, our government falls short of the ideal and to silently abide by unjust laws is not in our best interests.

In his essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," Thoreau said, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right."

In essence, national law has never been the ultimate authority. Thoreau argues that it is up to each and every individual to recognize his own higher power and live accordingly. It is sometimes forgotten that right and wrong are not necessarily defined by law.

So is civil disobedience justifiable? I would say absolutely yes.
Katie Schultz is a senior at Portage Northern High School and is a member of the 2008-09 Gazette Young Editorial Staff.
If ... the machine of government ... is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law," wrote Henry David Thoreau in his 1849 essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience."

Inspired by a night in jail after refusing to pay a poll tax benefiting the Mexican War, Thoreau coined the term civil disobedience in this essay and encouraged others to follow in his footsteps.

Civil disobedience means breaking a law believed to be immoral and unjust. Like Thoreau, I believe civil disobedience can be justified and it is our duty as citizens to stand up for what we believe.

Many important events bringing about social change were acts of civil disobedience. Colonists fought taxation without representation in the Boston Tea Party. Nelson Mandela encouraged the citizens of South Africa to participate in the Purple Rain Protest and Cape Town Peace March to denounce apartheid.

Harriet Tubman used the Underground Railroad to work toward abolishing slavery. The women's suffrage movement lobbied for a woman's right to vote.

Gandhi's philosophy of Satyagraha used nonviolence to free India from British rule. Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement through peaceful protests and marches.

Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus. Students held sit-ins protesting the Vietnam War. Cesar Chavez improved conditions faced by migrant workers.

The list continues to grow as people actively participate in civil disobedience regarding such issues as abortion, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, chopping down rain forests, politics and stem cell research.

Sometimes, for the greater good of your city, community, state, country, continent, or even the world, laws must be broken.

Most acts of civil disobedience are justifiable. I urge you to look at your own lives, at what rights and privileges you now have because others took it upon themselves to disobey.

That's what civil disobedience is really about.
Karen Christiansen is a senior at Three Rivers High School and is a member of the 2008-09 Gazette Young Editorial Staff.
Civil disobedience is often frowned upon because these acts are illegal, although nonviolent. However, many positive changes have been achieved through civil disobedience.

Henry David Thoreau, a Transcendentalist writer, wrote an essay, "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," which states that people should follow their own perspective when it comes to what is right or wrong. It is because of those people who stuck to their beliefs when times seemed harsh and unfair that changes came about, ultimately improving the lives of the people in this country.

The Boston Tea Party is just one of several examples where citizens used civil disobedience against the government in order to improve the lives of their fellow citizens. If it weren't for that act of defiance, Americans would have continued to pay obscene taxes and the Revolutionary War would not have happened.

Organized acts of civil disobedience were part of the civil rights movement. Rosa Parks, who simply refused to give up a bus seat to a white man, made a difference. Martin Luther King Jr. spent the last part of his life giving hope and possibility to those who were not sure what was ahead for them. If it were not for this movement, African-Americans would not have the opportunities they have today and the opportunities that every American citizen has the right to claim would not exist.

And our country would not now be led by its first African-American president.

Other movements involving civil disobedience, such as environmental and rain forest demonstrations, have protected animals and ecosystems. Protesters participated in sit-ins and blockades in order to get those in control to listen.

When it comes to what is right and wrong, it is up to the citizens of this country to defend their rights. Unfortunately, that means we cannot depend on the government to do what is fair. It is for these reasons that civil disobedience is justifiable.
Megan Purazrang is a senior at Mattawan High School and is a member of the 2008-09 Gazette Young Editorial Staff.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Before considering whether civil disobedience can be justified, we must discuss its relevance today and determine exactly what it entails. For me, an act of civil disobedience must meet three standards: righteous intention, nonviolent means and the desire to communicate...

# data[].attributes.body
The advantages of non-violence protests are that they work 51% more than violent protests, it has a low risk factor and are more organized, however they have a fail rate of 20%, it takes time and could have potential to turn violent. Violent protests has a 60% failure rate, it is very disorganized and could lead to many deaths. However violent protests can take less time, can be seen as a glorious way to take back your country and rights, and can be used to stand your ground. Peaceful protests draws attention from places worldwide and could lead to help from other countries, while violent processes could scare people away from helping and change their opinions about it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Oxfam's Ed Cairns explores the evidence and experience on violence v non violence as a way of bringing about social change
One of the perennial themes of this blog is the idea that crises may provide an opportunity for progressive change. True. But I've always been nervous that such hopes can forget that most conflicts cause far more human misery than any good that may come.

This is something that Duncan and I have (non-violently) tussled about over the years. So imagine my delight when I saw a recent report that seems to back up my caution. The International Center on Nonviolent Conflict's paper on Nonviolent Resistance and Prevention of Mass Killings looked at 308 popular uprisings up to 2013. It found that "nonviolent uprisings are almost three times less likely than violent rebellions to encounter mass killings," which faced such brutal repression nearly 68% of the time. The authors, Erica Chenoweth and Evan Perkoski, think this is because violent campaigns threaten leaders and security forces alike, encouraging them to " hold on to power at any cost, even ordering or carrying out a mass atrocity in an attempt to survive."

There is a positive lesson here, that nonviolence works - at least better than violence. This builds on Chenoweth's earlier study, which suggested that between 2000 and 2006, 70% of nonviolent campaigns succeeded, five times the success rate for violent ones. Looking back over the 20 th century, she found that non-violent campaigns succeeded 53% of the time, compared with 26% for violent resistance.

Again, there is a positive lesson - though it'd be interesting to know the figures since 2006, when the world appears to have become more repressive and violent. 2017 was the 12 th year, according to the US-based Freedom House, "of decline in global freedom [as] seventy-one countries suffered net declines in political rights and civil liberties." As the Uppsala Conflict Data Program shows, these years of pressure on rights have coincided with sharp rises in conflicts since the start of this decade. And according to the 2018 Global Peace Index, just out this month, " peacefulness has declined year on year for eight of the last ten years." This seems to suggest that in our violent and challenging decade, nonviolent campaigns have found it tough in many countries too.

Tragically, this may breed a climate of desperation. In another recent article, Robin Luckham wrote that "the temptations of violence... are even stronger when authoritarian regimes violently crush non-violent protests...The turn from non-violent to violent resistance can easily open the way for more ruthless and better armed groups to step into the political spaces initially opened up by peaceful protests, as in Syria and Libya."

This brings us perhaps to a less positive lesson - that living under tyrannies may be less worse than violent campaigns to change them. Chenoweth and Perkoski argue that "popular uprisings are not all alike. Some, like those in Libya (2011) and eventually Syria (2011), are predominantly violent, wherein the opposition chooses to take up arms to challenge the status quo. Others, like Tunisia (2010), Egypt (2011), and Burkina Faso (2014), eschew violence altogether."

"Choose to take up arms"? That's a harsh way to describe the situation at least some armed groups have faced. We should never forget that state repression often drives uprisings to become more violent. But looking at the historical evidence in these articles - and at almost every conflict now - it's difficult to escape the conclusion that armed resistance is seldom successful, often counterproductive, and therefore rarely justifiable.

This begs one final question which Chenoweth and Perkoski can help with. Few would now argue that foreign countries should intervene to change regimes. But the UK Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting an enquiry on the prospect of military interventions for a different purpose - to stop mass killings. Its chair, Thomas Tugendhat, suggested that ' The Cost of Doing Nothing ' in Syria had been thousands and thousands of lives.

I've never been convinced of that case in Syria, though the world's failure to stop the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s was among the most shameful events of our times. But Chenoweth and Perkoski highlight the danger of any kind of foreign intervention. The likelihood of mass killings increases, they conclude, both "when foreign states provide material aid to dissidents... [and] to the governments the movements oppose." In the first case, that's because foreign support to oppositions encourages states to perceive them "as an existential threat."

We shouldn't conclude that military action will never ever be justified to prevent mass killings. But we know more reasons for caution than we once did. Every foreign action needs to be carried out with the best possible knowledge of its consequences.

That's a harder thing to do than in the 1990s, when this debate first forced its way onto humanitarian agendas. According to a UN/World Bank study, there were eight armed groups in an average civil war in the 1950s. By 2010, there were fourteen. In Syria in 2014, there were more than a thousand. While more local parties are fighting within borders, regional powers - like Saudi Arabia and Iran - as well as Russia and the US are more willing to contemplate war, in what Robert Malley of Crisis Group calls the world's " growing militarization of foreign policy." It is in this dangerous world that the risks of military action are higher than when the ideas of "humanitarian intervention" and Responsibility to Protect were developed.

I've never believed that pacifism is an adequate answer to a world of atrocities that - in truly exceptional cases - call out for an armed response. But there's an awful lot of evidence for caution - and reason to give peace a chance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Violence v Non Violence: which is more effective as a driver of change? - From Poverty to Power

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oxfam's Ed Cairns explores the evidence and experience on violence v non violence as a way of bringing about social change One of the perennial themes of this blog is the idea that crises may provide an opportunity for progressive change. True. But I've always been nervous that such hopes can forget that most conflicts ...

# data[].attributes.body
The civil rights movement led to the banning of discrimination and segregation on the basis of race, religion, origin and also gender. Before the civil rights movement, everything would be different for different races such as workspaces could say "No Negros Allowed" and things such as "Whites Only". Buses used to be all whites in the from twhile the blacks used to sit in the back. Whites and Colored people had different bathrooms, jobs etc. The civil rights movement completely changed that and made there be no discrimination or segregation between the whites and the colored.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Civil Rights Act changed America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Earl Ofari-Hutchinson watched President Lyndon B. Johnson sign the historic Civil Rights Act on television five decades ago, something inside him stirred.

Then a Susan Miller Dorsey High School senior from South Los Angeles, Ofari-Hutchinson scanned the vast number of prominent civil rights leaders and bipartisan congressional leaders who had gathered around the Texan president. He was particularly struck when Johnson, shortly after signing the landmark legislation, turned to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. standing behind him and handed him a souvenir pen.

"That was a great moment of not only personal pride but of historical accomplishment," Ofari-Hutchinson, today an author and political analyst who lives in Los Angeles' Crenshaw District, said. "I know all African-Americans, no matter what age, what their religion or political convictions, or social standing, education or profession, all uniformly took pride in that moment."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination and segregation on the basis of race, religion, national origin and gender in the workplace, schools, public accommodations and in federally assisted programs. For the young Ofari-Hutchinson, the signing of the bill ignited "a profound awakening" to the racial injustices African-Americans had faced around the country and an introduction to the world of politics. He and other civil rights leaders are calling on the Los Angeles City Council to declare July 2 Civil Rights Remembrance Day in honor of the 50th anniversary of the act's signing. Meanwhile, Councilman Bernard Parks is slated to introduce a city proclamation today honoring the 50-year-old legislation.

"It totally changed America," said Ralph D. Fertig, a USC social work professor who lobbied Congress to pass the bill as a member of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "Before the Civil Rights Act, employers were free to advertise positions saying 'No Negroes need apply' or 'Whites only' and the prospect of having interracial gatherings in many of the states in the South was impossible. Hotels and restaurants were free to discriminate with impunity. There was no way they could be forced to desegregate, and there were still signs up that said colored bathrooms, white bathrooms, colored fountains, white fountains."

The Civil Rights Act also had a profound effect on schools. Even though the Supreme Court had ruled in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case that segregation in schools was inherently unequal, there had only been incremental efforts to desegregate public schools and universities in the subsequent decade. The Civil Rights Act required schools to take actual steps to end segregation, whether it was by busing, redistricting or creating magnet schools, Fertig said.

"It meant that black and white children got to know one another in school, just as Title VII of the act prohibited discrimination in the workplace, it got workers to interact with one another and find out they were human beings," Fertig, a retired federal administrative judge and a former Freedom Rider in Chicago, said.

Joseph Alford, president of the Carson-Torrance branch of the NAACP, went to a segregated high school in Anniston, Ala., in the 1950s and after a stint in the U.S. Army, attended the then-all-black Alabama State College. While living in Montgomery, Ala., he protested with King and other civil rights leaders and fought to change unfair voter registration practices.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also banned unequal application of voter registration requirements and paved the way for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which banned discriminatory literacy tests and offered other protections.

"I was very elated because it would help a lot of black folks get into office because other people would be able to vote without being harassed and that was a good thing," Alford, 80, of Carson, recalled.

Aaron Day, 74, of Long Beach had just moved from Ohio to Los Angeles when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed. He was thrilled, he said, because he had attended segregated schools in Ohio and had worked in kitchens of restaurants as a teen where he would not have been served as an African-American.

When he moved to California, he said he was "really surprised that I could go and sit down in different restaurants, wherever I wanted" without being harassed.

The Rev. Pamela Broadous of Pacoima recalls picketing with her father, the late community activist the Rev. Hillery T. Broadous, and four of her siblings at Woolworth in Panorama City as a 9-year-old in 1960. It was only when she returned home that her mother, Rosa L. Broadous, told her they were protesting lunch counters that seated only white customers at some of the retailers' stores in the South.

"I was very, very young so she didn't get real detailed about the horrors of the time, people getting beat and all that stuff," she said. "I felt like I was glad that my father had taken us out that morning. I didn't understand at the time that it was part of a bigger movement."

But 50 years after the signing of the Civil Rights Act, Broadous and other civil rights activists say much remains to be done to ensure equality for all. There are still issues around the country, for example, with voting access and in the criminal justice system, she said.

The act "banned overt discrimination; that's what it did," she said. Today, "a (black) kid can be walking home from the store and be shot and killed and the man who killed him be found innocent and a (black) woman protecting her children who shoots a gun in the air gets sentenced to 20 years in jail. Where is the sense in all that? Where is the justice?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Earl Ofari-Hutchinson watched President Lyndon B. Johnson sign the historic Civil Rights Act on television five decades ago, something inside him stirred. Then a Susan Miller Dorsey High School senior from South Los Angeles, Ofari-Hutchinson scanned the vast number of prominent civil rights leaders and bipartisan congressional leaders who had gathered around the Texan president.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. â€* Martin Luther King Jr. Civil disobedience has been defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest (oxforddictionaries.com). Civil disobedience has been the cause for infinite protests, abundant rebellions, countless uprisings, and numerous revolutions and revolts around the globe; in which almost all were due to unjust and unfair governments and their rules. Civil disobedience is seen by many as an expression of an individual's right to free speech, although it is accounted as a unlawful and illegal in many countries which have given its citizens' these rights in the first place. Even in a democratic country like the United States of America individuals who have been guaranteed their right to free speech in the first amendment cannot protest an unfair government and its laws, and if one were to do so he might get sentenced for being a law-breaker and a rebel.

Civil disobedience has been seen in many countries whether democratic or dictator ruled, and although both these form of governments are completely different from each other they are common in punishing any form of disobedience that affects their government. Most people understand as to why a dictator ruled country would be so against any form of civil disobedience, the real questions that arise are that why would a democratic country, such as the united states, punish individuals for exercising their rights that are guaranteed in their constitution? And is civil disobedience even that important of a right in a democratic country for a person to put his own self in harm's way? The answer to the former question is only properly answered by individuals who are deeply affected by civil disobedience; the answer to the latter question can, however, be answered by any individual who has the right to speak against their government. This paper is going to help identify and understand the importance of civil disobedience in a democratic country and its role towards the success of that country, and more specifically the role of this form of rebellion in the United States. Civil disobedience is an important part of a democratic country because it is one of the driving factors that allow individuals to exercise their rights to free speech and speak up against an unfair and unjust government and its laws. Many people have performed civil disobedience in many countries and have almost always succeeded in gaining their goals. Civil disobedience allowed these people to overthrow unjust laws and is extremely vital for a democratic country. As Howard Zinn said "Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it."

Any form of nonviolent protests or rebellions that refuse to accept any given policy or law because it is unjust is viewed as civil disobedience. The word civil disobedience was first coined by David Henry Thoreau in his essay 'Civil Disobedience' in 1848, and has since been used to term any such activities (stanford.edu). Many activities as these have been proven to be vital in overcoming an unjust law and can be seen in Gandhi's salt march, or Jose Bove's anti-globalization movement in dismantling unwanted enterprises in France (sojo.net). In both these cases the citizens protested against unjust laws with non-violent movements and were able to succeed in getting their voices hear, and were thus classified as civil disobedience. Another view on the meaning of civil disobedience is it being a 'public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of a government (Rawls 320). Although both, Thoreau's and Rawl's definition identify civil disobedience to protest a given law, Rawl explains it to be more of a political act to bring about changes as opposed to it just being a protest, and such thinking is vital in understanding the role of civil disobedience in a democracy as being a changing factor and not just as an opposing one.

Civil disobedience has shown its colors in almost every corner of the earth from India to Spain, England to South Africa, and Palestine to Spain; all these countries witnessed individuals speaking up against oppression from their government. India's Mahatma Gandhi was amongst the first few people who adopted civil disobedience on such a high level and used it for their ideologies and lives. Gandhi was imprisoned time and time again for his unwillingness to obey unjust laws but he never gave up his acts or beliefs. Gandhi's nonviolent salt march against the British is recognized today as one of the most compelling and fructifying acts of civil disobedience, and this march also resulted in gaining freedom of India from the British (crf-usa.org). "It was civil disobedience that won them their civil rights"â€*Tariq Ali. Another example of civil disobedience's importance in a democracy would be the 1990 London riots against a poll tax levying taxes on all individuals regardless of their means (bbc.co.uk). If civil disobedience had not been in place in the country all the protestors would have been given the worst punishment but since individuals have a right to speak up against unfair laws and taxes, the government of England replaced that policy with the council tax levying tax on the value of a house (bbc.co.uk). Such protests allowed the people to get rid of an unwanted tax and also gave them the power to express their opinions which merely understates the importance of civil disobedience in a democracy.

Civil disobedience also plays a really important role in the United Stated because after all this idea gave birth to the country itself and the term 'Civil disobedience' was also formed in this place. The US was built when the American colonists refused to listen to their British leaders and started disobeying them and their rules. Their acts of civil disobedience such as the Magna Carta, the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence allowed the colonists to take control of their own lives and thus a new country was formed based on the foundation of these disobedience acts. Civil Disobedience is as old as our species, as old as war and peace. "War lords and priests have always differed over the holy and the profane - City of God and City of Man. Popular protests are chronicled in Homer and Rig-Veda, Bible and Scripture, Talmud and Koran. Establishments have been in constant fear of protesters: Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Father Daniel Berrigan, and Civil Disobedience - Vietnam; WTO. Civil Disobedience has never been easy or safe; but in America it is constitutional: Civil Disobedience is at the heart of both British and American constitutionalism. It is as hallowed as Magna Carta and as powerful as the deposition of President Richard Nixon"- Harvey Wheeler. Civil disobedience has been in place for many centuries and has always led to something good and better. In America it led to firstly its freedom, then women's rights, desegregation for African Americans, the ending of the Vietnam War, and countless other things (constitution.org). Civil Disobedience allowed Americans to speak up against the Britain's and its unjust laws and rules, and then against its own government during the Mexican-American, Vietnam-American and the Iraq-American war and other issues, and although people did suffer from protesting in a non violent way it did enable them to get their voices heard which did have an impact in the long term.

David Henry Thoreau the man behind the term civil disobedience performed this act when he refused to pay taxes that would fund the American-Mexican war and ended up in prison stated that "If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law". Civil disobedience can be viewed by many as a weapon against injustice and cruelty. It enables people to help out others by standing up against their oppressors. It gives them an opportunity to allow someone a fair and just chance at life. It allowed people to end slavery in the United States, and wars in Mexico. It enabled the freedom of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, United States of America, Germany, the Baltic countries, and many others. It helped end numerous unnecessary wars, and taxes, and even had a role in protecting the environment through protests and sit-ins and all the movements carried out were nonviolent movements that brought about social changes (civilliberties.org). Even though Civil disobedience has had such a huge impact on American's lives, there are still a few people who question the importance of this act. For them Civil disobedience is no less than treason against state but what they do not realize is that civil disobedience is a non-violent movement that is meant to hurt or destroy no one other than the unjust law its opposing, and is 'the opposite of violence' (Herngren 1993). Civil disobedience is looked as something important for a country and is recognized as a driving factor for the improvement of a country, and is not meant at all to be harmful to the county in any way. "Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good"- Gandhi.

Many people have talked about resisting a social change that would result in the demise of a country but only a few have actually stood up and spoken against it, many sacrificing their lives in the process, but they have all achieved one thing and that is resisting unscrupulous, and fraudulent government and their laws. These people allowed millions of others to have a chance at a better future only because they stood up against oppression and established the importance of civil disobedience in a country. "Human history begins with man's act of disobedience which is at the very same time the beginning of his freedom and development of his reason" -Erich Fromm.

Find out more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Importance And Significance Of Civil Disobedience History Essay

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our Essay Writing Service. You can view samples of our professional work here. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

# data[].attributes.body
Rosa Parks diary writing

# data[].attributes.body
Newspaper from the 60's

# data[].attributes.body
Another newspaper from the 60's about the black bloc vote.

# data[].attributes.body
Martin Luther King Jr.
Rosa Parks
Roy Wilkins
Malcom X
Harriet Tubman