Fifty-three years ago, the events of what became known as “Bloody Sunday” unfolded. “Bloody Sunday” was one of the hundreds of marches that occurred during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. This movement was also characterized by other acts of nonviolent civil disobedience, such as sit-ins, boycotts, and rallies. The civil rights movement was a human rights movement established in the hopes of ending legalized racial segregation and discrimination laws in the United States. One objective of this movement was to push for legislation to enforce the fifteenth amendment. The fifteenth amendment states that no one could be denied the right to vote because of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. However, this amendment was …show more content…
According to Locke, the right to revolution is the people’s ultimate weapon that if the government deprives people of life, liberty, and property the people can instigate a revolution to replace the government with a better government that serves the interests of the people (Riemer, Simon & Romance 2015, 136). It is important to note that Locke wrote this related to primitive times when society was just beginning to form. Moreover, Locke wrote this during the turmoil of the British civil war in the mid-seventeenth century when there were kings that would be overthrown. However, when the civil rights movement occurred in the United States there was no king to overthrow and a completely different form of government was already firmly established here. There was no way that the current form of government could have been overthrown by its citizens. As such, this right needs to be understood and used in a different way to ensure that our basic rights are being upheld. This way is through civil disobedience. The game of civil disobedience has to be used in modern times like the right to revolt was used during primeval times. As civil disobedience can be seen as a right established with the formation of society, therefore, it can always be a possibility to fight moral …show more content…
For example, the game of civil disobedience was used by Mohandas Gandhi during the twentieth century and by the Norwegians against the Nazis during World War II (Reimer, Simon &Romance 2015, 25). Both Gandhi and the Norwegians used civil disobedience against their opponents successfully. In the example of Gandhi, he used civil disobedience to protest British rule in Indian. The British had imposed a heavy salt tax and were exercising a monopoly over the manufacturing and sale of salt, a vital staple in their diet. Gandhi and his supporters went the Dandi and made salt from the seawater defying the law; however, it was effective because it became a mass disobedience that was later called off in exchange for Gandhi’s equal role at a London conference. The Norwegians used it in many different forms against the Nazis; however, the first mass outbreak of civil disobedience was the wearing of paper clips on their collars. This was started in the autumn of 1940 by students at Oslo University as a way to demonstrate their resistant to German occupiers which become a sign of unity and solidarity. This form of civil disobedience combined with the strikes and other forms of nonviolent action overwhelmed the Germany army as they were not properly prepared to handle these situations. Civil disobedience is feasible because it has been used successfully in the past for various moral evils by