Two people who acted in similar methods when it came to civil disobedience were Martin Luther King Jr. and Bishop Desmond Tutu. Desmond Tutu was a civil rights activist in South Africa during the 1980s, while King was a civil rights activist in Alabama during the 1960’s. Both Tutu and King fought for African Americans who were treated unfairly in both South Africa and America. Tutu and King wanted to bring an end to segregation and apartheid and they felt the best way was through civil disobediences. Although they agreed the unfair treatment of African Americans needed to end, King’s approach to the topic was a lot more instructional and insistent. Tutu believed his job was not to lead people and show them how to achieve their common goal, but instead to let them know that he was on their side as well as many others. …show more content…
For King, nonviolence was a method of strategy and a way to outsmart the opponent. For Tutu, nonviolence was a choice led by morals and self-discipline. These differences are in part, due to King being a political leader and Tutu being a religious leader. Tutu did not receive a lot of recognition until he received a Nobel Peace Prize. Once Tutu received his award, people began to take notice and this caused the South African government to rethink and reconstruct sanctions in the country. Tutu’s actions were successful to a certain extent, but had he not received the award they would not have been. Martin Luther King Jr. received a lot of recognition and following in his time from both African American and Caucasian citizens. In 1963, King single-handedly led a 250,000 people march to Washington D.C. While at the capitol, Lincoln gave his famous “I have a Dream” speech and a year later President Johnson banned segregation. His actions were very successful and he is often seen as an integral part of the civil rights