I am in Birmingham because injustice is here compelled to carry the gospel of freedom beyond my own home town. Like Paul, I must constantly respond to the Macedonian call for aid, (King). Martin Luther King saw an injustice in America and decided that direct action was the only way anything would ever change. As a society, we must follow Dr. King s example: When faced with injustice in our society we must force change at all costs. The most admirable quality of King was that he acted while others, like Thoreau, only thought of things that could be done with no realistic way to achieve their goals for society.
First, we must define an injustice. Dr. King says, Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. The laws that King s movement eventually changed are now considered unjust by our society. The laws that are now called unjust are now unpopular in the main stream of today s society. This could mean that there is no true just or unjust, it could mean that these terms only hold meaning as popular and unpopular opinions.
Popular opinions have a tendency to favor the many, at least on the surface. Since the opinions are popular, when individuals have an objection to these opinions they usually keep the objections to them selves and show support to the opinion on the surface. King was different, he saw an injustice and he did something about it. Many people that had been previously unvocal stepped forward to support him in his efforts; many others stepped forward to show their hatred for his movement.
127 our experts are availableright now
The civil rights movement of the fifties and sixties sparked outrage in America. People were either upset that blacks wanted a fair shake, or they were mad that blacks didn t have their fair shake. Both sides expect their government to do them justice. The government is there for the people and should serve the people to their advantage.
There are, of course, other ways to look at how government should be. Thoreau says in On the Duty of Civil Disobedience that, government is best which governs least. Thoreau s motto would work in an ideal world, but this is not an ideal world. We need a government to set a standard for people to live by, what is acceptable to some may not be acceptable to all, and without a government to enforce such things as the constitution we would face anarchy.
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way, (Thoreau 235); this statement is questionable at best in that it is speculative. We, as Americans, have more creative freedom than any other group of people in the world. How can one say that we would have accomplished more without our government holding us back? It is our government that gives us an education. It is our government that protects us from foreign threats, and keeps us safe. It is our government which makes us part of the strongest nation on earth. So how can we have a distinctive character as Americans without the American government keeping our lives peaceful and free of tyranny?
When we see a need for change it is our duty as Americans to force change. The beauty of a democracy is that the opinion of the majority directly relates to our leaders and effects our entire country. We can force change if we go about it in the right manner. Dr. King says, In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action. The only reason for direct action is to bring on a meaningful negotiation. It is from negotiation that we can begin to see change in any situation.
Our country was built with the words All men are created equal; it just took King to show America that these words didn t have any hidden text such as Only applies to whites. King said that, Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, this is true because injustice, like communism, tends to spread. How can we, as the world s superpower, be allowed to set an example for the rest of the world that oppresses a race of people and still try to have countries of different races as our allies?
Thoreau and King are not opposites; in fact much of King s philosophy is based on Thoreau. Thoreau said, The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free. They are the lovers of law and order, who observe the law when the government breaks it. King would agree with this statement whole-heartedly, because it is what King himself did.
When forced to choose one person s argument as a favorite, I must side with King. Thoreau thinks too much about what would be in an ideal world, such as no government. King spent his time trying to change the situation of this world, and he succeeded. Thoreau has unrealistic expectations and should have done more for his time; had he done this, he would have had a greater influence on us today because we would be living under a government that he helped build. It is better to have a direct effect on a society than to write all of your thoughts down with the faint hope that someone someday will read them and do with them what you could not.
