Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Blog #4 Week of 2/15 -2/21
Mohandas Gandhi preached his "doctrine of nonviolent resistance to British rule in every village" he passed. "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." Explain why you agree or disagree with Gandhi's statement. Structure your ideas in a logical fashion and defend your position with relevant evidence and logical reasoning!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Gandhi's statement that "civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." Although,laws were established to maintain order in the country, many laws encourage discrimination towards a group of people. For example the Indians are thought to be inferior to the British in India. The Indians never had a say in any of the laws that discriminate against them but they endure the treatment from the British. Especially since the Indians are the native people they should stand up to receive equal treatment even though it is thought to be "civil disobedience." I also think that Gandhi's nonviolent resistance to the British would be more effective than any violent acts. If the Indians were to fight back, it would give the British a reason to use their guns and arrest the Indians. The nonviolent Resistance allowed their point to be heard in a respectable way that forced the British to listen.
ReplyDelete-Christine Aboseif
Overal, I do believe that Gandhi's system of nonviolence is effective. This is because not only did the government in India not have a reason to arrest them, but it also gave these men and women the chance to really come together under the same cause. Gandhi had the right idea by showing all of his followers that the higher class was equal to the lower class. For example, they all lived in the same commune and Gandhi chose to walk instead of a provided horse carriage. In addition, this was effective because the British government did not know how to handle the group of Indians when they were "civilly disobedient". This is because they didnt really have a right to persecute them. This worked, for example, in the movie when Gandhi was once on trial. The judge realized that there was no point to Gandhi being on trial, so he let him go free. Also, I personally promote nonviolence because it truly shows who is more civil. Going back to learning about the natural rights of man, Gandhi was right when he believed in "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." It truly was there right, contrariwise, it is not part of our natural rights to revolt and murder for what we need.
ReplyDeleteMohandas Gandhi's method of showing opposition with non-violent actions was very important in getting freedom for the Indians. He was smart enough to realize the strong British military and did not want to cause a bloody war. His methods of non-violence is used today as well during mass protests against the dictatorial governments. I agree with his statements and beliefs of Civil Disobedience. British rule in India was not peaceful unlike the attitude of the Indians. That is the reason of why their rule and Indian slavery did not survive for a long time.
ReplyDeleteGandhi rules!!!!
ReplyDeleteI believe that Gandhi's nonviolent way of life is perfect for an everyday life. Imagine the world if you just took something away like guns! Millions, if not billions of people would be saved. The world has tried to before to replace war with things like the Leage of Nations and the United Nations to solve the worlds problems. None of them have been sucessful. If all the world leaders could get along, then maybe we could have a nonviolent society. I belive a nonviolent society would be a better society. As American citizens we all have freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility. It is our responsibility to try to solve our problems with words. The government doesn't always make the right decisions, i think most of the time they make the wrong decision, so it is our job as American citizens to fight for what we think is right. I think it is time again to make things right with a nonviolent world!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi’s statement “Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen.” As a citizen of a country, everyone should be treated equally. The Indians did not have the same rights as the British even in their own country. Their civil disobedience against the British was reasonable and sensible. They were only standing up for their rights, and there is nothing wrong with that. Gandhi’s nonviolent resistance was effective because it shocked the British and left them speechless. For them, it probably would have been easier to arrest or even kill those who fought back. However, they could not because they did not have a reason to. Gandhi was very logical in his teachings and actions and it was hard to find fault in him. Nonetheless, this nonviolence movement required a lot of patience and courage. Death and punishment could strike at any moment. Many Indians probably wanted to just beat the British up. But as Gandhi said, "There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for." Gandhi believed that he should “turn the other cheek” to the oppressors, and eventually, India did gain independence. Though Gandhi applied this to a big problem, this can be applied in our daily lives. Fighting back and getting revenge only intensifies the issue, no matter how big or small; it does not solve anything and only makes you even. It really is true that you are bound to feel guiltier if the person you wronged is nice to you. Being tolerant and not fighting back does not make you a coward; rather, it makes you a better and mature person who can love his enemies. This is the kind of person we should all strive to be, like Gandhi.
ReplyDeleteI agree as well with Gandhi's statement "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen" because i believe that everyone in this world is equal. We all deserve to be treated well from all people and Gandhi was revolutionary in the fact that he was the first person to get a large group of people to understand this. Even though the Indians has way fewer rights than the British, they were making a statement that was widely heard and widely accepted. This took a lot of strength and courage, but that is exactly the person Gandhi is. If one group treated another with respect, then maybe all other groups and all countries will be in alliance! That was how the intelligent Gandhi thought about the world.
ReplyDeleteI think the way Gandhis statement is true because look at the progress he got by not using violence. i also think if gandhi did use violence he would not have nearly ass many followers and would make india a free country. To sum up my answer i think its best not to use violence but some times it is needed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's state ment "civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizens because if the Indians had used violence as a way to get what they wanted there would have been much more violence and killing. By not using violence against British rule, the Gandhi and his followers were protesting against Britain just as strongly as if they had been rioting, except that they didn't sink to Britains level and attack them. This only would have provoked Britain more and there would have been more violence. Gandhi's views on nonviolent protest were logical and morally right, which allowed for a more civilized form of protest. If the Indians and the British had attacked each other, it could have become an all out war, and would have been completely counterproductive. Gandhi made sure that the Indians went about gaining freedom from British rule the right way
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's statement "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. Gandhi had very high standards and morals, even though the British treated the Indians very poorly and gave them no equal rights. He gave the British no reason to treat the Indians poorly. He believed violence was not the answer and he would do anything to prevent his people from using violence against the British. He even fasted until they stopped. Gandhi was willing to risk his life for his country and his followers and wanted them to believe violence never solved anything.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's idea of civil disobedience being an essential right of every citizen, to a certain extent. As long as the "civil disobedience" does not turn into violence. I believe that it is a good way to express one's opinion and try to express change. However, once laws are broken, the protest becomes ineffective. For Example in a court room when someone protests or objects it needs to stay appropriate and there needs to be some disobediance because you cant just do what ever you want
ReplyDeletei agree with gandhis idea of civil disobedience as long as it doesnt become violent. As seen in history many protests have become violent and thats not good. Gandhi did this by fasting. Fasting was his way of showing disobedience
ReplyDeletei agree with what he did and what he said. i believe that violence is not the answer. it hurts and it doesn't solve anything. you get nowhere with physically hurting someone. Ghandi understood this. he showed it by fasting and boycotting British materials and telling people not to send their children to British schools.
ReplyDeletei agree with ghandi's idea of civil disobedience is the inherit right of a citizen as long as it is nonviolent.Everyone has there own opinion and should be able to speak their mind.Ghandi was a man who was not afraid to speak what he felt was right.Ghandi risked his life to lead others into doing what he thought would be better for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Ghandi's methods of exhibiting principles of civil disobedience through non-violence was the correct way to pave India's path to independence. By boycotting British goods, the Indian's represented their ability to function as an independent country. They were able to make their own rules, rely on their own materials, and function without British aide. Through non-violent protest, the Indians were able to represent a country of unity and civility while as the British could not. Their endeavors proved how they deserved to be independent. Ghandi's struggles against injustice have become idyllic for countries worldwide.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mohandas Gandhi’s statement “civil disobedience”. Just like any American, we have the right to express our feelings about situations that are happening in society. I also agree with Gandhi’s “nonviolent resistance”. Throughout history, nonviolent protesting unjust laws or actions have a huge impact within the situation. For example Martin Luther King Jr. used Gandhi’s techniques to lead nonviolent demonstrations. Mohandas Gandhi’s nonviolence showed people they can make a great change without brutality and bloodshed to gain justice and freedom.
ReplyDelete-Lily Templeton
In Ghandi's situation i agree with his statement, to where the people have the right to civil disobedience when there is a corrupt government. But if the country is not corrupt, why is there reason for civil disobedience? So i agree and disagree with Ghandi. For example, if no one in the entire country payed there taxes this year, we would create a corrupt nation.
ReplyDeletei agree with ghandis statement to where people have the right to disobey the system to get somthing that is fair instead of unequal and wrong. good examples of others doing that would be martin luther king jr. or woman fighting for their rights. this has happened many times in history becuase people will not stand for what is unright and unjust. As a modern day example graffiti artists have to break the rules and defy societys thoughts of wats good and bad so they can get their message out and make a statement.
ReplyDeletei agree with ghandis principles of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance to an extent. passive movements trying to change government ways are sometimes not enough to gain reform or independence. civil disobedience, such as boycotting or only following certain laws can open the eyes of the government or dictator but not necessarily push them to reform. in India, when all of India did not work or do anything on a sceduled date, the attention of the British was certainly put on India. the will to give India rights or independence, however, was never brought about. i believe less passive means of protest and defiance are necessary to achieve independence.
ReplyDeletei agree with Ghandi's statement "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." because everyone has their own right to fault the system sometimes, and to help make everything right. If he was wrong he would not have had so many followers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ghandi's statement. Throughout the years people who have tried to accomplish goals with violence have failed. Violence can only lead to more violence, encouraging a vicious cycle which no civilized country should be based upon. When Ghandi and his people used peace, they accomplished exactly what they set out to do. When Bush sent troops to Iraq, it led to more violence and hatred, accomplishing close to nothing. Peaceful boycotts and logical reasoning may be a lot to ask for, but it is key to gaining independence for all.
ReplyDeleteFollowing our visit to the Museum of Tolerance analyze the human dynamics of bias, exclusion and oppression and examine the consequences of social and political injustice by looking at contemporary and historical examples, particularly the Holocaust. Simply, comment on what you learned at the museum regarding bias, exclusion, oppression, social or political injustice. Reflect on something that you saw or heard at the Museum.
ReplyDeletethis is for the last blog cuz i was on a diff field trip. i posted on the other blog earlier.
i didnt really learn much of anything new because we already learned alot of it in school.i didn learn a few things, like 6,000,000 jews died in poland and germany's jewish population was less than 1 percent. i also learned that we cant ever let anything like this happen again and we must do whatever is neceserry to stop somebody like this, and not stand idely by.
i agree with ghandis statement that the brittish rule needed to stop india should be able to govern therselves independintly.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with Gandhi's statement "civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." Laws were established to maintain order in the country yet many laws encouraged discrimination. Gandhi had very high standards although the British treated the Indians very poorly and gave them no equal rights which I personally think was unfair. Overall, I think that violence is never the answer except for some rare cases.
ReplyDeleteP.S- Sorry for submitting this so late I thought I already submitted it when it was due....guess not :/