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 and disagree with Ghandis view for one reason. Non violent resistance worked for Ghandis purposes, but how many times throughout history has this worked in other civilizations? Its miraculous and a miracle that this movement worked and worked effectively. Every citizen in my opinion has the right to civil disobedience because its our divine right as people born to this earth; everyone is equal and should have equal opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi because regardless of the kind of government that rules the people the citizens always have the right to free speech regardless of what others may interpret as correct or incorrect. Non-violent resistance a very powerful tool to maintain control: If guards massacre 1000 helpless citizens the government has no excuse for this inhumane act. If there was a massacre of 1000 heavily armed sepoys or even just 1000 people with butter knives to defend with the government will have the excuse of "they attacked us, therefore we had to defend." and will use that excuse to "retaliate" with harsher laws and restrictions. If citizens have done nothing wrong but peaceful protests the government will have nothing to base their harmful actions on and eventually give up altogether, or as Gandhi said: "they can hurt me, they can torture my body, They can take my life, but they will not have my obedience".
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's resistance toward the British government. His resistance was much more safer than any other political resistance. No one was injured because of Ghandi's righteous movement except those who were eager and impatient. Those who acted upon themselves in a violent way were either injured or died which consequently resulted in a massacre by the British soldiers.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Gandhi's statement of "civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." When the people of a nation feel that they are being goverened unjustly, they have every right to try to better their lives and their loved ones lives, even if that means overthrowing powerful people. Non-violent resistence can work, but it seems that it would be difficult to make it work efficiently. In India, the Indian people provided all services to the people living in the colony, so their nonviolent resistence made enough of an impact to force the British to give up. Although nonviolent resistance has worked wonders in the past, I don't think at this point in time people are capable of comming together in a nonviolent movement with so much destruction possible with the numberous technological advancements made in warfare.
ReplyDeleteI mainly disagree with Ghandi's statement, but i also understand its advantages. I do not think that the people should have offensively attacked their opponents, however i believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves. While civil disobedience has been shown to have positive effects in various situations, when people are threatening your life, i feel like not doing anything to protect yourself is just as good as giving in to what the other side wants. On the other hand, Ghandi was right in not instigating any fighting and i completely respect his dedication to his morals and beliefs.
ReplyDeletei both agree and disagree with Ghandi's statement because it depends on the government. for example if you used civil disobedience to a ruler like hitler he would just get what he demanded which was the extermination of jews and for his rule over the arian race. But civil disobediance has worked before. Martin luther king followed civil disobediance on his quest to make african americans citizens of america.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Gandhi did was great and his approach to it was ethical and the best way possible. I agree with the non violence he preached and it worked for him and I think it could work for anyone anywhere in the world. You do not need violence to win wars what Gandhi had was smarts and he used them to gain freedom to India. With civil disobedience your men and women will most likely get beaten for breaking the law but in the long run it will benefit your people greatly.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Gandhi had the right idea in that he wanted independence throughout the land, but i think he had the wrong idea. Yes a nonviolent movement was indeed a god idea, but by the way he did it I think was crazy. I believe that some violence is needed to prove a point to the opponent. Gandhi was a great man with great ideas, and his ideas worked, but I think that a different route could have been taken. I believe a more violent route should have been taken, but at a small extent.
ReplyDeleteI semi-agree with his statement and think that it is a very good and intelligent idea. Although it worked for Gandhi it is not bound to work as it has not in the past either. It is a great idea and should work although unfortunataly it will not in this world becaus egovernment is not very fair. Unless you did this on a very large scale it should not work.
ReplyDeleteThis is my third time typing this because the first 2 times DIDNT WORK!. I DISAGREE, being able to do this requires a weak civilization, a genious, and lots of people that respect one guy. In my opinion I think Gandhi got rather lucky with this. Pulling this off is nearly impossible therefore he is a legend
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because if you use violence, then you start a war. I also think it was easy for him to pull off because he was a good leader to a small group of people that were willing to listen and follow him and his ideas because what they had to go through wasnt right. As time went the small group kept growing and growing until the hole world knew and respected him because he wasnt ordering his followers to kill but to "turn the other cheak". This in turn made the british look bad and him and his followers look good.
ReplyDelete-Kevin
i disagree with his methods. i disagree because civil disobedience doesnt always work. in this society where they have other methods of taking away peoples freedom. back then gandhi did a very good thing. but i do not think it could happen again now a days.
ReplyDeletei agree with this statement because Ghandi seemed right about civil disobediance, and to contain himself and not use violence. i don't think violence is always the answer and there are other ways to handle different situations.
ReplyDeleteI believe Gandhi is right because, if you think about it, people were born with free will, not at the will of their governments or military, so when an unjust rule is being forced upon you strictly because of your race or another factor, it is a deep right within us to disobey.
ReplyDelete