Civil Disobedience Practice Synthesis

Directions: The following prompt is based on the accompanying nine sources. Use at least six sources in

your essay. Your essay needs to have an introduction with a thesis, three body paragraphs with topic

sentences, and two concrete details with commentary per body paragraph. There also needs to be a

conclusion which restates your argument. Remember to attribute both direct and indirect citations.

Assignment:

Answer the following question with a logical argument that is supported by the following materials. Your

argument should be central; the sources should support your argument.

Prompt:

Is the action of civil disobedience (a public, non-violent protest to an injustice) an effective way to make

changes in society? Does it create the benefits the protester desires or are the “costs” too high?

Use the following materials to support your answer:

(Source A) from Civil Disobedience by Thoreau

(Source B) excerpt from a speech by Gandhi on July 27, 1916

(Source C) from A Letter from a Birmingham Jail by MLK

(Source D) “We Shall Overcome” Lyrics and background

(Source E) “Tim DeChristopher's Courageous Bid to Save Our World” by Peter Yarrow

(Source F) “Experts: Civil Disobedience can backfire”

(Source G) “Letter to the Editor”

(Source H) Political Cartoon

(Source I) Howard Zinn Quotation

Themes Across Cultures

On Civil Disobedience

Mohandas K. Gandhi

Background Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869–1948), called Mahatma (“Great Soul”), helped free India of British rule. As a student, he greatly admired Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience.” Thoreau’s ideas helped shape Gandhi’s key principle—satyagraha (sE-tyaPgrE-hE), or “truth-force.” In the following excerpt from a 1916 speech, Gandhi describes this powerful weapon for fighting oppression.

July 27, 1916 There are two ways of countering injustice. One way is to smash the head of the man who perpetrates injustice and to get your own head smashed in the process. All strong people in the world adopt this course. Everywhere wars are fought and millions of people are killed. The consequence is not the progress of a nation but its decline. . . . No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war. A nation does not rise that way, it only falls further. In fact, what comes to it is defeat, not victory. And if, perchance, either our act or our purpose was ill-conceived, it brings disaster to both belligerents.1

But through the other method of combating injustice, we alone suffer the consequences of our mistakes, and the other side is wholly spared. This other method is satyagraha.2 One who resorts to it does not have to break another’s head; he may merely have his own head broken. He has to be prepared to die himself, suffering all the pain. In opposing the atrocious laws of the Government of South Africa,3 it was this method that we adopted. We made it clear to the said Government that we would never bow to its outrageous laws. No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make it. Similarly, no State is possible without two entities, the rulers and the ruled. You are our sovereign, our Government, only so long as we consider ourselves your subjects. When we are not subjects, you are not the sovereign either. So long as it is your endeavour to control us with justice and love, we will let you to do so. But if you wish to strike at us from behind, we cannot permit it. Whatever you do in other matters, you will have to ask our opinion about the laws that concern us. If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute-books. We will never obey them. Award us for it what punishment you like, we will put up with it. Send us to prison and we will live there as in a paradise. Ask us to mount the scaffold4 and we will do so laughing. Shower what sufferings you like upon us we will calmly endure all and not hurt a hair of your body. We will gladly die and will not so much as touch you. But so long as there is yet life in these our bones, we will never comply with your arbitrary laws. 1. belligerents: participants in a war. 2. satyagraha (sE-tyaQgrE-hE) Sanskrit: insistence on truth. Gandhi used this term to describe his policy of seeking reform by means of nonviolent resistance. 3. atrocious laws . . . South Africa: Gandhi led the Indian community in opposition to racial discrimination in South Africa, where he lived for several years. 4. mount the scaffold: ascend the platform on which one is executed by hanging.

We Shall Overcome

History of an American Folk Song

By Kim Ruehl, About.com Guide

Pete Seeger - We Shall Overcome

© Sony 1963

"We Shall Overcome" (purchase/download1) became particularly popular in the 1960s, during the Civil Rights movement in America2, after Pete Seeger picked it up, adapted it, and taught it to his audiences to sing. While most people attribute the song to Seeger, however, it had a half century (or so) to evovle and expand its meaning before revivalists like Seeger, Guy Carawan, Frank Hamilton, and Joan Baez3 popularized it during the folk revival.

The melody dates back to before the Civil War, from a song called "No More Auction Block For Me." Originally, the lyrics were "I'll overcome someday," which dates back to a turn-of-the-20th-century

song by the Reverend Charles Tindley of Philadelphia.

It was 1946, however, before the song evolved into some semblance of the tune we've come to know as the unofficial anthem of the American Civil Rights movement. That year, it was brought to a workshop at the Highlander Folk School in Monteagle, Tenn., by striking women workers from the Food and Tobacco Workers' Union. At Highlander, Culture Director Zilphia Horton was accustomed to asking workshop attendees to teach songs to the group, and these workers introduced a song they'd

recently been singing, titled "I'll Be Alright." Horton was so enamored with the sentiment behind one of the song's verses, which repeated the line "I'll overcome," she worked with the union leaders who'd introduced it to her to rewrite the song so that it might encapsulate a more collective community spirit. The song they emerged with was titled "We Will Overcome."

A year later, Pete Seeger was visiting the Highlander school, where he met and befriended Horton. She taught him "We Will Overcome" - which had become one of her favorite songs - and he adapted it for use in his shows. He also changed the "will" to "shall" and added some verses of his own. Seeger

later taught it to Guy Carawan, who introduced it to civil rights activists in the Carolinas soon after. Carawan's performance is largely considered the "moment" when "We Shall Overcome" became the

anthem of the movement, as it was almost instinctively met with those in attendance holding their crossed hands and swaying along to the triplet melody.

The adaptation of the song to its current lyric is often attributed to Pete Seeger4, but Seeger shares the copyright with Carawan, Horton, and Frank Hamilton. The song's contributions to both the labor and civil rights movements have been palpable, and it continues to be used around the world to this

day, whenever people are gathering in the name of freedom and justice.

The song was recorded by Joan Baez5 in 1963 and became a major anthem of the Civil Rights6 movement.

Lyrics of "We Shall Overcome":

We shall overcome, We shall overcome We shall overcome someday

Deep in my heart I do believe We shall overcome someday

We shall live in peace, we shall live in peace We shall live in peace someday Deep in my heart I do believe We shall overcome someday

We shall organize, we shall organize

We shall organize today Deep in my heart I do believe We shall overcome someday

We'll walk hand in hand, we'll walk hand in hand We'll walk hand in hand someday Deep in my heart I do believe

We shall overcome someday

We are not afraid, we are not afraid We are not afraid today Deep in my heart I do believe We shall overcome someday

This About.com page has been optimized for print. To view this page in its original form, please visit: http://folkmusic.about.com/od/folksongs/qt/WeShallOvercome.htm ©2012 About.com, Inc., a part of The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.

“Experts: Civil Disobedience can backfire”

Jeff Donn, Associated Press. March 25, 2003. Written in response to protests against the start of

the Iraq war:

Undated Protesters who challenge war policy by civil disobedience are resurrecting the powerful tactics of Gandhi and

Martin Luther King, but they will likely find it hard to sway most Americans for now, say historians and some activists.

``I don't think it's going to be very effective, at least for the time being,'' said Lawrence Wittner, a historian at State

University of New York at Albany who has written about the American peace movement. ``I think that the targets are

probably not well chosen.''

He said protesters have risked antagonizing the public, for example, by blocking city streets.

The outbreak of war with Iraq has brought a tide of civil disobedience, an exalted tool to many promoters of social

change. As framed by its 19th century theoretician, Henry Thoreau, civil disobedience is a lawbreaking act of personal

conscience to resist government injustice. Thoreau once went to jail briefly when he refused to pay taxes for a war with

Mexico.

Perhaps civil disobedience has never spoken so forcefully as when a mass movement of Indians, led by Mohandas

Gandhi, resisted British laws and wrested independence for what is now the world's largest democracy.

Many of the great American reform movements _ from the abolition of slavery, to labor unionizing, to King's drive to

challenge legalized racial segregation _ have also prevailed with a strong element of civil disobedience. Such protests

have hastened radical political shifts, as when draft resisters helped turn public opinion against war in Vietnam.

Propelled by the attack on Iraq, anti-war protesters have blocked downtown streets and building entrances _ often at

federal offices or courts _ in cities across the country and induced police to arrest them, sometimes by the vanload.

``It's very symbolic,'' said Adam Miles, 22, after he was hauled away from a sit-in outside a federal courthouse in Boston.

``It's not like it's going to effect a policy change, but it shows I'm committed.''

In San Francisco, where roving bands blocked downtown streets, Assistant Police Chief Alex Fagan Sr. called it

``absolute anarchy.'' Some motorists and passers-by have honked in solidarity, but others have jeered or quietly fumed in

frustration.

When an anti-war protest blocked a bridge in Portland, Ore., Cecille Kelly sat behind the wheel, thinking unkind thoughts.

``I have every right to access this bridge. They have no idea what extremely important things I have going on in my life,

and why I might need to use this bridge!'' she said.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has warned that such protests could drain police resources needed to keep watch for

terrorism.

Historians say a successful campaign of civil disobedience is built on a clear message, often with a moral edge; a

sympathetic public; and carefully focused acts that don't turn ordinary Americans into the target _ as when commuter

traffic is paralyzed.

Wittner said effective anti-war disobedience might target more sites that serve military purposes, like army outposts _ not

city streets used by everyone. Also, he said, opinion polls show the public rallying behind President Bush right now,

making it difficult to change minds.

Less confrontational protest methods might work better, some authorities say. ``The militants by themselves may turn

people off,'' said historian Katherine A. S. Sibley, at Saint Joseph's University in Philadelphia.

Historian Larry Gara, who teaches peace studies at Wilmington College in Ohio, said, ``I think civil disobedience is sort

of a last weapon. I'm not an advocate of widespread use.'' He says one danger is that protesters will go to jail and be out of

circulation for months.

He should know. He was jailed three years for draft resistance during World War II.

James Tracy, a San Francisco activist who gives civil disobedience training, says the tactic is embraced so strongly by

today's anti-war movement because many are disillusioned with government accountability. He largely blames the

collapse of the Enron energy company and the Electoral College defeat of Al Gore, who won the popular presidential

vote. ``I just don't think people believe they can vote their way to peace anymore,'' he said.

Acts of civil disobedience ``maintain the spirit of resistance,'' said Howard Zinn, a retired Boston University historian who

committed civil disobedience during the Vietnam War.

And, for better or worse, he added, they do tend to catch the ear of the news media.

Even that holds potential for backlash, though. Bob Fischer was thinking about such news coverage when he came to a

rally in Reno, Nev., to back the war effort. ``With all the bad publicity and all the media attention to the leftists and the

peace movement, it's more important now to show our support for the president and our troops,'' he said.

Letter to the Editor, Gainesville Sun, Jan. 24, 1991

Written in response to protests to the First Gulf War:

As a veteran of two wars and part of another, and as a volunteer at the VA hospital, I too have an aversion to war.

But I am confused about the real objectives of the various groups of activists that advocate and practice civil

disobedience.

Opposition to the war can be most effectively expressed through our congressmen or by letters directed to the

president. This is a basic and, I believe, very efficient method of expressing our wishes. Civil disobedience arouses

the anger of the law abiding and is counterproductive in the long run. It tends to offend many who might otherwise

support a cause.

Making our wishes known to our representatives is also the democratic method—one where the majority voice is

heard, not just that of the loudest.

Acts of civil disobedience, as advocated by some groups, are not only illegal, but they could well send messages of

support to those that our troops are facing. (I assume that it is our troops that the activists are concerned about.)

No one can know how long the Vietnam War was prolonged, or how many more of our troops were killed because

of the actions of those opposed to the war who got such extensive media coverage during Vietnam.

I dearly hope that we do not do to our armed forces in Saudi Arabia what some voices, such as Jane Fonda’s, did to

our troops during Vietnam. It is my prayer that those who are fighting will feel our full support rather than the

divisiveness that characterized Vietnam.

E.E. Wiginton, Gainesville

1968 Chicago Sun Times