IndexIntroduction"Civil Disobedience" vs "Letter from Birmingham Jail"ConclusionIntroductionIn "Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In “Letter from Birmingham Jail” the authors examine the notion of disobedience to government in cases of moral injustice. Thoreau writes his reasons for defying the law and calls on other people to fight for what they know is morally right. Likewise, a century later, King explains when it's just about protesting the government and how progressive politics is carried out by citizens demanding their rights. In both of these essays, King and Thoreau explore the concept of systematic injustice and the idea of ​​challenging laws that one does not find morally just by using very different tones to convey their messages. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay “Civil Disobedience” vs. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Within “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” the authors address the injustices they are engaged in by the government. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King have two totally different perspectives: Thoreau is a white man living in the 1800s who refuses to pay taxes to a government that allows slavery, and King is a black man at the forefront of the movement to civil rights. King is subject to the laws he opposes; Thoreau did not. Despite their different viewpoints, they both promote similar ideologies. When Thoreau talks about the injustices of government, he is talking about slavery, while when King does, he is talking about segregation; both Thoreau states in his essay: "If we were left solely to the long-winded wits of the legislators of Congress for guidance, uncorrected by seasonal experience and the actual grievances of the people, America would not long maintain her rank among the nations" . By saying this, he means that if citizens never questioned the actions of the government, the United States would not be the country it is. A law is not automatically just or equitable because it was adopted by the government, and it is the citizens' job to keep the government in check. Dr. King notes in his letter: “Some have asked, 'Why haven't you given the new administration time to act?' The only answer I can give to this question is that the new administration needs to be stimulated as much as the outgoing one before taking action. We would be sadly mistaken if we thought that Boutwell's election will bring the millennium to Birmingham." Martin Luther King knows that oppressed groups cannot wait for the government to grant them their rights; the government relies on its citizens to improve it. Thoreau and King both argue that the government and privileged members of society must be pressured by the oppressed to reform laws and cede some of their power to minority groups. In addition to highlighting government enforcement of social injustices in society, Thoreau argues that it is the duty of citizens to oppose inequality. In doing so, Thoreau's work touches on the idea of ​​the individual versus the collective or the minority versus the majority. He states in his essay: “There are unjust laws; will we be content to obey them, or will we try to modify and obey them until we succeed, or will we immediately transgress them? Men generally think, under a government like this, that they should wait until they have persuaded the majority to change them. They think that if they resisted, the remedy would be worse than the disease. But it is the government's own fault if the remedy is worse than the disease. It makes things worse. Because it isn't anymoresuitable for anticipating and foreseeing reforms? Why doesn't he care about his wise minority?”. According to Thoreau, a society in which the majority always manages to dictate the laws in force is a society in which unjust laws exist. He reflects on what should be done when the minority turns out to be the more moral group. Thoreau states that moral issues should be decided by the individual and not by laws established by the government. Since the government decides what is allowed, Thoreau convinces people to always fight for what is moral and to never settle in the face of injustice. He argues: “Under a government that imprisons everyone unjustly, even the true place for a righteous man is a prison.” An ethical and moral individual cannot be apathetic towards the injustices that occur in society. Similarly, in “Letter From Birmingham Jail” Dr. King argues that the rights of a minority will only be guaranteed if they are fought for and the system is challenged. After addressing the beliefs of those who oppose his methodology, King states, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never willingly granted by the oppressor; it must be requested by the oppressed." King's opponents wonder why break the law when you can simply try to move towards negotiation in a more passive way; in response to this counterargument, he states that direct action is required to bring about major change. King writes: “You may ask, 'Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so on? Isn't negotiation the best route?' You are exactly right in your invitation to negotiate. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. We try to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored." We cannot sit back and hope that oppressed and marginalized groups will eventually get the rights they deserve. Examining history, it is evident that those in power do not give up their privileges on their own accord; they must be pushed to do so. Dr. King says in his letter: “My friends, I must tell you that we have not made a single advance in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups rarely willingly give up their privileges. Individuals can see the moral light and voluntarily renounce their unjust position; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.” Much like Thoreau, King recognizes that individuals are often far more moral than the collective. You may notice injustice in society and become willing to change your ways, but a system that has been built for hundreds of years on the backs of the oppressed will not relinquish power on its own. None of the previous progress made by the Civil Rights Movement was achieved through complacency or passivity. Change is brought about by individuals who recognize a power imbalance or unjust system and fight with everything in their power to fix it. Furthermore, both Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King express similar concepts and ideas, but they do so using different persuasive elements. An important factor in an effective persuasive argument is the tone of the writing. Thoreau has a more frustrated and exasperated tone, but King maintains a calmer and more reserved tone. While both essays convey their message effectively, the authors' tones are not what one would expect. It would make sense that Martin Luther King had.