Thoreau and Martin Luther King Compared Essays

Thoreau and Martin Luther King Compared Essays Thoreau and Martin Luther King Compared Paper Thoreau and Martin Luther King Compared Paper there are three choices: obey them, obey them while working to change them, or transgress them at once. Consequently, both chooses to passively resist the laws they believed that are against their morals, and are prepared to accept imprisonment . The exercise of passive resistance is the basis of the title of Thoreaus work, and King presents several examples of civil disobedience in his letter, including the Boston Tea Party. King not only exercises passive resistance, he also provides the procedure to be followed for any nonviolent campaign. Nonviolence offers a creative outlet for represses emotions which might otherwise result in violence. If King was an extremist, then he was an extremist for love. There were four basic steps in his nonviolent campaign: â€Å"collection of the facts to determine whether injustice exist, negotiation, self-purification, and direct actionâ€Å"(King 658). He points out that he has gone through all the steps, and direct action is what brought him to the Birmingham Jail. Recognition of injustice and passive resistance described by both authors is to point out the need of government reformation. Thoreau recommended using direct action to create social tension, thus leading to the reform of unjust laws practiced by the government. He voiced civil disobedience as, â€Å"An expression of the individual’s liberty to create change† (642). Thoreau felt that the government had established order that resisted reform and change. â€Å"Action from principle, the perception and performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary† (643) Thoreau calls for a better government, immediately, and points out that the fastest way to improve government is to Let every man make know what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it (638). He states his views in the following passage: But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it. (638) King does not directly states the need to reform government, but instead, he states the need to reform the existing social structure, which goes hand in hand with governmental progress. He advocates social equality and racial justice, believing Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds (657), and passively fighting against unjust laws forced upon the minority. Even though Thoreau agreed with King on the issues, he also made contradictory statements directly against what he supported. He wrote If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go†(Thoreau 644), stating that if injustice was inevitable and helped to improve government, then it was justified. Opposed to his passive resistance, he also justified bloodshed as he stated But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? (Thoreau 646). As for improvements to government, he believed That government is best which governs least (Thoreau 637). Thoreau expresses an eagerness to conform to the laws of the land as long as there is no moral principle to be violated. He is willing to obey those who know more than he; yet the authority of the government depends upon the consent of the governed. â€Å"There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all it’s own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly† (654). Thoreau would rather up end in jail than go against his will. The passage, †Your money is your life, why should I haste to give it my money?† (648) illustrates how strongly he felt. Thoreau never rallied hundreds of thousands of people together, violently or nonviolently, to get reactions. Instead, he went to jail to protest and wrote his essay, â€Å"Civil Disobedience.† King took the same idea of direct action to protest the injustices brought upon black Americans in the United States. He used peaceful sit-ins and rallies to unite the black community. These non-violent acts of public speech and action eventually lead to King’s arrest. Here in Birmingham, Alabama he wrote, â€Å"Letter from Birmingham City Jail† telling the clergymen he wanted direct action, which purpose was â€Å"to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation†(659). Thoreaus writing is vague, and mostly an appeal to the intellect, which sharply contrasted with the writing of King, an appeal to the emotion of the readers. Although both writing made similar points, they are also a sharp contrast of the other and undoubtedly very unique. Both used civil disobedience to change people’s ideas and beliefs to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Thoreau and King definitely shared many of the same ideas of how to deal with unjust laws performed by the government. Thoreau didn’t have the legions of followers King did, but he still made a long-term impact. King actually adopted Thoreau’s teachings and ideas of direct action and used them in leading the movement to end racial segregation in the United States. Both men inspired reforms and also much overturning of unjust laws and customs in our country. We, as a society, should look at these two people as heroic figures and learn from their teachings. This will help us better our knowledge of how to use non-violent direct action for future national and international problems we may encounter.