The Civil Rights Movement: Civil Disobedience vs. Violence

The civil rights movement was a series of actions that peaked in the 1960s. These political actions are aimed at acquiring the rights of African Americans. However, there are two ways to exercise. Like the black rights activist Malcolm X, there are others who are peacefully protesting to Dr. Martin Luther King and those who are more actively hoping to tackle the struggle. But neither method is more aggressive. Both have good intentions, but Dr. Martin Luther King has a better way to fight for the rights of the African American community.

Civil disobedience is non-violent direct action, respecting the difference. Martin Luther King Jr. is known to lead the African-American civil rights movement and refraining from promoting his beliefs with non-violent citizens. He firmly believes that civil disobedience is a way to eliminate apartheid against African Americans. When a protest march took place on the street, Kim was arrested and sent to prison. In prison he read the article written by the clergy's group against disobedience of the citizen of the king, stating that apartheid should be negotiated in the court rather than on the street and said that he caused unnecessary things I was blamed

It is known as "civil disobedience". One of the most famous citizens opposing extremist activists was Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s American civil rights movement. The theory of nonviolence against gold fraud involves a process of promoting a peaceful dialogue to gain understanding while adjusting the differences. But when artificial law attempts to deny the law of God, Kim urges people to use creative tension in the form of disobedience of the people.

Discussion continues as to whether civil disobedience should be nonviolent or not. The Black Law Dictionary contains nonviolence in the definition of civil disobedience. An article in the encyclopedia of Christian Bay states that civil disobedience requires "carefully chosen legitimate means", but I believe that they are not necessarily nonviolent. Civil disobedience and civil revolts are proved by appealing to constitutional flaws, but the rebellion is destructive, so if the rebellion flaw can not prove the civil rebellion it is justified Then you can not prove that civil disobedience uses power and violence and refuses to accept arrests. Citizens who do not obey the refusal of violence are said to be helpful in maintaining the social tolerance of citizens' disobedience.