Comparing Historical Accounts

               The early 1950s to 1960s showed had significant movements promoting civil

disobedience and nonviolent protest. Civil Disobedience is a philosophy practiced by many,

in fact, our country holds non-violent protests every day. Whether it is through strikes,

meetings, or marches, these protests were proven to be effective and gained respect over time.

However, while this philosophy may seem like a well-accepted idea today, there were many

who fought for this negotiation who were considered radical for their idea back then. Among

those famous for their allegiance to Civil Disobedience were Henry David Thoreau, and the

two who were inspired by Thoreau; Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. The three

demonstrated their idea in their essay and writings. These leaders of nonviolent protests and

strikes permanently changed the world's sight.

               Henry David Thoreau, the author of "Civil Disobedience," had great influence on

both King and Gandhi. Thoreau contributed to King and Gandhi's claims that the government

was often unfair, and did not work for the people as an equal whole, but rather to satisfy the

majority. Thoreau states "a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is

not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the

minority, but because they are physically the strongest." In congruence, Gandhi states,

"Majority rule violated the integrity of the minority." King, following this ideology, claims,

"An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself."

There was a claim opposing the support of the majority. They all converge on a similar point

although their argument was stated differently. Thoreau also had a big influence on Gandhi

and King regarding the idea that change can be brought by disobeying the morally unjust law.

Thoreau, like King and Gandhi, claimed that injustice in laws that separate people were sinful

and unacceptable. When negotiation no longer was reasonable or timely course of action,

direct action must ensue.

               King and Gandhi both held comparable beliefs towards non-violence and civil

disobedience. King described non-violence as a method to defeat injustice, rather than white

race, by using a type of love known as agape. King describes the word agape as

understanding, redeeming good will for all men. Gandhi similarly believed that humanity was

interconnected in a divine cosmic spirit called the "atman." They both believed that there was

a special connection between mankind that meant non-violence must be used as a way to

solve conflict. To King and Gandhi, violence was ineffective and only caused further hatred

towards others. Rather than fighting against injustice, they thought this would be equivalent

to fighting their own brothers.

               Although Gandhi and King were similar in many of their philosophical opinions,

they do diverge on certain grounds. King encircled his philosophy with moral Christian ideas,

asserting his call to action through religious ties. Gandhi, in contrast to King, incorporated an

all-encompassing religious base to his philosophies. Gandhi and King's school of thought was

their individual focus on government and economy. King focused more upon the laws rather

than the structure of the entire government. He believed that unjust laws and compromised

morality held the United States back from racial integration and denied Constitutional justice

rather than it being democracy as a system. Gandhi, in opposition to King, believed that the

government and economy needed reformation. Gandhi believed in a sort of personal self-

government. Both leaders had significant qualms with government structure and law but King

was not as radical against the government as Gandhi was.

               Gandhi and Thoreau's work are more tied rather than King and Thoreau. This view is

perceptible when viewing Thoreau and Gandhi's view on government as a system. King used

the constitution as a positive connection to the government and referred the democracy in a

positive light. He wished that it was applied the way it was intended to be. King's did not

wish to abolish the government and his demands were held more closely to just changing the

unjust laws. However, Thoreau and Gandhi believed in more of a utopian society. Gandhi

called this type of self-governing system swarja. Their views tied more frequently to the

system of government while King's views focused simply on the unjust laws.

                Today, it is evident that the unique mixture of ideas of the three figures were

effective while freedom triumphed. Their legacies are respectively reflected in current

societies. We have countless numbers of organizations and laws that protect the practice of

organized, nonviolent civil disobedience. Protests against laws that proscribe same-sex

marriage, police brutality across the United States, to even smallest protests were inspired by

the leaders. Dr. King, Gandhi, and Thoreau became our saviors and delivered us from the

binding arms of injustice.

Question 1

              Practices to living green has been a main topic in our society because of all the

electricity and hot nature. Especially over the few years, great attention has been called to

the state of our world. Out contributes to destruction of our society and global warming

added on makes this world an unstable planet overall. It is highly needed and imperative that

action is taken through the action of our nation's government.

              In order to fix something, there must be a leader who guides his followers to the

appropriate path. In this case, the US would provide an influential voice since America is a

big nation. Source C, Thomas L Friedman states, "I am convinced that the best way for

America to solve its big problem... is for US to take the lead in solving the world's big

problems." If America showed the act of breaking off bad, yet natural habits, the world will

follow and act quickly. Source E shows a chart of the percentage of the bad habits that

polluted the environment. it shows that American residents have the highest levels of

environmental ewardship. As America begins to change the habits, it gains the other

country's support and then influences the others.

              Although leading the world and influencing is beneficial, small countries like

Singapore take action. Alan Webbler's excerpt in Source B states and shows that taxes are

the prime area to target. The government of Singapore set the standards that high taxes for

the nation's carbon footprint. Despite the fact that the world is "hot, flat, and crowded,"

(Source F), the United States Department of Energy lists ways to save energy and money by

making small changes. Source F also states many easy actions that will help make the world

a greener place. Amongst them are taking short showers which will save water, turning off

your electronic when not in use to save electricity, and air drying your dishes to save power.

We can make the world a greener place by executing simple actions which will cause us no

inconvenience and will help the environment.

              Making the world a greener place is not an easy task to carry out, but it is one task

that the government should prioritize to benefit the world's environment and the human race

itself. These requirements and small changes should merely help promote the effective ways

rather than throwing it off by laws. Not only the government, but if one person starts making

small changes as an individual then come together as a community, it will definitely benefit

everyone and make the environment a better place to live in.