Comparing Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And Henry David Thoreau
Two different writers, Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, argue that society is not at its finest and that every man has the responsibility to impact change and every many has the power to do so, only if man is an extremist for the greater good. King was a reverend but more importantly he was a dominant voice for thousands of persecuted people during the civil rights movement. From King expressing his knowledge and acting on them, he was obliged and jailed (he was obliged to jail?) within King's cell he composed a letter entitled “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. (transition?) Thoreau was a philosopher who contained all the qualities of a transcendentalist. Much time before King’s letter, Thoreau fabricated a response to when
he was jailed entitled “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. Both writers stress that the resolution to the problematic society is solved with civil disobedience.
Both King and Thoreau advocate that man is inclined to change society for the better, only by peaceful transgressions. King asserts that “nonviolent tension... is necessary for growth.” (King 263. para 10). This tension king construes “will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” (264. para 12) It appears King’s hope is that negotiation will assist in equalizing the treatment of every man so that every man is capable of () . King argues that nonviolent sit ins, and protests “seek so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored” (King 263, par 10). (((I don’t know how to say every man has the power))). If man does not seek to dramatize an unjust situation, King proclaims then that man is opposing their own “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (265, para 15). Because King recognized the problem of unjustness for the black community, he not only took up the responsibility but embraced the opportunity to act on societies poor choices. Parading without a permit is what King was arrested for.
he was jailed entitled “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. Both writers stress that the resolution to the problematic society is solved with civil disobedience.
Both King and Thoreau advocate that man is inclined to change society for the better, only by peaceful transgressions. King asserts that “nonviolent tension... is necessary for growth.” (King 263. para 10). This tension king construes “will inevitably open the door to negotiation.” (264. para 12) It appears King’s hope is that negotiation will assist in equalizing the treatment of every man so that every man is capable of () . King argues that nonviolent sit ins, and protests “seek so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored” (King 263, par 10). (((I don’t know how to say every man has the power))). If man does not seek to dramatize an unjust situation, King proclaims then that man is opposing their own “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (265, para 15). Because King recognized the problem of unjustness for the black community, he not only took up the responsibility but embraced the opportunity to act on societies poor choices. Parading without a permit is what King was arrested for.