Similarities Between The 1940's And The Civil Rights Movement

In addressing two of the more significant human rights struggles of the 20th century, the Holocaust in the 1940’s and the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, one finds many similarities between the struggles of both oppressed peoples. In both societies, laws inhibited and prohibited many actions and freedoms of Jewish and African Americans, respectively. The proactive actions of individuals in the American civil rights movement succeeded in changing laws because of their willingness to disobey unjust laws. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for prominent individuals during the reign of the Nuremberg laws and Nazi anti-Semitism. With the success it met with it’s application in the American civil rights Movement, civil disobedience
could have shifted the outcome of the holocaust. The civil rights movement can cite its beginnings back before the 20th century. However, the major historical event that sparked the chain reaction in American society was the Supreme Court decision in the case of Brown v.s. Board of Education. In this case, the court’s decision overturned the previous ruling of Plessy v.s. Fergusen that allowed segregation in schools. Once the Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to allow segregation in public schools, the African American demographic began to push for further change in laws that allowed discriminatory acts. A focal point of the civil rights movement was the implementation of civil disobedience and non-violent protest methods.
A method that has been around since biblical times, civil disobedience has been used throughout the centuries as a way to protest unjust laws. The head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and de facto leader of the entire civil rights moment was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A man deeply rooted in his Christian faith, Dr. King was a frequent advocate for non-violent and civilly disobedient protests. This often included sit-ins in known places of legal segregation, such as restaurants or the “Freedom Rides.” Even purported white supporters of racial equality challenged this method. To them, allowing or supporting the breaking of any law would lead to chaos and
anarchy.
Dr. King was often questioned about his advocacy in for the subject (King 45). In his letter from the Birmingham City Jail, he defends this method. “I would agree with Saint Augustine that ‘An unjust law is no law at all (King 45).” He goes on to explain “laws are just a man-made code that squares with the moral code of God (King 45).” King further explains that this “moral code” is the definitive for all laws, and anything out of sync with it can not be used as a law for governance. Civil disobedience also had a way of pointing out to society the absurdity of segregation laws. For instance, when Dr. King was arrested for not having a parade permit, his right to peaceably assemble was violated by the very people meant to protect them (King 46). However, Dr. King does make the distinction of avoiding anarchy by only disobeying unjust laws (King 46). Without these acts of civil disobedience, the civil rights movement may have not had the same effect on American society. Almost like trying to start a fire, political friction was necessary to gain the widespread awareness that Dr. King required to fulfill his dream. In his letter from the Birmingham Jail, Dr. King also makes reference to other times when laws had been implemented to inhibit the rights of groups of people because of their race (King 47). No one in the 1960’s would question the absurdity of the Nuremburg laws of Nazi Germany, which included but were not limited to bans on marriage between Jews and non-Jews and removal of citizenship from Jewish people. However, during the time, the international community was very much uninformed about the goings on in Germany, and therefore did not act with such outrage. During his trial in Jerusalem in the 1960’s, Adolf Eichmann tried to convince the court of his innocence.
The head organizer for Hitler’s “solutions to the Jewish problem,” Eichmann was being held personally responsible for the deaths of many Jews. During the trial, it was made clear that during the time, he did not so much worry that what he was doing was wrong, but rather about obeying the laws set forth by the Reich. He claims to have been a “Pontius Pilate” character, one with his hands tied by law, regardless of moral comprehension (134 Arendt). Although it is evident that he sometimes approached his assignments with disdain and apprehension (135 Arendt), Eichmann was so obsessed with his success in the Nazi party that his moral beliefs were never displayed. As described in Kant’s moral principal, Eichmann was displaying obvious blind obedience (Arendt 136). During the time in the German occupied territories, Eichmann would have been committing a crime not to follow his orders. Regardless of the truth behind his claim to have only been following his every order, Eichmann still was obeying what even he himself knew to be unjust laws. (235
Arendt).
This brings into question the fact of whether or not a bit of civil disobedience on Eichmann’s part may have saved the lives of countless people. Perhaps if he’d had an epiphany when he was designing the tracks to lead to the concentration camps, he may have secretly re-routed them to secretly escort refugee Jews out of German territory. Perhaps he could have questioned the morals of Hitler or Himmler when they ordered the final solution and done something to alert mainstream society to the crimes against humanity that were being committed. Regardless, it would have taken more than one person disobeying unjust laws to change anything, but if one person was questioning the orders given to them, there were probably many more. It is apparent that a comfort with giving up social status and rank was not present in Eichmann’s mind. Even after two major events in the world’s history showing the night and day of the effects of civil disobedience, there are still those in society today who protest the disobeying of unjust laws. History has shown that change comes from those who want it, but in cases like these, actions do speak louder than words.