The acclaimed, influential Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to a group of clergymen while in prison. He was imprisoned because of his sit-in programs in cafeterias. There was massive segregation going on during time, and Martin Luther King Jr. was fiercely against it. King was ready to suffer for what he believed in, which helps explain the actions that caused his imprisonment.
At the time, Birmingham was the most segregated city in the United States. Many African-Americans there were treated brutally. The leaders of the African-American community tried negotiating with the city leaders so that their people could be treated more fairly. False promises were made by the city leaders and the merchants, which invoked King to take action.
King and his followers used the method of direct action. There were sit-ins, marches and other types of rallies. It took me a while to understand how marches would help in King's cause. What the marches and rallies did was cause tension in the city leaders. This tension helped direct the leaders' attention towards the problem. The direct action procedure also helped open up negotiations again. The city leaders have to confront King's followers about their direct action, and the only way to confront the issue is to negotiate with the ones would are causing the issue! King's brilliant plan to obtain Human Rights for the African-Americans was set in motion.
King even chose the perfect time for direct action - during Easter season, one of the main shopping periods of the year. This was a great time to put pressure on the merchants since they were already under a load of pressure because of business. King rescheduled his direct action plans, however, for after the Mayor Election day as he deemed it a better time.
King was passionate about his community. He wanted to see them be treated equal to the Caucasians. He believed that segregation was sinful and that no one should be treated like an outsider when they live in the United States. He also believed that it was a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, such as laws made solely to target African-Americans.
Another thing King believed was that freedom is not given freely. It has to be demanded by the people seeking freedom. I find the statement, "freedom is not given freely," ironic because freedom itself is not free.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Reading Log 2: First Response to "Satyagraha: Non-Violent Resistance" by Gandhi
Mahatma Gandhi wrote the Satyagraha while he was in South Africa. Satyagraha literally means "holding on to truth", which is why Gandhi uses the word "Truth-Force". The Satyagraha is a way to protest without any violence. Gandhi believes in non-violence and states that it is the best way to obtain results. Instead of using violence and brute fore, we should pity others.
Gandhi states that there are many different ways to handle a robbery at your house. You can be hostile and fight with the robber. This will lead to a never-ending chain of hatred between you and the robber. However, you can pity the robber and talk to him. You can try to make him feel guilty so that he never steals again. Thus, you change a man's life and obtain a new friend. This example also proves that the means to obtain an outcome does matter, which is another one of Gandhi's philosophies. Like I said before, there are many different "means" to tackle the robbery situation, and according to Gandhi, the ones with love and pity are the best means. The "means" are important!
Gandhi also writes about history. He states that history only records interruptions in the flow of nature, like disputes between leaders, fights between people, wars between countries and other sorts of destruction. Truth-Force is one with nature, so it is never noted down in history. This is why we cannot use history as a reference to how beneficial Truth-Force or Love-Force really is. Looking back in history might give us the wrong idea about Truth-Force, according to Gandhi.
Gandhi also states that, "Those that take the sword shall perish by the sword." He means that a person who starts a fight will definitely suffer from the fight. A country that starts a war will be blown away by war. This statement helps empower the Satyagraha. It can be derived that if you pity others, you will be pitied too. Thus, Gandhi effectively expresses his reasoning on how Truth-Force or Soul-Force is the perfect weapon against oppression.
Gandhi states that there are many different ways to handle a robbery at your house. You can be hostile and fight with the robber. This will lead to a never-ending chain of hatred between you and the robber. However, you can pity the robber and talk to him. You can try to make him feel guilty so that he never steals again. Thus, you change a man's life and obtain a new friend. This example also proves that the means to obtain an outcome does matter, which is another one of Gandhi's philosophies. Like I said before, there are many different "means" to tackle the robbery situation, and according to Gandhi, the ones with love and pity are the best means. The "means" are important!
Gandhi also writes about history. He states that history only records interruptions in the flow of nature, like disputes between leaders, fights between people, wars between countries and other sorts of destruction. Truth-Force is one with nature, so it is never noted down in history. This is why we cannot use history as a reference to how beneficial Truth-Force or Love-Force really is. Looking back in history might give us the wrong idea about Truth-Force, according to Gandhi.
Gandhi also states that, "Those that take the sword shall perish by the sword." He means that a person who starts a fight will definitely suffer from the fight. A country that starts a war will be blown away by war. This statement helps empower the Satyagraha. It can be derived that if you pity others, you will be pitied too. Thus, Gandhi effectively expresses his reasoning on how Truth-Force or Soul-Force is the perfect weapon against oppression.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Reading Log 1: First Response to Lao-Tzu's "Thoughts from the Tao-te Ching" and Machiavelli's "The Qualities of the Prince"
The writer of "Tao-te Ching" is unknown but many believe it to be the work of Lao-Tzu, which translates to "Old Master". Many say that Lao-Tzu lived in the sixth century B.C. Lao-Tzu's writing formed the basis of the religion Taoism.
The "Tao-te Ching" is basically a document about how to build a good nation with a proper government and good ethnic values. Some parts of the writing suggest that the Tao is the All-Knowing Ruler of the Universe. The text tells us to look beyond ourselves and be one with the Tao, even though we are not completely sure what the Tao is.
Lao-Tzu says that money and possessions are a burden to the soul and are valueless and meaningless. He states that one who is at liberty and enlightened will look down on the materialistic.
Lao-Tzu suggests that politicians take action only when necessary and remain inactive otherwise. He is against doing useless activities. His words are: "the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything." His ideology reduces the power of the government and gives more power to the people. Lao-Tzu states that a leader will provide for all the individuals without anything unnecessary. Lao-tzu thinks that if the people do not know that they are being govern, they will be able to achieve greater things by themselves. Lao-tzu does not believe in control or fixed plans. He believes that if you leave it be, the world will control itself.
"Tao-te Ching" was written to be used as a handbook for politicians. It describes the values that a ruler should have. To our modern time, the statements in this writing may seem strange and different. I can't imagine a country functioning properly without a stern hand from the government. Perhaps Lao-Tzu's words could have helped the system of another time.
Lao-Tzu's thoughts are idealistic. If the world could function the way the Tao-te Ching suggests, a lot of our problems would be fixed and we would be living on a peaceful planet. However, planet earth and its inhabitants are not so "simple" anymore. There is always one rotten egg in the dozen. If the world attempts to function in the ways of Taoism, the tyrants would rise and rule. Lao-Tzu tells us to remain complacent with the way we live. In modern times, people thrive to improve their way of living. So, people would not like Lao-Tzu's thought of being satisfied. Overall, Lao-Tzu's teachings would be ideal, but would not work in our modern society.
Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Qualities of the Prince" takes a different direction compared to Tao-te Ching. Machiavelli's writing takes a more strict approach when it comes to governing. Lao-Tzu "assumes" that people are all good whereas Machiavelli "assumes" that people are all bad. Machiavelli's method is more practical to our modern time. His statements are more personal whereas Lao-Tzu's thoughts are from a detached view.
Machiavelli's writing is more of a How-To book compared to Lao-Tzu's more poetic "spiritual" writings.
The "Tao-te Ching" is basically a document about how to build a good nation with a proper government and good ethnic values. Some parts of the writing suggest that the Tao is the All-Knowing Ruler of the Universe. The text tells us to look beyond ourselves and be one with the Tao, even though we are not completely sure what the Tao is.
Lao-Tzu says that money and possessions are a burden to the soul and are valueless and meaningless. He states that one who is at liberty and enlightened will look down on the materialistic.
Lao-Tzu suggests that politicians take action only when necessary and remain inactive otherwise. He is against doing useless activities. His words are: "the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything." His ideology reduces the power of the government and gives more power to the people. Lao-Tzu states that a leader will provide for all the individuals without anything unnecessary. Lao-tzu thinks that if the people do not know that they are being govern, they will be able to achieve greater things by themselves. Lao-tzu does not believe in control or fixed plans. He believes that if you leave it be, the world will control itself.
"Tao-te Ching" was written to be used as a handbook for politicians. It describes the values that a ruler should have. To our modern time, the statements in this writing may seem strange and different. I can't imagine a country functioning properly without a stern hand from the government. Perhaps Lao-Tzu's words could have helped the system of another time.
Lao-Tzu's thoughts are idealistic. If the world could function the way the Tao-te Ching suggests, a lot of our problems would be fixed and we would be living on a peaceful planet. However, planet earth and its inhabitants are not so "simple" anymore. There is always one rotten egg in the dozen. If the world attempts to function in the ways of Taoism, the tyrants would rise and rule. Lao-Tzu tells us to remain complacent with the way we live. In modern times, people thrive to improve their way of living. So, people would not like Lao-Tzu's thought of being satisfied. Overall, Lao-Tzu's teachings would be ideal, but would not work in our modern society.
Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Qualities of the Prince" takes a different direction compared to Tao-te Ching. Machiavelli's writing takes a more strict approach when it comes to governing. Lao-Tzu "assumes" that people are all good whereas Machiavelli "assumes" that people are all bad. Machiavelli's method is more practical to our modern time. His statements are more personal whereas Lao-Tzu's thoughts are from a detached view.
Machiavelli's writing is more of a How-To book compared to Lao-Tzu's more poetic "spiritual" writings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)