Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Blog #4 Week of 2/15 -2/21
Mohandas Gandhi preached his "doctrine of nonviolent resistance to British rule in every village" he passed. "Civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen." Explain why you agree or disagree with Gandhi's statement. Structure your ideas in a logical fashion and defend your position with relevant evidence and logical reasoning!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think it was a great approach of Mohandas Gandhi because it shows maturity,intelligence, and civilness. I also think its a good approach because nobody was hurt. I also think its a bad idea because a lot of innocent people would be killed. Also because people should know their rights from wrongs, and if they do something wrong they are consequences.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's statement because it shows how the mental power and non-violent resistance of the people was able to defeat the Soldier's bullets. Even though a great number of lives were lost, The people who died were able to effectively show that even if they kill them they will never be able to take their souls.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's resistance toward the British government. His resistance is far more safer than any other resistance. No one was hurt due to Gandhi's movement besides the people who got impatient and acted on their own and result in a massacre by the British soldiers.
ReplyDelete-T. Lin 8-)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's statement as it is in theory a good way to go about resisting emotionally and morally, but on the other hand, there is only two major successes by using this method, one by MLK Jr. and Gandhi himself. This method of nonviolent resistance would only work in certain situations in which the country has establish a sort of democracy, for example, in today's society, if the people in Saudi Arabia revolted against the government through non violent resistance, i have no doubt that they would all be killed. Also, they might not be able to gain support of all the people. In India's case, most of the citizen population was for Gandhi's outcome, and thought it worthy to try methods of nonviolence. I believe that there has to be some level of civil humanism and belief that life is sacred for this nonviolence would work out. In theory it is a perfect solution, but in actuality, it has flaws.
ReplyDeleteI think civil disobedience is a persons right, Mohandas Gandhi had the right approach because the British could put the indian's in jail and beat them and kill them but even then they still would not have the indian people's pride or obedience they would just have their bodies. Also Mohandas Gandhi psyched the British people out because what he was doing had never before been done.
ReplyDeleteMohandas Ghandi was smart to do nonviolent resistance because he knew that violence was the easiest to get what you want. I agree with Ghandi because when we dont use violence we are stronger, they may hurt us, but we can easily say we had no intention of hurting anyone and Ghanidi was right to do that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mohandas Gandhis resistance toward British government. This resistance was kept in balance and was much safer then anything else. Although many people died because of there actions many stayed alive. People should no what to do and when to do it. Also they should no that there is karma so whatever you do that could danger you and your surroundings that there will be consequences. I also believe that civil disobedience is a right people should have.
ReplyDeleteI believe Mohandas Gandhi's approach to peace is the smartest way for resistance toward British government. I never believed in war and always thought it contradicted itself because it is fighting for peace. All you will come out with most of the time is opposition. However if you give out a hand and make peace then you sometimes may be able to compromise. Mohandas Gandhi gave off a great influence because he never corrupted anyones mind, but bettered them.
ReplyDeletegiving in and adding fuel to the fire is never the way to handle things. in Gandhi's case, he believed that nonviolent resistance was ideal for dealing with British brutalilty. i agree with him 100%, it is always best to avoid war and conflict. however, if someone is beating me to the ground, i couldn't just sit there and take it. nonviolence is important, but also having the guts to stand up for yourself and not allowing yourself to be treated like that is also every important.
ReplyDelete-Danielle Kroll
i agree with Mohandas Gandhi's statement because it was a good way to withstand the British government. his nonviolent plan was great because no one got hurt. Gandhi influenced many people
ReplyDeleteOverall I believe Gandhi's statement was the best one can do when a man is under a lot of pressure. Gandhi has the morals and ethics to succeed with his idea that resistance is the safest solution, evidently, he was correct. Gandhi's statement toward British government sent a vibe that notes when we dont use violence we are stronger. On the other hand, many guiltless people did not deserve to suffer and go through a tragedy. Unquestionably, Civil disobedience is a right of a citizen that is a powerful privledge to all.
ReplyDelete-Ally Epstein
I agree with Gandhi's statement because he believed in nonviolent resistance towards the British.I believe that war is not the answer and things should be settled without violence but with compromise. Gandhi I think is a great leader.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's statement. Even though many sacrifices were made to create independence it brought the communities closer together. I also believe it was wise to use none violence because without a community the goverment of the area has nothing to rule therefore making it useless.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. Gandhi show maturity and intelligence by bypassing war in a nonviolent way. People have a right to stand up for themselves when something is happening that they don't agree with. Civil disobedience is a right of a citizen that is a powerful privledge to all.
ReplyDeletenon-violent only works because there are people that pitty others. I think non-violent protest wont always work and violence always works. For better of for worse. It WORKS!
ReplyDeleteI agree with gandhi because I any country that claims there a republic or a democracy has to abide by the idea that all people have rights and allow people to stand up to laws they disagree with. This is what gandhi did with civil disobedece and he created an environment of nonviolence but restance. This is what the world needs today because this would solve many of the world's problems. Gandhi was a great leader in this and we should continue his ideas to create a more peaceful world
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's resistance toward the British government. His resistance was much more safer than any other political resistance. No one was injured because of Ghandi's righteous movement except those who were eager and impatient.
ReplyDeleteI think Gandhi was right in his way of thinking. Even though some people did get hurt, his ideas did more good in the long run.It was safer for the Indian people and I think we should continue the examples he set to solve our modern problems.
ReplyDelete-Lauren Mittman
I agree with Ghandi's ideas toward civil disobediance. His visions for peace have proven to be some of the most effective ways to date. He made the British governments determination to segregate the Indians through non-violence. Civil disobedience is an inherent right of a person because if they do not like the way a government runs their people, they should stand up for what they think is right
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ghandi because although with his civil disobedience there were violent outbreaks, much of which were on the opposing side (the british), there were far more deaths then there would have been with violent resistance. Also, with violent resistance and rebellions, the government has more leverage over the rebels because they have more of a reason to arrest and fire back. If Ghandi carried out a violent rebellion against the British, moste likely, a war would have broken out, causing more distress within India, and perhaps, another world war. Ghandi's ideals have been displayed through out history as a model example for peace.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ghandi's statement because there was less deaths with the nonviolent movement then there would have been with violence. This also prevented a war. The people who did die and got hurt were innocent but thats better then fighting back.
ReplyDeleteI think Ghandi's approach was necessary, and the right thing to do. Although, it seems people always end up being wrongfully killed after trying to nonviolently protest. Even though it is terrible when someone dies for doing the right thing, it is an effective way to make the oppressing party feel bad and start to give in to the protestors.
ReplyDeletei think Ghandi's approach to british rule was the most honorable and intelligent way of standing up to the ruling power. he showed the world through nonviolent actions how the british were wrong in the way they treated the indian people. although there were many innocent people killed that is what it sometimes takes to show the world exactly how corrupt and insane power can make you
ReplyDelete-Alec W.
I agree with Ghandi and his nonviolent resistance becuase it is the most rational way to go about things. Also, I believe that poeple should be able to stand up to the government and try to change it if they feel they need to. It should be a government for the people not for the racist and ingnorant people who rule it. Ghandi was doing what he belived in and I think that that is a just act.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with ghandi's approach. I believe not reacting and allowing innocent people to die along the way is an uncivil way to show reproach for your government. I believe a more direct, angry riot would have been more efficient.
ReplyDeletei think civil disobiedence can have both positive and negative outcomes. In my opinion, its is better than violence everytime, but it will not always work. It worked for Ghandi partly because there were so many people following his cause, but in other countries the population would be to small for it to work. The sad truth is sometimes warfare is needed to accomplish a goal
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gandhi's statement because what he believed in was nonviolent resistance towards the British. he is a leader who fights for what is right. War should not lead to compromise or should not be the answers for solving their problems.People were sacrificing their lives for wanting to create independence and trying to bring communities closer together. He shows people that they should stand for what is right, and strive all the way until they get what they want
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ghandi's use of civil dissobedience. Without it, India may never have been freed frm British rule. Ghandi was able to achieve peace, without having to fight to get it. But, becuase he refused to fight back, many innocent protestors were beat and killed.
ReplyDeleteI think Ghandi's tactics of nonviolent resistance were a success in gaining independence. Ghandi knew that his people outnumbered the British meaning he was in control and not the British. By staying nonviolent, he didnt give the British an opportunity to make India look bad, but rather made the British look worse when the killed so many innocent Indians who werent fighting back. Ghandi was wise and I personally admire his quote which sums up his reason for passive resistance.... "An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind."
ReplyDelete-Alex Magged
Civil disobedience is a risky tactic. While it brings out the best and the worst in your enemies, it can result in alot of unnecessary casualties. Though in a situation like Mohandas Gandhi's this was probably the best solution, rather than a direct violent approach, which if anything, would've made the situation worse. In an ordinary direct rule situation, negotiation and fund raised civility would probably work the best.
ReplyDelete-David Amberg