Women in the Civil Rights movement

In class the other day the question was brought up about why Rosa Parks was not the person chose to lead the movement. Although Rosa Parks act of "disobedience" was the spark that they needed to carry the movement through the court system, she was never consider as a candidate to be the leader of the bus boycotts. Some people in class suggested that this was because women were weaker then men, especially back then. Not only do i not agree with that but i think almost the exact opposite. Black women were not only struggling with being African American in a time when diversity was not accepted but they were dealing with being a women in a patriarchal society. The women of the movement had to not only keep there own homes and families running but they also worked everyday to help their families maintain a some standard of life. These women had to follow their men into "battle" and help them every step of the way whether it was working behind the scenes or making their daily lives hell walking miles and miles so that they could follow what they were being asked to do. The women of the movement were strong and independent women that made a mark on history that will in my book never be forgotten.

Dignity

Something that I forgot to mention in my earlier post about Gandhi was perhaps what intrigued me the most about the movie that I watched and the Gandhi book. During one of his speeches, from when Gandhi was younger, when he was addressing a group of people, he addressed the topic of dignity. He said that there were many things that the British could do to them and take away from them but one thing that they could not do was take there dignity. He said that the British could beat them, lock them up, take away their freedom but they could not take there dignity . He meant that they would not act in violence that they would take everything the British could throw at them with out reacting, and that would put them above the British. This instilled a sense of power in his listeners that night it almost seemed like a weapon that he has given them that could never be destroyed. A weapon that they would be able to fight with for the duration of the battle with the British. This was the point that I realized how smart Gandhi was he not only know what he wanted and what he believed in but he was fabulous at saying it is just the right way that it inspired and rallied those who he was speaking to. Gandhi was a prime candidate to lead the movement because he was passionate about the topic, because what he was preaching was what he lived and that showed in his message. He as well as his people kept their dignity.

Gandhi Movie

When I would think about Gandhi i just pictured an old Indian man that was overly skinny. I know this is a cliche however I am sure it is what most people think. I knew that he was a practitioner of non-violence. What I didn't know about was the part religion played in his life. Gandhi was hindu, however he worked closely with, studied and taught based on the principles of many other religions, such as muslim, and christianity. He really stretched across many cultures and religions to reach out to so many people because he wasn't culturally bias. This only raised Gandhi's popularity amongst his followers.

Something else I found interesting was the fact that no matter what the opposition did Gandhi and his followers never acted in violence, and he was adamant about that. As the movie showed it was that fact that gave him so much power it made it so there was no way the British could lock them away for very long.

What amazed me about Gandhi were all the sacrifices he made in order to see his free India movement through to the end. After the British left India the two most prominent religions, hindu and muslim started fighting. When Gandhi got wind of this he stopped eating. He was willing to die in order to show his followers that fighting was not the answer for India. Because both parties in the conflict cared for Gandhi and were his followers they laid down their weapons and stopped the fighting to save him.

religion and nonviolence

I have said many times in class and very much believe that it is quite hard to separate religion and a practices of nonviolence, because religion is and has been such an intertwined part of the daily life. Especially if we are examining those who used nonviolence in the past, religion was just a choice but a lifestyle back then and that was what makes me think that it would have been difficult to use acts of nonviolence to achieve goals with out religion. This also could be hard because many religions that are practiced in the west preach about nonviolence so even if people did try to separate religion others would just assume it was a religious act.
I think that religion however can be used as a tool to make people understand why nonviolence is a good path to take, because so many people view their religion as part of their identity.

Definition Paper

When I was starting to write my definition paper, My first step was to sit down and produce a definition I was happy with that not only described nonviolence, but also helped me to establish what an act of violence looked like. However i kept finding my self getting stuck, of all the authors we have been reading the one I find my self most closely aligning with was one of the first authors we read George Coe. He believes that there is no way to truly define violence and nonviolence because any act of nonviolence to one person can be conceived as violence to someone else. This is where the principle of direct and indirect violence has found its place in my definition. How far can we stretch the arm of indirect violence before it has come full circle to direct violence?