How Did South African Americans Contribute To Gandhi Movement
Mahatma Gandhi was a civil rights leader. Gandhi is credited with freeing India from British rule. Gandhi was born on October 2, 1869. He studied in London to become a lawyer and went to South Africa to practice law. While he was in South Africa he began to congregate with the Indian population and held silent strikes against social injustices (Biography.com).
Starting in the 1870s, countries in Africa such as Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, and India, Vietnam, in Asia were being colonized by the British. In order to gain their independence back they took non-violent and militant actions. Though both strategies were successful one was more successful that the other. Non-violent actions were successful in peacefully getting the countries independence. In document 1, a letter written by Mahatma Gandhi to lord Irwin in 1930 before marching to the sea and breaking the British Salt Tax he states, “Even the salt the peasants must use to live is so taxed as to make the burden fall heaviest on him…
Mahatma Gandhi Manav Patel Mahatma Karamchand Gandhi was a humanitarian who used peaceful topics to fight for the freedom of India. He walked 250 miles from his Ashram to Dandi, a coast off of Eastern India. He then proceeded to pick up a lump of salt, thereby defying British Law. This story leads us to ask the question, why did Gandhi’s nonviolent movement work? Basically, he could convince the people to join him instead of killing off nonbelievers.
There have been many people that have had major contributions to the world. Toussaint L'Ouverture and Mohandas Gandhi were some people that both had a large impact to their respective regions. In the case of Toussaint L'Ouverture he was a Haitian slave from the country of Haiti. He escaped in a sudden slave revolt. He was educated by his godfather Pierre Baptiste.
When the British began taxing salt and not allowing Indians to manufacture and collect their own salt, Gandhi stepped in and wrote a letter to the British governor of India. He was determined to show the British what wrongs they have done to India and to convert them through nonviolence (Doc 1.) Even when Gandhi was in jail, he inspired his followers to march without the use violence. None of his followers fought back even when they were beaten (Doc 4.) Being in jail for a total of 2,338 days, he “never felt the slightest hesitation in entering the prisoner’s box.”
Gandhi got arrested for his protest, but got arrested with pride, for he had fought for what he believed was right. “I… did not feel the slightest hesitation in entering the prisoner’s box” (Doc 7). After the large movement Gandhi led, he was proud of what he had accomplished. Gandhi was not the only one arrested for this movement, but like Gandhi, everyone who was arrested was perfectly fine with spending their time in jail. “Everyone of us was firm in his resolution of passing his term in jail in perfect happiness and peace” (Doc 7).
South Carolina 1860 South Carolina had long been a catalyst for, and a symbol of, Southern dreams of a bold new future and an independent new confederacy as well as Northern nightmares of the American experiment gone awry. Most white South Carolinians believed that their economic prosperity, political interest, and social stability were inextricable tied to state rights, the organization of subjugation, and the manor framework as it had advanced subsequent to the frontier period. It is a commonplace of American history that South Carolina leaders did not always, in the first decades of the Union, defend the extreme state rights doctrines which John C. Calhoun so ably expounded later in the antebellum period. In the convention of 1787 South
When Gandhi returned back to India from Europe in 1896 he was sickened. The British Raj had formally taken over, so he decided to make a change and stop the unfair treatment of everyone in India. As Gandhi said himself, “My ambition is no less than to convert the British people
India’s leader Mohandas Gandhi (Mahatma Gandhi) was influenced by David Thoreau 's Civil Disobedience arguments while sitting in jail. Gandhi loosely adopted the term “civil disobedience” for non-violent protests and refused to cooperate with injustice. Following his release, he protested the registration law by joining labor strikes and organizing a large non-violent march. After the marches, the Boer government finally agreed to end the most divisive sections of the law. In 1907, he campaigned in South Africa and wrote a translated synopsis of Thoreau 's argument for the Indian Opinion.
Mohandas K. Gandhi, an Indian nationalist who advocated civil disobedience, said, “You can chain me, you can torture me, you can even destroy this body, but you will never imprison my mind.”. In other words, Gandhi means that no amount of agony will cause him to change his beliefs. He implies that no matter what way he experiences abuse, the British will not be able to stop him and his fight for independence. No physical barrier can hinder Gandhi’s capability to stand for what he believes in. Throughout his life, Gandhi crossed paths with the police and was in and out of jail.
In this book, This war is for a whole life: The culture of Resistance Among Southern California Indians 1850-1966, Hanks mainly touches on some of the issues that faced some of the native Americans considered as heroes in their battles during the turbulent times of war. Their efforts were mainly initiated by their safeguard their homelands in the southern California region, the natural resources in the region and above all respect. Hanks begins by bringing to the readers’ attention that most of the southern California Indians history normally points dwells on the transgressions that they faced ranging from being compelled to surrender to the religion, and technology of other dominant cultures such as the Mexicans and the Americans. In this regard Hanks develops his work based on George Philips presumptions that Indians of Southern California continue to find themselves in a war fighting not only for their civil rights, but also for their land, sovereignty, as well as their cultural integrity.
Both Civil Disobedience and the Gandhi article are alike based on the fact they both discuss civil disobedience, attending prison, and standing for one’s beliefs. Civil disobedience can be seen as a good thing and a bad thing depending on to what extent one is breaking the laws. Some people may break the law because they feel that it is unfair to them but others break the for the simple fact of doing what they want in order for it to benefit themselves. Laws are meant for the majority which means even if they are not pertaining to certain citizens. Thoreau targeted laws that pertained to him, Gandhi went on strike for the better of his country and people.
Consequently, those protesting an issue must work to bring about change earnestly through truly believing in their cause. Henry David Thoreau shared this sentiment in his “Civil Disobedience”, writing that one person who maintains their beliefs can change the world “For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once done well is done forever.” Though while not all peaceful protests are successful enough to inspire true change, many of today’s free societies were inspired by those that did. Mohandas K. Gandhi was able to coerce the South African Boer government to “end the most objectionable parts of the registration law” and convince the British to grant India its independence from Britain”(Gandhi and Civil DIsobedience”). Therefore, it only takes one individual to inspire a change in the world because “Without their courage those injustices would never have received the attention required to compel national action” (“Civil Discourse and Petitioning”).
At the sea, Gandhi picked up a handful of salt. This act went against the British law mandating that they buy salt from their government and this law did not allow them to collect their own salt. That act was made to let the British government know that the Indian people were tired of being under Britain’s rule and they were tired of following all of the unjust laws that were
Gandhi Broke The Salt Law on April 6, 1930, it sparked large as a civil disobedience against The British Raj, Salt laws, over 8000 people were jailed for supporting Gandhi 's beliefs about non violence. The reason I assume this act shows how Civil Disobedience is a Moral Responsibility of the citizen because Gandhi did what he thought was right not only for himself but for others and made a stand for the people of India and broke the law to be heard and now the country of Indian has their Independence because of his actions. Additionally this provides Moral Responsibility since Gandhi thought that Marching with the Indian people his actions would not only be the best for him but for his
More about How Did South African Americans Contribute To Gandhi Movement
Fahrenheit 451 Gandhi
380 Words | 2 PagesExamples Of 1989 Apush Dbq Essay
657 Words | 3 PagesWhy Did Gandhi's Nonviolent Movement Work?
576 Words | 3 PagesWhat Was Gandhi's Contribution To The American Revolution Dbq
707 Words | 3 PagesDbq Essay On Nonviolence
477 Words | 2 PagesGandhi And Mandela Make A Change Dbq Analysis
899 Words | 4 PagesHow Did South African Americans Change South Carolina
818 Words | 4 PagesHow Did Gandhi Change Dbq
1053 Words | 5 PagesAnalysis Of Henry David Thoreau's Resistance To Civil Government
2124 Words | 9 PagesHow Did Gandhi Contribute To Civil Disobedience
647 Words | 3 PagesResistance Among South African Americans Summary
967 Words | 4 PagesCompare And Contrast Gandhi And Civil Disobedience
515 Words | 3 PagesLetter From A Birmingham Jail, By Martin Luther King Jr.
800 Words | 4 PagesMahatma Gandhi Nonviolence Essay
610 Words | 3 PagesEssay On Civil Disobedience
1360 Words | 6 Pages