Hero. Lawbreaker. Martyr. All are words used to describe the legendary Mahatma Gandhi, the archetypal hero widely known for practicing nonviolent resistance. Having studied law in England during his adolescent years, Gandhi was very well-informed in European affairs, so when he returned to India upon conclusion of his studies, he was quite well equipped to contest the discriminatory and anti-humanist attitudes the British held towards the Indians they ruled. Despite being better known for his nonviolent resistance, which does not necessarily correlate directly with civil disobedience, most of what he did falls into both categories. Gandhi carried out multiple forms of civil disobedience. When ordered to move from a certain spot on a train, …show more content…
Gandhi played a huge role in getting India’s independence granted and never hurt anyone while doing so. As such, his work was largely beneficial to society as a whole; he advocated for a society with more equality, better rights, and did so while causing little harm. This shows that based on circumstances, free society can gain powerful benefits through civil disobedience. Martin Luther King Jr. is another example; if not for the work of him and others like Malcolm X, who knows how civil rights would be in the modern era? However, one needs to consider the controversy and the issues that can arise when civil disobedience and acts similar to it are performed. Take Collin Kaepernick; while refusing to respect the Pledge of Allegiance is not illegal, and as such his act cannot be termed as civil disobedience, it is similar to civil disobedience in that he is ignoring a standard procedure which is done by nearly everybody and is almost always considered a morally good procedure. He does so in favor of exercising his right to free speech and protesting inequality, but the controversy that has arisen is enormous. People are worried that the football player will negatively influence fans to follow in his footsteps, and that he and other players like him are being offensive and arrogant as a whole. One must, however, consider the intent