Civil Disobedience

From the BBC Radio 4 series about life's big questions - www.bbc.co.uk/historyofideas
A just society has fair laws. But most societies aren’t like that. So what can you do? The opponent of slavery, Henry David Thoreau, gave one answer in his essay ‘On Civil Disobedience’: follow your conscience and break the law on moral grounds rather than be a cog in an unjust system. Ghandi, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King have all inspired generations to make changes to unjust laws through civil disobedience. Stephen Fry explains its origins.
Narrated by Stephen Fry. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.
This project is from the BBC in partnership with The Open University, the animations were created by Cognitive.

[@wyndie]

"Follow your conscience and break the law on moral grounds, rather than be a cog in an unjust system." - Henry David Thoreau

[@xFinalxArenox]

What does that mean? could someone explain?

[@BellicIV]

xFinal xAreno it means go rob a bank because your conscience told you to do it

[@sgurdmeal662]

Damn I didn't think it was likely to meet two people suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome in the same chat @BellicIV & Hello World. It simply means that its better to defy a system that is immoral & unjust than to keep participating in it like nothing's wrong.

[@manavronvelwala4776]

Thanks! lmao ima use this quote for my essay that I'm writing on civil disobedience. you just saved me some time. :)

[@jocelynbayogos7644]

I think robbing a bank defies "civil" disobedience. That quote applies the whole concept of nonviolent disobedience. In his time, Thoreau held back his paying his taxes as a civil disobedience. Can robbing a bank qualify to be a "civil" disobedience? Thieving is an interesting thought, though.

[@horrorservicefilms7451]

The voice of little big planet

[@whateverwhatever2267]

civil disobedience doesn't mean burning buildings, looting, rioting. there's a way to bring about changes without being violent

[@kennethshouler3055]

That is right and a lesson that everyone should adhere to.

[@inocybenapipes4949]

These are superb quality little gems.

[@therealzizmon1748]

This video couldn't be any more relevant than it is right now, during the police brutality protests.

[@musictomyears8]

Antigone: the greatest thesis on civil disobedience and the tragic clash between 'equality before the law' and defending a moral claim

[@barczanskipawek2565]

Beautifull video

[@VivekYadavBlogger]

why don't you make videos like these anymore?

[@sploofmcsterra4786]

Going against the flow of a social system is very difficult, the rules that govern us inside such systems feel almost mandatory. But we must break those rules that are wrong (if they are immoral, inefficient etc.) if we are to weaken their strength and highlight that they are not right and DON'T have to be accepted.

[@jamesabestos2800]

Self destruction, anyone? Or possibly a new view idk but win by ourselves is to mantain control; That going forward should be our top priority when dealing with life. Then we can deal with outside into a situation of panic, stress and hurt getting what we pay in.

[@charleswest6372]

The so-called educational system especially.

[@sakmadik69420]

rules are mandatory? you should know how i react to that as an anarchist😂

[@ChallengeTheNarrative]

Need more open minded people like Steven Fry. A human amongst sheep ☺

[@hyoroemongaming569]

Christian never labeled as ' religion of peace' but muslimphobe cry wolf when they retaliate against opression

[@SYWPiano]

Question: what if a man's conscience is fundamentally contradicting another man's conscience? For example, person A advocates overthrowing a corrupted government through violence and person B advocates non-violent direct actions? And second question is, how do we evaluate if a law is just or not since everyone's conscience is different?

[@paulinabazan1711]

I know this is 4 years late lmao and I do not pretend to hold any concrete answers to your questions, merely pondering on them as well. In regard to the former, I think that in order for those actions to be labeled an act civil disobedience, it has been stated that the action must be non-violent because otherwise it would imply other breaches of morality (?). There's much that can be explored here, but for the sake of me being at my job I'll just stop there. As for the second question, unjust laws tend to affect whole communities of people or tend to cause widespread harm (like climate change), so it is more than "everyone's consciousness is different". The injustice is widely felt and experienced, plus it is evident that it only benefits a specific group of people through the oppression of the other/s or at their expense. For us to evaluate if a law is just or not, we must think beyond our individuality and even beyond the communities we belong to. How is that particular law protecting or harming the overall population? What is the context in which it was passed? What purpose does it serve and for whose benefit and whose loss? What consequences does this law births - long and short term and the extent of these consequences?

[@arottingcorpset90]

Well If my morals says murders ok yet if I act on my morals instead of the law I will suffer by going to jail so what should I do follow my morals and suffer at the hands of the society or obey and not suffer

[@saisreejan7003]

A just society has fair laws, but most societies aren’t like that. So what can we do, The opponent of slavery Henrry David Thoreau gave us one answer in his essay on civil dissobiedience. “Follow your conscience and break the law on moral grounds rather than be a cog in an unjust system”. As he put it “let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. Influenced by Henrry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi Championed nonviolent civil disobedience in his campaign for Indian independence. In 1930 he organised a long march to the sea by picking up a few crystal salt from the mud he defied a british law forbidding indians from making their own salt, Inspiring thousands. On a segregated bus in Alabama in 1955, Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white passenger. She too was arrested. Her symbolic act of defiance helped focus the civil rights movement. Martin Luther King Junior, another fan of Henrry David Thoreau’s essay, staged major protests against unjust laws affecting America’s black community. Laws that were eventually changed as a result. More recently climate change protesters and the Occupi movement have taken on the fight for justice through nonviolent law breaking it’s clear that civil disobedience shouldn’t and will not be discontinued there will always be laws that are thought to be unjust in every society across the Globe

[@EdwardScissorsHands1]

I would love to make the subtitles to these videos, in Portuguese and in English. The question is, do I have permission to do this? If BBC Radio 4 answers me, it would be my pleasure.

[@JoaoPedro428]

Felipe, those videos are under Standard KZbin license, I think there would be no problem once KZbin itself offers the tools to insert the subtitles in its vids:)

[@SandeepKumar-qc1kj]

British still ashamed of admitting that king jr. was influenced by Gandhi. ☹️

[@just-some-menace6138]

I'm not so sure tearing down a statue is "non violent protest".

[@Donteatacowman]

I get a surge of the Cain instinct if we're bringing up Mr. Walden Pond but I'll try to do a little death of the author here...... I mean I sure as heck am not gonna say these champions of human rights were wrong. I used to be a pacifist when I was younger, no ifs/ands/buts. But now I think it's more situational and nuanced than that. Civil disobedience is an amazing tool from a PR standpoint for a movement, right? It works if there's some kind of external audience. Instead of strangers in the government or from other countries seeing a bunch of fighting, shrugging and being like "This seems complicated, we don't know who's at fault," civil disobedience shows a contrasting portrait of "one group, without provocation, is acting violently and unjustly toward another group." In the court of public opinion, that means a lot. But not every fight for civil rights is going to be won or lost by public opinion. I wonder if we previously had hit a sweet spot in global news coverage where people had access to world events but could be en mass entirely removed from the situation. I mean in comparison to a time before radio and telegraph, where news traveled more slowly; or compared to now, when it seems like everyone has an opinion and a party bias that determines how they react to other countries' politics. But, then again, usually when people attribute human behavior to "the media" du jour, they're making excuses (eg "widespread literacy will ruin our kids' memory!" "cheap novels are corrupting our youths' morals!" "tv is rotting our kids' brains!") so I'm probably wrong on this point. Either way, civil disobedience is clearly a way to weaponize publicity. It gets people talking, it gets other people on your side, it may unite members of the oppressed group to have a common game plan. But I think it's only a part of the plan, right? You've gotten attention, you've made the jerks angry... but it seems like there's a missing gap between that, and getting the law changed. I guess I've got to look up the history of these movements now. I like the ending emphasis on non-violent law-breaking. The gut reaction against this seems to be ways of forcing an interpretation of violence onto a nonviolent act. For example, a peaceful protest will be reported as a "gathering riot." Protesters may be called "thugs." Any violence resulting from civil disobedience, even though it's exclusively Group A against the protesting Group B, will end up with Group B accused of "inciting violence." Not to even get into the way people reacted to one dude kneeling at a sports game. Third-party reporters are treated as criminals. I'm sure these kinds of issues were still happening during the 50s and 60s, but I get the impression that racism manifested differently based on area and so there wasn't necessarily a big push in favor of racism from the US feds. But, then again, MLK. So maybe I just need to do some more learning about the history of civil disobedience to understand whether we're facing new challenges or old ones.

[@Donteatacowman]

Trying to oversimplify the mentioned movements into steps (obviously I like being able to type out my thoughts here): Re: Civil rights movement- Complicated history of slavery, reconstruction era, hate groups murdering black citizens, voter suppression... im fast forwarding to the protests sry 1- Boycotts - protesting through finances. Leaflets were distributed, inspiring more boycotts across the nation. Supported through a network of churches 2- Campaigns for local education - teaching people their rights, how to protest, how to pass voting tests 3- Student-led protests - these led to the Brown v Board of Education lawsuit - funded by donation from NAACP and a labor union 4- International press reports - USA federal opinion is that racial segregation, discrimination is causing the US to be under attack in foreign radio 5- Law reform - Due to the supreme court ruling, desegregation is enforced (more quickly in some places than others, and not a peaceful transition). NYC activists continue boycotts and lawsuits to improve conditions in schools. Black children in desegregated schools became targets. Conflict between state and fed government. 6- Sit-ins - Peaceful protests (again mostly student-lead) get national attention on segregation in public spaces, not just schools/buses. Activists network via universities. 7- Freedom riders - Activists test their constitutional right to travel freely on interstate buses without segregation. Some were beaten, arrested, tortured in jail. 8- Law reform - In response to public pressure, feds clarify that desegregation will be enforced on buses 9- Voter rights - Black communities strategize to fight voter suppression. Local authorities evict black voting families. Blacks were beaten/arrested/killed. The local authorities faced a lawsuit; black voters formed a new organization to increase their efforts; anti-black violence escalated 10 - Law reform - Anti-discrimination laws enacted for voters OK. I'm noticing a pattern now. 11. Revolts - riot due to cops killing a young unarmed black boy. Other riots result when peaceful protests are openly attacked by whites. Poor/working class black people participate in higher numbers. President Kennedy pushes for legal reform as an alternative to fighting/self-defense 12. March on Washington - united activists from many liberal organizations pushing for legal reform. Broadcast on TV internationally 13. Armed self-defense - The conversation shifts to protecting black lives. Protests increase but are met with police brutality. Murders of black and Jewish activists make headlines. 14. Law reform - After JFK is assassinated, and after 54 days of filibusters, the Civil Rights Act is passed, making local discriminatory laws illegal. After more public outrage (in response to riots/protests where black people are murdered), the Voting Rights Act is passed. 15. Nationwide riots - In response to more murder, assault, police brutality, the army being deployed against citizens. 16. Law reform - After MLK is assassinated, Fair Housing Act is passed. Local activists continue to lobby for change. Unions and civil rights organizations often work together on local issues. Other events of note that don't fit into a timeline - Birmingham campaign - source of MLK's famous letter. Activists planned to desegregate stores in a section of town. The mayor, one of their political opposition, was voted out but refused to leave office. Activists did sit-ins, kneel-ins (a sit-in but at a church), marches. The city threatened to arrest them but they knew they had a constitutional right to peaceful protest. Many were arrested. High school kids demonstrated at City Hall and were arrested. The next day, more kids to do the same--the cops set dogs and hoses on them. This was nationally broadcasted, causing outrage; feds intervened; city agreed to participate in peace talks and gradually release prisoners. Whites in the city (apparently angry at this concession to civil rights) bombed a motel associated with activists. Thousands of black people rioted--one cop was killed by a black rioter. The hate group bombed a church in retaliation. Simultaneously with the civil disobedience movement, violent conflicts were still happening; some in the NAACP argued in favor of the right to self-defense as opposed to pacifism. Some black people in the south (defending against hate groups--I'm not naming it because KZbin probably censors it) resorted to armed self-defense and sometimes open conflict/riots. This escalated tensions but also may have allowed peaceful protesters to not just be, y'know, immediately murdered. MLK's assassination is not something I can glean from a Wikipedia article. The FBI may or may not have perpetuated this. Please don't @ me, I don't know the answer

[@Donteatacowman]

Omigod ok I can't spend another hour on this, I'm sorry Gandhi. I know even less about the Indian independence movement so maybe I'll summarize it faster? ugh please don't read this as a source for any info. Especially because apparently Wikipedia does not care about India as much as America and information is less detailed Colonialism bad. England took over India via the East India Company's army. They made English mandatory, tried to wipe out Indian culture. History of rebellions from military leaders, Islamic preacher, Indian royalty. Big revolt, Britain took over ruling directly with promises of equal rights but increased military presence. India (previously a lot of smaller countries/territories) begins to form collective groups against Great Britain. Britain attempts to control India through force and by symbolic gestures (letting Indians have political positions that are not threatening to British rule) 1- Satyagraha - The term Gandhi used for nonviolent resistance, meaning (approx) holding firm to truth, or truth-force--in English he used "civil resistance" instead of "civil disobedience" to bring attention to the strength, not passivity, of the practice. In South Africa, Gandhi used satyagraha via boycotting, protest marching, fasting 2- Strike / hartal, demonstrations - Great Britain decided to keep its extra regulatory powers from WW1 (silencing press, no right to a trial). Many in India stop work in protest. In response, a British military commander opened fire on an unarmed crowd of demonstrators, including children. 3- Nationalism - Gandhi called for boycotts of British imports, refusal to pay British taxes. 4- Protests and violence - Police beat, arrest, and then open fire on protesters. Protesters set the police station on fire. Martial law was implemented; Brits raided and arrested Indians. Indian leaders (including Gandhi) halted the movement due to violence. Gandhi arrested, released after 2 years. 5- Calls for sovereignty - Indian National Congress demands self-rule, threatening civil disobedience. (Note - schism between the Congress and Indian Muslims becomes deeper at this time) 6- Law reform - Britain conceded to some demands; the call for sovereignty was a failure but became a national talking point 7- Revolution - Nationalism rises in popularity, is suppressed; some revolutionaries are executed by Britain, which suppressed local uprisings by force; some political dissidents afterwards splinter into the Congress or other parties like the Communist party. (This section is confusing and lacking detail - I need to go soon or I'd look at other sources) 8- WW2 - India "joins" Britain in WW2 without being consulted first. WW2 unpopular with members of the Congress, but popular with many Muslim and Sikh politicians as well as many in the general population who volunteered for the army. Attempts to rebel against Britain are defeated and do not seem to have popular support 9- Quit India movement - Civil disobedience, especially garnished women's support as men were in the war; the movement was still controversial. Britain arrests many. Some Indian parties that wanted Indian self-rule opposed this movement 10- Mutinies - Some Indian sailors mutiny against their British captains during the war. This inspired mass strikes and public support 11 - Post-war transition - International pressure (esp from the US for financial reasons) required Britain to loosen control of colonies. India was split into India and Pakistan, both self-ruling. Local government took over from British government. Yeah... this is not a good summary. Apparently Islam was a big force for change but I don't have the details. Note to self. Read more books

[@TheTaytaygirl27]

@@Donteatacowman Thanks for taking the time to write all this!!

[@patrickcourtney796]

You left out what the Bible says “every sole is to be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority which God has not ordained “ Romans 13

[@imjustsayingtho1464]

0:20 - 0:30

[@adambellair5353]

Hi mrs moullec I Hope you enjoy your vacation thank you for this wonderful year and I hope I’ll have you as a teacher next year 📈📈

[@melinegirault1309]

Y’a des gens de première 8 là?

[@lorchhayheang4760]

Do we have a fair society in the world today? can anyone answer me

[@mysslei7298]

“There will always be laws that are thought to be unjust in every society across the Globe.” The world is a very big place so yes, I promise you, there are still unjust laws in place.

[@rossedwards09]

Who’s here after the America White House ting ting

[@dariowestern]

I am a nudist, and this video is something that every single nudist on the planet can learn from.

[@theabyss4894]

Too short

[@leonardocasali3720]

Protestos ambientais são contrários à desobediência civil. Já que eles são a favor de um estado grande e que oprima as pessoas, forçando-se a pagar mais caro em produtos que sejam “ambientalmente corretos”, o que é uma visão Antagonista a de trudeau

[@enzn143]

ao inves de fazer comentarios anedoticos e nao fundamentados, você poderia ter ido procurar as verdadeiras reinvidicações dos protestantes...

[@2002cc]

1:36 woah the 2019 climate change protest just happened right before I watched this. Coincidence? I think not. :D THANKS FOR THIS VID! SUPER HELPFUL FOR MY TEST TMR!

[@shrikrishnajugtawat4639]

I know a bit about Mahatma Gandhi. He was called "Bapu" in India and (as much as i remember) it means Father. After independence the Indian State gave him the honor of being called the "Father of Nation".

[@Maqalx]

La 12 on est là

[@pballant0537]

Par hasard t’as pas les réponses comme t’es là perso je dois les avoirs pour demain 😭

[@Maqalx]

@@pballant0537 Deso jviens de voir le message

[@Maqalx]

@@pballant0537 t a sjp?

[@Brax-qv4kv]

there is a girl in my class that's named rosa, so we call her rosa parks...

[@DiolicePimenta-gz2jz]

Too funny bro

[@timkbirchico8542]

so why dont people apply this obvious truth? the world would be a better place if we all in the cause of a fair system did so.

[@JohnSmith-ex9mv]

HEY TOMMY TOMMY

[@MUSIC4TRUTH....]

Legal acts are not laws.

[@fridom381]

Wesh les STI !

[@marinoch49]

maten me paro!!!!!!

[@isaacaguirre4527]

I love when cops own this guys