America the Racist Tyrant Essay -- essays research papers

America the Racist Tyrant In "The Declaration of Independence," Thomas Jefferson shows the King of Great Britain acting as a tyrant to the colonies, and Jefferson declared America to be free from Britain. In the "Letter from Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King Jr. writes to a clergyman logically analyzing criticisms while communicating to the public his arguments. Jefferson fought for freedom and right for America. King also fought for better civil rights for his black people. They both fought for their people, King however fought peacefully with white people, who in return were cruel. This comparing Jefferson's and King's fought for freedom, different skin color demonstrates racism causing unfairness to this day still exists because the fight for justice and rights still exist which calls for a social contract. Every single human being has a right to life, civil rights, and freedom. This is a right that Americans base their government on. Jefferson states that "all men are created equal" and man should naturally stand for every single person, no matter what color or sex they are. (53) Equality in all men however is untrue. Different race, religion or gender often causes conflicts between people. Conflicts results in discrimination against groups. This can be shown through King's fight for black's civil rights. Americans already have freedom and rights, however, the black people are still being looked down. For King and his people, they were treated without respect. The black people "have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God-given rights."(217) The black people have waited silently while everyone else received their God-given rights. They are rights that everyone should possess; however, the black Americans did not because of their color. People are often judged according to the color of their skin. This judging of another person is often negative and is known as racism. America is known as the melting pot with all kinds of race living there. It is clear that no matter how big a melting pot, it can not contain all race mixed together. As a black man, King witnessed and experienced racism during the segregation period. People were "haunted by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro" shows that black people were being discriminated.(218) This judging and disrespe... ...or poor, strong or weak in rights to have freedom and justice. Just as Jefferson "has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of Government" (54). The colonies have also found equality between them and Britain by becoming an independent government. As King puts it "oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever" (222) people are forever fighting and yearning for freedom from justice. In conclusion, Jefferson demonstrates that by declaring independence, thirteen colonies have given themselves their rightful freedom. However, these freedoms were given mainly to the white. The black, like King, fights nonviolently hard to change the society and government slowly to receive the same justice and freedoms as the whites. When comparing the people in Jefferson's time and the people in King's time, it is surprising to see that they are both fighting for similar rights on the same grounds, yet King is fighting for it later when America already have the rights. This concludes that racism indeed plays an important role in our past and present as we try to be free from other judges.

Comaprison Theorist Essay

Sigmund Freud’s approach to personality would be and still is a debate within our society today. Researchers and psychologist are still observing his approach and there are still unanswered questions. One approach Freud did not use was how our society and culture would effect the person we all would become. The one thing that most Neo-Freudian’s agreed on was that early childhood experiences would have an effect on your personality development. Freud laid the path for psychologist and many would take what they learned from him and go in their own direction. Alfred Adler was one Neo-Freudian that disagreed with Freud. Their disagreement was not only professional it became personal. Adler approach was called the individual psychology. He helped us understand personality with striving for superiority, how our parents were an influence on our personalities as children and the effect of our birth order. Adler like Freud believed that your earlier years were important when it came to shaping your personality when you became and adult. One thing Adler believed is that the parent’s role would affect the child. The first thing parents should not do is give the child too much attention. By stating this Adler meant pampering. He believed that pampering would take away children’s independence. They become more dependent on people, and they don’t learn how to make their own decisions. He believed that they should be able to make mistakes and make their own decisions, because this would be good for them and they would learn to be more dependent. Another mistake  parents make stated Adler was they would not give children enough attention, which would lead to neglect. If children don’t receive enough attention they would grow up to be distant, and would not know how to be intimate or carry on a relationship. Adler was the first psychologist to mention that the order in which you were born would shape your personality. Comparison of Theorists3 Carl Jung also would leave Freud and Freud would feel betrayed by that. He took him leaving personal as well. Jung was curious with religious concepts. He would take Freud’s idea of unconscious and put his own twist to it. We as people would inherit our physical characteristics, but Jung believed we inherited unconscious psychic characterics as well. After Jung left Freud he would travel around the world and study other cultures and this is were he would base his theory on. He relied a lot on ancient mythology and Eastern religion. Jung believed that the collective unconscious is made up by something called the primordial images. These images would help people respond to our society in a different way, there called archetypes. Basically Jung would describe the collective unconscious as the concept of instincts. He also believed that every man had a feminine side and female had a masculine side. He had three archetypes that he spoke on the anima which is the feminine side of the male, and the animus is the masculine side of female. Stating this, Jung was the first psychologist to point out people would have both male and female characteristics within themselves. Another archetype he had was called the shadow. The shadow was known as the dark side that people would possess. It does not actually mean that people are evil. The main thing that Jung is known for was his focus on introversive and extroversive types. An introvert was someone who focused more inwardly, this person was not the social type and focused more on themselves. An extravert focus just the opposite their focus was outward. Jung, like Freud would stay on the topic of human behavior. Karen Horney was a female psychologist who disagreed with how Freud viewed women. Freud stated that men and women were born with different personalities. (pg 111 n.d.). Horney would disagree with that, she thought  that our social and culture played a bigger role in our  Comparison of Theorists4  personality then biology. She studied a term called neurosis, which means neurotic. Horney’s definition of neurotic is that people are trapped in a self-defeating interpersonal style. The way people interact with others prevents them from developing the social contact they unconsciously crave. (pg 112 n.d.). This will lead to a defense mechanism to help with their feeling of anxiety. Freud would say neurosis was an unconscious battle between various aspects of personality. Horney would state that it would start off in your childhood. Horney had three styles neurotics would use to avoid anxiety experiences. They were called â€Å"moving away from people†, â€Å"moving toward people†, â€Å"moving against people.† Moving away from people, this is when children would learn to just tune people out. When in a hostile environment or situation, instead of engaging with the others they would just tune the person out. Basically ignore the situation. As adults they become sheltered. They would find jobs with little interactions and they would reframe from being in a relationship or intimate. These people would become emotionless and if attached to someone or something the feeling of emptiness while a child would all return. Moving toward people, these people become very dependent on others. They yearn for affection and strive to get accepted by their parents. This yearning would temporally relive them for any anxiety they are having, but in later years they would rely on this. As adults they would have more then usual need for love and affection. They don’t want to be lonely, and believe that any relationship they are in is a relationship. They are demanding affection and don’t know how to love, they are more clingy. Moving against people, these people would rather fight. They have the urge to have power while pushing around children. These individuals believe that being aggressive and mean you can get what you can in that form. You basically take control of the matter before anyone else does. One thing that Horney debated about was Freud theory on  Comparison of Theorists5  women. Freud stated women had â€Å"penis envy†, which is the desire that every girls as to be a boy†(pg 114 n.d.). Horney disagreed and stated that men envy us women and the ability we have to bear and nurse children, this was called the â€Å"womb envy†. Horney was not stating that men were not pleased with themselves but simply stating that we all have qualities that each other admirer. Horney did point out when Freud was making his theory on woman that he was living in a time where woman were treated the way they should have been, he was living in a era where the culture would have helped his influence on the decisions he made for women. Erick Erikson would use some of Freud ideas in his theory; he would add some of his own ideas. Freud believed that the ego was between id impulses and superego demand; however Erikson believed that the ego played a bigger part. Erikson believed that the ego played a powerful, independent part of personality. (pg 106 n.d.). It would help with your identity, and your need to over come the environment. Your ego is to help you get your sense of identity. The term identity crisis comes from Erikson. You would usually find this in adolescents; they seem to not know which way they are going in life. Freud ended his personality development around six years of age, as for Erikson he said it would continue throughout a person’s life. By saying this he gave us eight stages that start from when you are a baby until you’re at an old age. The first stage is basic trust versus mistrust this stage is during infancy years, newborns have no choice but to rely on everyone around them. Autonomy versus shame and doubt is during the toddler’s years, when children want to feel powerful and independent. At the toddler stage Adler stated parents should not pamper, as for Erikson he stated they should not be overprotective at this stage. Initiative versus guilty is early childhood, children learn how to organize and they will learn to set goals and kick down and challenges that come their way. Industry versus. Comparison of Theorists6  inferiority is elementary school age years, this when children soon find out  there is more competition out their in the world. Identity versus role confusion is adolescence years, when teenagers find out who they are and what they want in life. Intimacy versus isolation is young adulthood years, when you seek for the relationship you have always longed for. Generatively versus stagnation is adulthood years, when you want to guide the next generation because you feel as though you have not done everything you want in your life. Ego integrity versus despair is old age years, when you look at your past life and smile you know you have that sense of integrity, but if you don’t you know at this time, it’s too late because time is short now. These four Neo-Freudians have their own approach on personality psychology. When reading all of their perspectives, I would agree to disagree with most. I agreed with Erikson’s approach with the eight stages, Horney was believable because I am a woman and I could relate to where she was coming with her feminine psychology approach. Jung was the more vibrant one and he dug deep into different cultures, and I disagreed with Adler’s approach with the birth order, but would agree with his perspective on how parents pampered and neglected their children. So like there are still debates and intellectual conversations about personality psychology, I would have to debate as well, because there are so many different approaches you can lean towards when it comes to this topic. Comparison of Theorists7 References Burger, J. (2010). Personality. CengageLearning. Eighth edition

A Christian Philosophy on Civil Disobedience - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2665 Downloads: 6 Date added: 2019/05/13 Category Society Essay Level High school Tags: Civil Disobedience Essay Did you like this example? In todays society, it is not unusual for the common people to disagree with the forces governing them. Recent studies estimate that only one out of every five Americans trusts the government (CNN). The relating question that is more difficult to answer, is when is a simple disagreement enough to allow disobedience? People tend to find it hard to discern when it is acceptable to disobey the government, because it is generally assumed that a world where no one listens to higher authority, and does what they themselves want, is one of chaos. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "A Christian Philosophy on Civil Disobedience" essay for you Create order Though people are in agreement of the above statement, that is about the only area where their ideas overlap. The various thoughts and concepts regarding civil disobedience are abundant and range to very different points on the spectrum. Through analyzation of the numerous opposing views on civil disobedience, it becomes evident that the one that most certainly coincides best with Christian thinking, is the Anti-Promulgation or sometimes but only if argument. When discussing the issue of civil disobedience, there are mainly just two extremist views and one that falls in the middle. One of the extremist views is radical patriotism or the idea that it is never, under any circumstances, ok to disobey the government. The typical radical patriot believes that a world without law is chaotic and that any law, no matter how unjust it is, is better than no law at all (Geisler 273). Many famous people, including philosopher John Locke, would fall into the category of this, saying that, wherever law ends tyranny begins(Geisler 274). Though this viewpoint can seem a little extreme, it is important to note that most of the argument for it comes from the bible. The radical patriots typically think that the government is ordained by God, and therefore should always be followed under any circumstance. They use verses such as Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1 to show that God commands his people to follow the government, so if they do not they are disobeying God (Geisler 253). One of the most popular verses supporting this argument says, He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted. There have also been distinct places in the Bible where God has called people to submit to rulers who were unjust, the biggest example being Nero. Christians who disagree with this view say that the radicals are taking these scripture verses out of context, thu s distorting the intended message. Verses such as Exodus 1:20 clearly contradict the ones mentioned by Radical Patriotists, because it shows the women disobeying the pharaoh to save childrens lives, and God is pleased with them afterward. Related ideas are also introduced in Daniel 3, where the government commanded the people to worship idols, in which the children defied, and worshipped God instead. They too were rewarded by God. Though verses such as these can clearly put the idea of radical patriotism to rest, the supporters of this view claim that those were singular instances, and are not enough to be referenced and used to justify disobeying the government. Other arguments against radical patriotism include verses from Romans. Romans 13:4 says that those in authority are, Gods servants to do you good. This verse implies that people in authority are supposed to be just, and if they are not, one should be able to disobey them, because they are not following God either. However, a question that arises, in this case, is, just because someone in authority is not following Gods word, does that mean one should follow that example? Refutations to radical patriotism are not only limited to biblical instances either. There have been multiple occurrences in history where public people were commanded by governing forces to commit heinous crimes that violate human rights. Humanitarian a uthor, Odd Nansen referenced the Holocaust when writing on this issue. He discussed the harsh conditions that Jewish people were put through in Germany during this period, and said that though citizens were told to report where they were, many of them proceeded to help and hide Jews, in order to protect them from the inhumane treatment they were bound to receive. (Urquhart 153). He goes on to say that anyone with a heart and a conscience could realize that disobeyal to the government is what needed to happen at that point, and through the bible says that the government should generally be followed, there comes a point where laws of humanity need to hold precedent. The second extremist view when it comes to civil disobedience is the idea that the government should never be obeyed, and that the individual has the right to do what they want at all times. Most of the people who fall into this category are against the government for personal reasons and have separated themselves from it altogether. These people typically say that ones duty is to follow laws of humanity, not the ones of the world (Thoreau 311). Some of these people also agree with the idea of personal gain and gratification over that of the whole. Henry David Thoreau, a famous philosopher who falls into this view said that the government has proved time and time again that it is unjust, in its sup port of slavery and unnecessary war crimes, and therefore is not something to be followed. However, he also makes it clear that his issue lies with the democratic government of America, and not all forms of governments. Thoreau and many others who agree with this viewpoint say that the idea of democracy in the way that it is currently used is simply a facade and that though it does not appear that the whole is being controlled, they actually are. Thoreau says that basing hard decisions off of what the majority of the people want leads inevitably to failure since the majority of people can collective select the wrong choice. He also says that the government and all of its rules actually limit the progression of the American society and that he himself has washed himself clean of any dealings with it. In his life, he was actually arrested many times for blatantly disobeying the government and not paying taxes. Since the current form of government is actually a fairly new concept, he does not think it is really such a bad thing to refuse to follow it. Thoreau says that the people should do want they want because they are the ones who do the hard work. The government does not keep the country free. The government does not settle the west. The government does not educate. He says that since the public are the ones who take responsibility for everything else, they should be the ones deciding what they can and cannot do. The idea that obedience to the government actually hurts more than it helps is a common one shared among those who identify with this belief. Erich Fromm said, All martyrs of religious faith, freedom, and science have had to disobey those who wanted to muzzle them in order to obey their own consciences, the laws of humanity, and reason. Fromm makes it clear that he believes disobeying the governing forces is actually necessary for the growth of an individual and of a society. The people who come up with new ideas for the progression of the whole typically are straying from what is normally accepted, and in the end, it is rewarding. Fromm says that in the past, people have wrongly associated obedience with virtue, and disobedience with sin, and this is why people so commonly think that disobedience is automatically a bad thing. On the history of obedience, Fromm says that it originated with the rich wanting to keep the poor, poor, and in line, so they taught them the idea that obeying rules was necessary for their growth. He notes that those who do go against the norm require a lot of courage and bravery, and even goes as far to say that disobeying can build character. Most people who believe this view are also non-religious. This is an important fact to note because, in the same way that they reject rules of the government, they feel the need to reject the rules in the Bible. People in this view tend to believe that following rules hinder the freedom and abilities of the individual and that the government tends to be distorted and used in negative ways anyway. Thoreau says, I heartily accept the motto that the government is best that governs the least, I also believe the government is best which not governs at all. Thoreau makes his aversion to the government in place very clear and though is typically remembered to be Anti-Christian, some of his reasoning for being on this extremist side of the spectrum overlaps with Christian beliefs (Geisler 273). The final view and the one most people fall into is the idea that civil disobedience is necessary at some times, but most of the time, the government should be followed. The reason this view is most popular is due to the fact that it in itself is very lenien t and non-binding, making it the most inclusive of collective ideas. These factors, however, can also lead to very different views within this view itself. Since various areas differ strikingly in standards of living, it becomes hard to distinguish what civil disobedience actually means in each context (Thoreau 310). This in the middle perspective can break apart into three other views, two religiously based, and one that encapsulates those who do not believe in religion. However, the non-religious people who fall into this view most often base their ideas on morality, many of which coincide with what the Bible preaches. The non-religious side of this view uses both reason and claims of an innate sense of what is right and wrong to justify their disobedience. One of the most popular arguments here is the notion that there is nothing to say that those who are in the roles governing the people, have no more preparation than the people themselves. The idea is that people elected for positions in power are only superior in their charismativity, and not intelligence. Since there is no reason to assume that those in power are somehow more capable than other humans to foresee events or deal with them accordingly, there is no reason to allow them to make decisions that need to be followed at all times. T he other side of this argument says that humans have a moral obligation as people to reject what is wrong and do what is right, and that somehow is able to discern them from something within themselves. This view does, however, make sure to note that while the law should not be followed so strictly that it harms people, it does still have an important role in society. This view also says that disobeyal is justified if the only reason for obedience is fear. It says that genuine obedience should come from the heart, and if it does not, it leaves a constant threat of revolution anyway (Geisler 127). On the subject, Spanish pacifist, Salvador de Margarida states that legitimate law should be followed, while illegitimate law should be ignored. He continues on to say that if an individual knows for a fact that they are right, and the majority is wrong, then said disobedience is justified. However, making such a claim requires a lot of arrogance, and leaves an abundant room for error. (Urquhart 157). Refutations for this belief are evident as well. First, is the idea that those in power are more adequately equipped than others, in the fact that they usually undergo schooling before pursuing their roles. Secondly, is the fact that the morals one is supposed to listen to in accordance with this argument have no credible source, giving no real reason as to why they should be followed. It also creates a blurred line, because everyone now becomes liable to following their own individual sense of what it means to be moral. An unclear line is also credited in what defines a legitimate law from an illegitimate one, and even Salvador de Margarida said himself that it was a question he had not yet found the answer to. The Christian based arguments in this view are called biblical submissions. This breaks into two further arguments; the anti-compulsion and the anti-promulgation argument. The anti compulsion view says that all law should be followed, except that which reaches the point of compelling one to go against what the Bible says. The anti promulgation view says that if the law allows evil behavior, even though it may not compel it, disobedience is justified (Geisler 257). Obviously, these two ideas are virtually the same except for the minor detail of allowing, and inciting evil behavior. The support for this view says that the government, is under Gods law, it is not Gods law(Geisler 254). They also state that a government without Gods law is considered a tyranny. Similarly to the non-religious side from this middle viewpoint, the notion that there is a moral code to obey before that of the government comes into play. However, as said before, this viewpoints morality comes from the Bible, whereas the others is from oneself. The anti-compulsion and anti-promulgate say that humans are bound together only by Gods law, and we should do whatever possible to protec t each other from anti-biblical principles. Herbert Read, who identifies with this view says, Civil Disobedience is the weapon of those who despair justice. We disobey the laws of the state because we believe that the state is lawless and can no longer protect our lives and liberties. (Urquhart). He also says that he supports this view because he believes that all issues can and should be solved by non-violent means, which the American government does not support. There have been instances, recently in culture where civil disobedience has occurred on religious grounds. In 2016, a young Christian woman decided to climb the North Carolina state capitol flagpole, and tear down the Confederate flag hanging there. She was arrested, and while being carried away by the police recited Psalms 23. She continued on to say, In the name of Jesus, this flag has to come down. You come against me with hatred and oppression and violence. I come against you in the name of God. This flag comes down today.. Though it is debatable whether or not the flag being there hindered her abilities to do as called to in the bible, there is no question that the use of civil disobedience in the church is still evident. However, some do still have arguments and concerns against the anti-promulgation and anti-compulsion views. Most of which who are against this view, are non-christian. These people say that blaming disobedience on a higher being can lead to a state of disorder. Blaming bias against conservative Christian culture-warring only goes so far. After all, most people instinctively realize that society can not function if everyone feels free to ignore laws they oppose. Replacing the rule of law with the rule of private conscience is a recipe for anarchy. (Koyzik) The concept of civil disobedience is one that has to apply to Christian life and thinking because as people who are ultimately called to follow the rules of God, it is necessary to consider if the earthly rules hold importance as well. Taking both scripture and laws of humanity into account, the idea that the government should only not be followed when infringing on ones ability to do as God called or the anti-promulgate view, is the one that appeals mostly to how a Christian should think. Since the overarching purpose as a Christian is to bring others to know Christ, the only time one should disobey the government, is when it is hindering on their ability to do so. Though sometimes it is necessary, God makes it abundantly clear in the Bible that the leadership put in place is still important, and should be followed when possible.