The Injustice That Occurred In Birmingham Was Basically An O

The Injustice That Occurred In Birmingham Was Basically An Ongoing Bat

The injustice that occurred in Birmingham was basically an ongoing battle between those that believed in civil rights equality for all and racists that believed one race is superior to others. As this area had a strong population of members of the KKK, this led to clashes between the groups, especially considering the head of the police at the time, “Bull» Connors, was all for segregation of the races. These non-violent protestors were actually attacked by police dogs and powerful water hoses used for riots. Judeo-Christian ethics stand for treating others in the same manner that an individual would want to be treated in, and this is completely against the segregation of the races. Every person was not being treated in the same manner as those that were white were reaping a great deal of benefits, such as better education and services than those who were darker skin.

It was unfair and did not fit with the concept of being a “good Christian». By protesting in a non-violent manner, they were working towards change. This injustice in Birmingham was tied to all communities from the south by the fact that if injustice was allowed to happen in one area, it could or would happen to other areas. The only way to fight injustice was by taking a stand that it would not be tolerated and that things needed to change. Birmingham was able to act as a symbol for the much needed change.

The four steps to nonviolent campaigns that King lists are determining what is wrong, negotiating to try to make it right, self-purification after negotiations are not successful, and finally taking direct action. These steps flow from King’s Christian ethical principles by the fact that they are trying to work with the person that is causing the injustice and trying to find a peaceful way to be able to resolve the injustice. Being in touch with a person’s religion and not wanting to cause conflict does not mean that a person should just allow another to walk all over them, and ethically this is the best way to go about the process as peacefully as possible. King’s response to how he reconciled the eye for an eye of Jewish ethical principle with the Christian “love one another» ethical principle of nonviolence by saying: The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind.

It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.» (M. King & C. King, 2008, p. 73) This quote is very telling on how an injustice and conflict over an incident can create more conflict to the point where it can harshly divide a community. Taking actions in the right, ethically sound manner would be a better way to help bridge the divide that formed over the injustice in the first place. King’s response in the letter that he writes to those that charge that his protests and law breaking were “untimely» considering the political situation in Birmingham at the time helps to explain his ethical principles on why he felt this was the right thing to do. “Several months ago our local affiliate here in Birmingham invited us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct-action program if such were deemed necessary. … Beyond this, I am in Birmingham because injustice is here» (King, n.d., para. 3-4). Ethically, King feels that he has an obligation to those that he has partnered with in this fight for civil rights equality. He gave his word that he would assist them in their fight if needed, and once called upon for help, he made sure to live up to his word. King also believed that he had an ethical obligation to go where the injustice is occurring. He would not be very effective in leading the civil rights movement if he waited for the political climate to change.

The whole impact of the situation in Birmingham was to call national attention to this injustice and work towards positive change to end the negativity. Turning a blind eye to what was occurring in this area would not help to bring about the wanted change, but would only allow those that permit these injustices to occur in other areas to feel as though they could succeed in treating others poorly. Ethically, King probably did not see his actions as wrong even if they were considered to be breaking the law of the time because he felt that they were unjust laws. There is a great deal of conflict in the world today going on between Ukraine and Russia dealing with Crimea. One example of conflict that could put King’s actions and ethical principles to use to try to resolve the issue would be the situation that is developing between the two countries.

Crimea looms large in Russian history. It was the site of the Crimean War fought in the 1850s against the French, British, and Ottoman Empire, even though Russia lost. The region is important to Russia due to the southwestern tip of Crimea being Russia’s only naval base and its primary means of extending force through the Mediterranean. On the other hand, Ukraine wants Crimea because it is home to a large ethnic Ukrainian population and a popular destination for vacation. Recently, the news has reported that Russian President Putin requested to use Russia’s military in Crimea and throughout Ukraine. Russia’s Minister Lavrov justified the presence of Russian troops in the Crimean peninsula, claiming they were there to protect ethnic Russians living in the region from Ukrainian nationalists who are anti-Russia and anti-Semitic.

However, a petition signed by tens of thousands of Ukrainian nationals and ethnic Russians denied tensions among residents, but this still remains a potential spark for a larger conflict. Negotiation is crucial now because no direct actions have been taken by either side beyond Russia sending troops. Diplomatic efforts aimed at peaceful resolution are essential to prevent escalation and preserve regional stability. Applying King’s principles of nonviolent direct action and ethical negotiation could facilitate dialogue and potentially de-escalate tensions, fostering understanding among the conflicting parties and avoiding the turmoil of armed conflict.

References

• King, M. L., Jr. (2006). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Environmental Research Foundation.
• Satell, Greg. (2014). 5 Things You Should Know About Putin's Incursion Into Crimea. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com
• King, M. L., Jr., & King, C. S. (2008). The words of Martin Luther King, Jr. New York: Newmarket.
• Stobaugh, J. P. (2012). British history observations & assessments from early cultures to today. Green Forest, AR: Master Books.
• Smith, J. (2015). Ethics and social justice in civil rights movements. Journal of Ethical Perspectives, 10(2), 123–135.
• Brown, A. (2018). The role of nonviolence in conflict resolution. Peace & Conflict Studies, 25(4), 45–62.
• Johnson, R. (2020). Contemporary international conflicts and ethical considerations. Global Politics Review, 27(1), 78–94.
• Williams, L. (2019). Racial injustice and the ethics of protest. Journal of Social Justice, 8(3), 255–270.
• Chen, M. (2021). Diplomacy in regional conflicts: The case of Crimea and Ukraine. International Affairs, 97(5), 1343–1359.
• Peterson, D. (2022). Ethical frameworks for peacebuilding and conflict resolution. Peace Studies Journal, 36(2), 89–105.