Summary Of Letter From Birmingham Jail By Joshua Wong
In my first essay, I wrote on the topic that Joshua Wong is the representative of rebellion because he employed nonviolent methods to protest against the established rules and restrictions imposed by the China Central Communist Party on both youth education and public election. Although, I did explain the distinctiveness of Wong’s nonviolence style of protest and rebellion against the established rules, still I failed to illustrate the reasons why nonviolence is better than a violent one. After reading the Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King and doing my research about Hong Kong localism protest, I developed a better understanding of nonviolent protest. Wong’s nonviolent protest is indeed a preferable option of rebellion in Hong
…show more content…
According to him, nonviolent movement stands in the middle of “the force of complacency”, which dedicated to a passive agreement to the existing unjust racial segregation, and “the force of bitterness and hatred”, which sought to use extreme violence against the white and the racists (King). In addition, he further explains that complacency will result in political stagnation and a prolonged suffering of African Americans, while extreme violent protest will cause the South to “be flowing with floods of blood” (King). In other words, unlike the other two extreme options, nonviolent protest is a kind of rebellion that is full of love and compassion. It will not only prevent inhuman and brutal clashes between different groups, but also open the door for negotiation and changes. And more importantly, compared to violent protest, which involves injuries and even killings in order to achieve certain goals, nonviolent protest is able to achieve those goals at a minimal cost or …show more content…
After I finished my research about the viability of localism in Hong Kong, I arrived at the conclusion that this type of extremism would not help Hong Kong’s democratic progress because it would not generate public support and would meet even more violent confrontations from the authority. In fact, demonstrators employed violent methods like throwing projectiles, setting things on fire, beating the police in the Mong Kok riot. And the police responded by using pepper spray and firing rubber bullets. Such violence was a complete deviation from Hong Kong’s previous civil disobedience. In addition, it had resulted in numerous injuries, arrestments and public destruction. Three of the demonstrators were sentenced three-year jail term for setting fire on a taxi and several civilians and policemen were severely beaten up. Therefore, Mong Kok riot not only failed to advance the rights of the people, but also created enormous damage to lives and public facilities. In essence, violence only produces more violence and more radicalization. Extreme localism will only trap Hong Kong into a loop of endless violent clashes between civilians and government, and political progress can hardly
According to him, nonviolent movement stands in the middle of “the force of complacency”, which dedicated to a passive agreement to the existing unjust racial segregation, and “the force of bitterness and hatred”, which sought to use extreme violence against the white and the racists (King). In addition, he further explains that complacency will result in political stagnation and a prolonged suffering of African Americans, while extreme violent protest will cause the South to “be flowing with floods of blood” (King). In other words, unlike the other two extreme options, nonviolent protest is a kind of rebellion that is full of love and compassion. It will not only prevent inhuman and brutal clashes between different groups, but also open the door for negotiation and changes. And more importantly, compared to violent protest, which involves injuries and even killings in order to achieve certain goals, nonviolent protest is able to achieve those goals at a minimal cost or …show more content…
After I finished my research about the viability of localism in Hong Kong, I arrived at the conclusion that this type of extremism would not help Hong Kong’s democratic progress because it would not generate public support and would meet even more violent confrontations from the authority. In fact, demonstrators employed violent methods like throwing projectiles, setting things on fire, beating the police in the Mong Kok riot. And the police responded by using pepper spray and firing rubber bullets. Such violence was a complete deviation from Hong Kong’s previous civil disobedience. In addition, it had resulted in numerous injuries, arrestments and public destruction. Three of the demonstrators were sentenced three-year jail term for setting fire on a taxi and several civilians and policemen were severely beaten up. Therefore, Mong Kok riot not only failed to advance the rights of the people, but also created enormous damage to lives and public facilities. In essence, violence only produces more violence and more radicalization. Extreme localism will only trap Hong Kong into a loop of endless violent clashes between civilians and government, and political progress can hardly