Similarities Between The 1940's And The Civil Rights Movement

In addressing two of the more significant human rights struggles of the 20th century, the Holocaust in the 1940’s and the civil rights movement in the 1960’s, one finds many similarities between the struggles of both oppressed peoples. In both societies, laws inhibited and prohibited many actions and freedoms of Jewish and African Americans, respectively. The proactive actions of individuals in the American civil rights movement succeeded in changing laws because of their willingness to disobey unjust laws. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for prominent individuals during the reign of the Nuremberg laws and Nazi anti-Semitism. With the success it met with it’s application in the American civil rights Movement, civil disobedience
A method that has been around since biblical times, civil disobedience has been used throughout the centuries as a way to protest unjust laws. The head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and de facto leader of the entire civil rights moment was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A man deeply rooted in his Christian faith, Dr. King was a frequent advocate for non-violent and civilly disobedient protests. This often included sit-ins in known places of legal segregation, such as restaurants or the “Freedom Rides.” Even purported white supporters of racial equality challenged this method. To them, allowing or supporting the breaking of any law would lead to chaos and
The head organizer for Hitler’s “solutions to the Jewish problem,” Eichmann was being held personally responsible for the deaths of many Jews. During the trial, it was made clear that during the time, he did not so much worry that what he was doing was wrong, but rather about obeying the laws set forth by the Reich. He claims to have been a “Pontius Pilate” character, one with his hands tied by law, regardless of moral comprehension (134 Arendt). Although it is evident that he sometimes approached his assignments with disdain and apprehension (135 Arendt), Eichmann was so obsessed with his success in the Nazi party that his moral beliefs were never displayed. As described in Kant’s moral principal, Eichmann was displaying obvious blind obedience (Arendt 136). During the time in the German occupied territories, Eichmann would have been committing a crime not to follow his orders. Regardless of the truth behind his claim to have only been following his every order, Eichmann still was obeying what even he himself knew to be unjust laws. (235