When there is an issue that people want to change, they go protesting in their own way by disobeying either civilly or uncivilly. When going through civil disobedience, you disobey the law of where you live. Examples of civil disobedience can be not paying taxes, boycotting, and picketing. Uncivil disobedience is when you go the violent way to protest such as violating the rules or breaking the laws. I think that civil disobedience is effective when people demonstrate that the protesters are creating a positive change; not crating harm. However, when civil disobedience is triggered by violence inflicted on the protesters, civil disobedience does not work; protesters can then use uncivil disobedience. Civil disobedience is important because it bring wider attention to the public so that it can make changes to the law. They risk punishment, imprisonment, or even violent acts. However, when their efforts go ignored or they are violently approached by the other party, then it is necessary to take a violent action. Whether it be civil disobedience providing a positive image, delegitimizing the people in power, or providing a positive image, civil disobedience would be more effective to let people fight for what is right.
When people fight for what is right in clear and non-violent way, it provides a positive image; disapproving of negative ideas of what is said of them. The protesters have a voice in what they want to say, helping them stay track of their goals, get them more involved, and come together for support and help. During the Stamp Act in 1765, its stated that anything printed would cost money and needs an official stamp, such as newspapers or playing cards. Enraged with the addition of this new tax, Colonist responded by ignoring and boycotting the.
In 1773, The Boston Tea Party happened when the King of England added taxes to almost all the provisions that the colonist owned.
