Introduction
In an era, when state-driven terrorism and counter-terrorism methods are the well-established norms of the world it is important to find solace in the preaching of non-violence. It was the fruitful practice of Mohandas Gandhi in India during the early and mid 20th Century and the legacy was carried on by personalities like Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela during the latter half of the century. These were the acts of courage without violence and power without bullets. It would be interesting to mention that all the rights and freedoms of US citizens are obtained through this mode of action. As a result, it can be well stated that Americans have gained more freedom from the days of the 19th century.
The Civil Rights Movement
As an example of freedom and obtaining freedom in the US, the best possible subject would be the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, particularly during 1963-64, as this would serve as the conceptual and strategic model of the main objective. Alongside, variations in definitions of social and racial justice and strategy were looked at. Furthermore, the impact of the Civil Rights Movement on other social movements in the United States and abroad would also be considered. (Dollard, 113-114)
Moreover, it looks after to enumerate the consequences of these movements with the incorporation of the successes and failures modes of the Civil Rights Movement and all these would be examined in detail. The subject of civil rights movement is taken into consideration to establish the fact that the mass has the power and ability to obtain justice amidst injustice without the intervention of any sort of violence. This expanded the scope of freedom for the community deprived so far.
However, the bigger picture is much more complex. In this respect, we can state that the US is more of a salad bowl than a melting pot because members of several communities with several creeds, races, languages, and colors operate together with their identity intact. However, some sections believe that there should only be a single American culture and each individual must indulge in it, this culture is supposed to be mostly English flavored, and multicultural children do find it difficult in the initial stages.
The policies that need to be initiated to limit intolerance and racism in the USA would be more freedom of religious and racial practices all over the country. However, if compared to other nations like Pakistan (religious) and China (democratic) US citizens enjoy more freedom in the context of caste, creed, color, and political beliefs along with language and rights. This is a far better exercise of freedom by US citizens today than it was during the 19th century.
Current situation
Still, policies like gay marriage rights, sexual discrimination laws, and rights to practice religious rights empower all the cultures to practice their rituals without permission from the authority and should feel free to express themselves regarding their own identity in terms of dress codes and etiquette. It can well be stated that racism of any form is strictly avoidable and thus it becomes more important to celebrate the unification of diversity in the US as it stands for long-termed success as a country. This is evident that when all the diverse races and religions are juxtaposed into the sense of a single nation with having to change their way of life and likes it would only be beneficial for the country itself as each individual would feel responsible for the country.
However, it can be stated that though there is enough freedom available in the country, it appears that sometimes citizens are confined within the policies and structural composition of the authorities. In a way, this results in less practicable freedom. This is, of course, about the US citizens of the 19th century.
The Bush doctrine
One such example is the infamous Bush doctrine. Following September 11, the President was emboldened to act on a global scale to fight terrorism and eradicate the threats caused by Al Qaeda. This became the central tenet to Bush’s policies. The President has followed many of the notions outlined in Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, including the use of religion, deception, and fear to create a state whereby his policies are executed successfully and often, without any debate.
Dissent rather than looked down upon is almost entirely ignored in the process. It is such a strategy, premised on evading truth and deceiving the public, which has allowed President Bush to fulfill the central themes espoused by Machiavelli in “The Prince”, under the modern and pre-emptive terms of the Bush Doctrine. However, these measures appeared as crisis management techniques and though these policies are detrimental to human freedom, it is evident that these are a necessary evil. (Goddard, 165) Thus, only in this context modern US citizen enjoys less freedom than the 19th century but for logical reasons. This mode of freedom is expendable for the cause of safety and the citizen of the US realizes it well enough.
It is this realization that allows man to feel secure in agreeing to join collectively with others to form a state in the first place. Power flows from the people into their government and backs down to them. As a citizen and a subject, all men (and women) have equal right to be dually represented, both as a servant to their government and a benefactor of its equal rule, application, and enforcement of the law. From this idea comes the true realization of representative democracy, whereby those who create the law do not lose sight of the people. (Drake, 278) This parameter of the democratic thought process makes the citizen of the US more open to freedom and the exercise of freedom is deep within and thus it makes a citizen freer than the citizen of the 19th century.
They also do not drift away from the reasons the state was created, when all people came together in unanimity. However, this unanimity does not last forever. It is altogether likely that the state of nature would require such; that eventually, the self-interest of man would splinter the consensus that had been made in a previous generation. What is important today may not be important tomorrow. As time passes, issues of the past lose a prominent spot in the thoughts of man, replaced instead by the current social and economic pressures. It is for this reason that a political formation cannot be so rigid as to ignore changing values of its citizenry. (Drake, 221)
Conclusion
In a more recent time, such notions have been echoed by civil rights leaders in decrying how America has lost its way by disregarding the rights of a minority or even deliberating excluding some from the process. Future generations are but an extension of those citizens who originally formed a state years before out of one unanimous voice. If the rights of future generations are either ignored or deliberately denied, the state is ultimately weakened.
This says that while unanimity was important in founding the state, such a principle is no longer necessary or important in continuing it. Whether it is the right of women to vote, people of color to co-exist without various forms of discrimination, or most recently, civil marriage rights of gay and lesbian citizens, there are many examples to the contrary. Thus, it is well agreed upon, contrary to historian beliefs that the nature and scope of freedom of modern US citizens has expanded from the era of the 19th century.
Works Cited
Dollard, John. Zenith and Zero Point of US History. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.
Drake, Steve. Evaluation of Historical Movements. Wellington: ABP Ltd, 2006.
Goddard, Jennifer. Nation Management: Making the Most Out of It. Christchurch: Howard & Price, 2006.