Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Civil Disobedience in the Woods
Read “Resistance to Civil Government” (1857), keeping an eye out for the limits that might be applied to the author’s argument.
Read postings and respond either to what I’ve written or to the comments of others (or both). I’d love to see a conversation erupt rather than just a bunch of separate “speeches.”
Noah
The first great limit that I noticed when reading “Resistance to Civil Government” was where Thoreau asked for a better government. He asks to allow every man to let it be known what they like in a government so that they may strive for such a thing. Obviously this is quite idealistic, and he masks the idealism by placing a more absurd notion before mentioning the proposition for a better government, as no government could be made if everyone placed forth their ideas and worked from there. Compromise would be certain, and compromise is what created the government of the time.
Another limit would be Thoreau’s belief that soldiers are forced to march and put down those who disrespect the law. He believes that these men are all well predisposed towards peace, which I believe to be inherently naive even for a transcendentalist. Not every soldier is a peace lover, not every one of them is upset that they have to go put down men and women who are rebelling against the law. I would imagine that there are plenty of men who thought the law was proper and that the law is what they base their morality around. Humans have the capacity to be great self thinkers with their own code, but some men do prefer to have their code written out for them.
This is a small bit, but he compared soldiers who would be told orders to dogs. He did so in a poor connotation. I don’t know what his problem with dogs is, but I like dogs.
Another interesting limit would be Thoreau’s argument where he says that chasing justice is far more important than what the individual must give up in doing so. That is quite easy to say as a man with no child and no wife, as he really only has his properties and himself to give up rather than the lives of those he loves. While I strongly believe in idealism like that, I am also a man with no wife and no children. In an endeavor of the sort, I’d only be putting myself at the risk of governmental justice and not children or a wife.
Jared
I think the main issue with transcendentalist thought is the idealism that goes with it. It is easy to say that everyone should follow their own path and be self-reliant but it is much harder to practice. Some people don’t have the means to live like Emerson and Thoreau did and have actual responsibilities to attend to. Not everyone can just go live in the woods for a couple years and think about stuff. I appreciate the message on some levels but ultimately believe transcendentalism goes beyond reason.
David
I agree! It’s nice to be able to think you can “go your own path” but for a lot of people it just isn’t realistic. They’ve got too many responsibilities to handle, and that can change their path, or even the options on what to do next.
Gracalynn
I’m really glad you decided to talk about this. Reading this has made me really think about what he meant when writing these things. It seems like you didn’t really like his explanation of why the government is corrupt, which is totally fine; it took a bit for me to understand and accept as well. I thought his method of standing up for what is right was a bit immature, to be honest. But, thinking about it, how else was he supposed to get the attention of the public? By refusing to pay for taxes, he showed others non-violent acts of protest, and he was arrested for it! I really enjoyed what he said about the Government; certain people crave power and use it selfishly. He felt as though that was happening and warned The People that the only way for things to change is to be vocal about it.
Caleb
This is especially relevant in our society. With laws being passed that ultimately surpass our “freedom”, in America. I also agree that his approach could be interpreted as immature and irrational. However, Thoreau’s premise emphasizes systematic corruption; something we all are affected by. Jared brought up an important point, not many of us can dwell in the woods; free of systematic injustices. We are left to tough it out, vote with minimal impact and reside in a country that disables our freedom.
Keenen
I also agree with Jared. the idea of leaving your life behind and finding yourself in the woods is something many people would love to do, but no one is actually able to leave their responsibilities like that, Emerson and Thoreau were a bit detached from reality.
Lauren
I just thought that Thoreau was comparing soldiers to dogs. Because like a dog, a soldier is trained to obey every order it’s given.
Silverio
Thoreau claimed that the government must end its unjust actions to earn the right to collect taxes from its citizens. As long as the government commits unjust actions, conscientious individuals must choose whether to pay their taxes or to refuse to pay them and defy the government, he added.
Thoreau said that if the government required people to participate in injustice by obeying “unjust laws,” then people should “break the laws” even if they ended up in prison. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,” he asserted, “the true place for a just man is also a prison.”
Jacob
I think the main problem with this mindset is “unjust laws” is very broad. There are people who think drivers licences are too much government control. Granted this is a small group, but it shows that everyone has different degrees on what unjust is. I do think you should try to change laws, but people must realize that there is a reason things take time.
Carol
In an article from the Constitutional Rights Foundation about Gandhi’s life it says that he read Civil Disobedience while jailed for not complying with a rule for Indians to be registered and fingerprinted. He adopted the term “civil disobedience” and continued to protest peacefully after his release from jail. He and Martin Luther King, Jr. subscribed to non-violence. A great quote from Gandhi is, “It is the acid test of non-violence that in a non-violent conflict there is no rancor left behind and, in the end, the enemies are converted into friends.” (CFR)
I would argue that Thoreau was a bit naive. He says, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? (…..) They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse that the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does in not cherish its wise minority?” Government runs on the basis that majority rules. In this instance, government can not “anticipate and provide for reform” lest it leave itself open to constant challenges and prove to be completely ineffective. The wise minority in our American form of government must wait until they have the majority, all the while repeating their message.
Civil disobedience takes more than a differing opinion, and more than non-violent protests. To effectively exercise civil disobedience, you must be taking action to inform all, including the majority. Thoreau says, “it’s not his business to be petitioning the governor…anymore than it is theirs to petition me”. Speaking of abolition, he says they shouldn’t wait for the government if they have God on their side, but how can change be truly and completely accomplished if no persons endeavor to petition the government? A few people freeing their slaves doesn’t stop the plantation owner down the road from enslaving them himself. The goal of civil disobedience should always be to effect change to reduce the unjust, to fix the wrong.
“Gandhi and Civil Disobedience”. Constitutional Rights Foundation(CFR). https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/gandhi-and-civil-disobedience
Adam
I agree that there is a fine line between effective civil disobedience and other forms of protesting such as rioting. However, I believe that any form of protesting is better than doing nothing at all. Far too often in the US, people will distance themselves from anything that puts their jobs, families and lives in jeopardy. For good reason too. These things are all that we as citizens have. Unfortunately, this also allows insidious entities the ability to enter government positions and influence our lives just the same. A powerful quote that I think of when speaking on this topic is “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” This quote is very interesting because it has a history dating back to the late 1800’s and yet we still struggle with people vying for power and the influence that power holds over “good people” in this country.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|