Eng 48A
Journal on Henry David Thoreau
October 26th 2009
Henry David Thoreau
1817-1862
1817-1862
"There will never be a really free and enlightened state, until the state comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all it's own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. (Norton Pg.1872)
Taken from the last paragraph of Thoreau's Resistance To Civil Government these final words seem to illuminate Thoreau's philosophy on government. Government, to Thoreau, had no place controlling the life of an individual. Instead, being derived from the people, and empowered by the desire for a social construct, government was made to serve, protect, and enrich the lives of the people, and it's individuals. As Thoreau says, "We should be men first, and subjects afterward." (Pg. 1858)
This seems a simple enough philosophy and one that I strongly agree with. If there is anything that should follow the path of idealism it is a system of government. Civil rights should be supported, freedom ensured, opportunity promised, and justice practiced. I should wake up every morning, and be proud to be an American, and of all the things that this country does. I should admire the wars that we wage, and the lack of educational funding at home; look up to our foreign policy and be proud of the slave labor that American companies subside on; I should be content with the sickening gap between the upper and lower classes, and respect the government in everything that I empower it to do through my taxes, but I don't. What is the problem then? As Thoreau states, government is imperfect, "The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to... is still an impure one." (Pg. 1872) No one can expect to agree on everything, it simply isn't possible. The closest you can get is through the act of respectful compromise, but even so, there are times when I am unwilling to compromise. Some moral boundaries should never be crossed.Unfortunately, Democracy being a government based upon popular vote is a government that succumbs to the desire of the majority, and thus, inherently forces the minority to live with and support whatever decisions are made. This is what Thoreau had so much difficulty with, especially on the moral grounds of slavery. The question that Thoreau tries to answer then, is whether or not the minority has a duty to continue to support a government that is no longer serving it. Thoreau give his answer in the form of a quote, "But if it is of such a nature that it require you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." (Pg 1863)
Again, I agree. Unfortunately breaking the law is no simple task. Revoking support from the government can lead to prison time, and a loss of all personal property. Even so, Thoreau's words make me want to take to the streets of San Francisco, and hold marches, and rallies against the injustices of the world. I want to stop paying taxes, go live off in the woods or some anarchistic commune, and fight for that which I believe to be right. Thoreau has a way of putting this spirit into words. With his naturally rebellious voice, he invites other to join him. After all, who doesn't want to make the world a better place? An inspiration to great minds such as Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, Thoreau embodied Civil Disobedience by provoking the rebel in all of us.
"What was central for Thoreau was neither nonviolence nor civil disobedience but direct action: the absolute demand that one practice — right now, and all alone if necessary — what one preaches." (Staughton Lynd)
An excerpt from Staughton Lynd's Henry Thoreau: The Admirable Radical, this quote illustrates the idea that Thoreau's true purpose in writing Resistance to Civil Government was not singular in it's goal, rather it was meant to inspire action, and fight the docility that has been embedded into the masses. In effect, he's telling the reader to get up out his chair, and scream, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
Personally, I find that this idea is just as relevant today, as it was in the 19th century. There is far too much passive acceptance of the injustices that go on today. We are all taught to be compliant to the government, taught to sit back and vote, taught that democracy is the will of the people and that fighting it is wrong. If government represents the will of the people, how can resistance be wrong? There are too many sitting behind TV screens, and computers, unwilling to stand up for what they think is right, passively supporting that which they think to be wrong. It infuriates me just thinking of all of the injustices I am forced to indirectly support through my taxes. It makes me wonder if Democracy really is the best government. Is there no way to improve upon it? Is complaisant voting, the farthest government will ever get towards representing it's people? In the end, there may never be a government that can fairly represent it's subjects. Perhaps the best form's of social structure are no longer possible with populations so vast.
Taken from the last paragraph of Thoreau's Resistance To Civil Government these final words seem to illuminate Thoreau's philosophy on government. Government, to Thoreau, had no place controlling the life of an individual. Instead, being derived from the people, and empowered by the desire for a social construct, government was made to serve, protect, and enrich the lives of the people, and it's individuals. As Thoreau says, "We should be men first, and subjects afterward." (Pg. 1858)
This seems a simple enough philosophy and one that I strongly agree with. If there is anything that should follow the path of idealism it is a system of government. Civil rights should be supported, freedom ensured, opportunity promised, and justice practiced. I should wake up every morning, and be proud to be an American, and of all the things that this country does. I should admire the wars that we wage, and the lack of educational funding at home; look up to our foreign policy and be proud of the slave labor that American companies subside on; I should be content with the sickening gap between the upper and lower classes, and respect the government in everything that I empower it to do through my taxes, but I don't. What is the problem then? As Thoreau states, government is imperfect, "The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to... is still an impure one." (Pg. 1872) No one can expect to agree on everything, it simply isn't possible. The closest you can get is through the act of respectful compromise, but even so, there are times when I am unwilling to compromise. Some moral boundaries should never be crossed.Unfortunately, Democracy being a government based upon popular vote is a government that succumbs to the desire of the majority, and thus, inherently forces the minority to live with and support whatever decisions are made. This is what Thoreau had so much difficulty with, especially on the moral grounds of slavery. The question that Thoreau tries to answer then, is whether or not the minority has a duty to continue to support a government that is no longer serving it. Thoreau give his answer in the form of a quote, "But if it is of such a nature that it require you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law." (Pg 1863)
Again, I agree. Unfortunately breaking the law is no simple task. Revoking support from the government can lead to prison time, and a loss of all personal property. Even so, Thoreau's words make me want to take to the streets of San Francisco, and hold marches, and rallies against the injustices of the world. I want to stop paying taxes, go live off in the woods or some anarchistic commune, and fight for that which I believe to be right. Thoreau has a way of putting this spirit into words. With his naturally rebellious voice, he invites other to join him. After all, who doesn't want to make the world a better place? An inspiration to great minds such as Martin Luther King Jr., Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, Thoreau embodied Civil Disobedience by provoking the rebel in all of us.
"What was central for Thoreau was neither nonviolence nor civil disobedience but direct action: the absolute demand that one practice — right now, and all alone if necessary — what one preaches." (Staughton Lynd)
An excerpt from Staughton Lynd's Henry Thoreau: The Admirable Radical, this quote illustrates the idea that Thoreau's true purpose in writing Resistance to Civil Government was not singular in it's goal, rather it was meant to inspire action, and fight the docility that has been embedded into the masses. In effect, he's telling the reader to get up out his chair, and scream, "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
Personally, I find that this idea is just as relevant today, as it was in the 19th century. There is far too much passive acceptance of the injustices that go on today. We are all taught to be compliant to the government, taught to sit back and vote, taught that democracy is the will of the people and that fighting it is wrong. If government represents the will of the people, how can resistance be wrong? There are too many sitting behind TV screens, and computers, unwilling to stand up for what they think is right, passively supporting that which they think to be wrong. It infuriates me just thinking of all of the injustices I am forced to indirectly support through my taxes. It makes me wonder if Democracy really is the best government. Is there no way to improve upon it? Is complaisant voting, the farthest government will ever get towards representing it's people? In the end, there may never be a government that can fairly represent it's subjects. Perhaps the best form's of social structure are no longer possible with populations so vast.
Overall, Thoreau's message, is to resist that which you believe to be wrong. It is not only right to fight injustice, but man's moral duty. If nothing else, I hope that this message will endure. After all, if we don't strive to do that which is right, then it is living proof that conformity has stripped us of our humanity, and what is a human being devoid of humanity?
No comments:
Post a Comment