You can do the usual reading response to Thoreau if you like (see the guidelines on the sidebar to the right)-->
Or if you want to connect it to a current issue, you can do something a little bit different:
After reading Thoreau, watch this clip from Israeli television. If you're not aware of the war that's happening there at the moment, you might want to read the Wikipedia article for a brief overview. It's important stuff that the U.S. is very much involved in, so it's worth knowing.
- With what parts of Thoreau's thought do you agree and disagree?
- Are these Israeli "refuseniks" acting in the spirit of Thoreau?
- Is there a similar movement in the spirit of "Civil Disobedience" that you know of or could imagine in the present-day United States? In the past?
I found Thoreau's essay on Civil Disobedience to be a little over exaggerated. He did make some good points but his overall message was that the government was corrupt and the reason for most of the injustice in the world. He even went as far as to say that paying taxes contributes to injustice and he himself went to jail for refusing to pay. I found it really interesting when he said he would pay taxes to fix local highways because it benefited him but he would not pay any taxes that directly supported the government. He comes off as a very closed minded person and doesn't look at both sides of the issue at all. One thing I did agree with though was when he claimed that voting for justice was almost the same as wishing for it. He was basically saying that if we want justice in the world we can’t just sit around and wait for it to happen, we have to each do our own part and make sure that we are being just people in our everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteThoreau’s “Civil Disobedience,” which I found generally overdramatic, did bring up valid questions about the government. I was immediately caught off guard after reading his opening line, “That government is best which governs least.” Although it sounds irrational, I can understand his reasoning. Throughout the essay he addresses the various ways the government hinders justice in our country as well as needlessly interfering. His rant about how governing a corporation doesn’t make the people within it more just seems irrational at first. However, re-reading it made me wonder if perhaps it proves true today. Although it would clearly be anarchism to have the government completely hands-off in the dealings of fortune-500 companies for example, it makes sense that the law should perhaps take a different approach. For instance, instead of always spending time and energy prosecuting and bringing millionaire bad guys to justice, maybe the government should focus on bettering schools and communities so that we don’t manufacture criminals and drug lords inadvertently. In this example, Thoreau would probably agree with that as a more appropriate place for an effective government.
ReplyDeleteThere are many parts of Thoreau’s paper that I agree with and some parts that I do not fully understand. I thought it was a little dramatic as well. I agree with the idea that each person has the “right to refuse allegiance and resist the government when it acts as a tyrant.” I also agree with Thoreau when he says many people are opposed to reform, but do noting about it and the people that are not opposed to reform are not interested in humanity, but what is best for them. I don not fully agree with the idea the voting is a game. If there were no voting, we would have no “say” in our government. I understand that we have little say in the government now, but there would be no democracy. I believe with out democracy, our country would be in the exact same place we were one hundred years ago.
ReplyDeleteI n the case of the “refuseniks”, they are definitely acting in the Thoreau spirit. I think they believe that their government is waging war for no reason and that is unacceptable. That someone must take a stand for what is right. Show the government that there are still people out there who are not afraid to do what is right, regardless of whether or not the offender is government.
In our present day, I believe that the war in Iraq is comparable. Many would say the war is necessary, but I think it was carelessly gotten into. I also have friends in the armed services that were court marshaled for refusing to fight in the war. I think in the past slavery is a prime example of “civil disobedience “. People felt that what was going on in our country was unacceptable, and was not in the best interest of every person in the country, in comparison to it being in the best interest of those who benefitted from slavery.
Henry Thoreau had very idealistic views of the American government. Although, his excellent writing persuades you to realize why we should not settle for less than a perfect government. Thoreau’s belief reminded me of Thomas Jefferson’s point in the Declaration of Independence “It is our duty” to throw off an unsatisfactory government. Civil disobedient acts need to be known to show that the actions are in result to the political system. Thoreau showed he was against paying taxes by wanting to stay in jail. These taxes were being used to finance the Mexican war and enforcement of slavery laws. By not allowing others to pay his own taxes this indicated he wanted his disobedience justified.
ReplyDelete“The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right”. Are we morally obligated to follow even unjust laws? Although Thoreau’s essay was written in 1854 his words still hold meaning for us today.
Thoreau has quite a way with words, a way in which he kind of confused me while also intriguing me. Why can't a government be run by peoples mere conscience? It is not that America isn't smart or able to, but that we need government for the organization of society. No it is not the government who frees the people, or educates, that is the doing of the American people. But without government where would we be? Thoreau was writing to share his strive to throw out the government and put it into the hands of the people. With government the people do what is right and are able to express they're feelings of unjust. Think of all the changes, rules and laws we have banned and re written to better our nation, such as slavery. When the people had enough and took the stand for what is right, we as a whole changed our ways and overturned the law. Thoreau concludes by saying our way to democracy is showing progress to the "respect of an individual" but also dreams for a state that "respects the individual." I like how after constantly doubting government he concludes to say we're on the right track. As for his want for the state to pay it's respects, well one can only dream.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there were many things in Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" that I agreed with and were valid points, I found much of his essay to be hypocritical. On the one hand, he encourages us to revolt against the government- be it in a small, individual way, or a larger one- and let it be known that it displeases us, but he then states that "if [he] had known to name them, [he] should have signed off... from all the societies which [he] never signed on too." How does this last statement support all of his previous ideas about it being our duty to live justly and in accordance with our fellow man? He also claims that he would "refuse allegiance to the State". He wants no part with the government. But it seems that he believes that the rest of us should do our part in making the government a more idealistic one and one that belongs to the people.
ReplyDeleteOf course, these are only some of the points he made. Thoreau did a good job commenting on how people seem hesitant to react to injustices because they are afraid that the results of their actions will be worse than the ruling now. That issue still stands today. It's hard to speak out when one is not sure of the consequences of his actions.
Also, we need to remember that the minorities can play a role. I loved his comments about how it isn't our individual duty to completely change the government, but our duty to keep from committing injustices in our own lives. This, to me, was the best point of his speech.
Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” portrays his radical view of society. Some of his points do make sense, but I also disagree with much of what he said. What stood out to me throughout the essay is if everyone took his stance on life nothing could get done smoothly. There would always be resistance to everything. Slavery, however, is such an injustice his philosophy is absolutely acceptable. You cannot just say you disagree with slavery; you have to actively pursue stopping it. Racism today is an issue that can be tackled in the same way. Going around telling people racism is bad does not really accomplish anything. Putting words into action is what makes a difference.
ReplyDeleteHenry Thoreau definitely makes a statement when writing “Civil Disobedience.” Throughout his writing he strongly believes that the American people need to be governing themselves and making their own decisions. When he states, “the mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines with their bodies,” meaning soldiers are not allowed to make their own decisions and must follow all the orders that the government gives them. While reading “Civil Disobedience” my thoughts strayed back to the beginning of the semester while reading “the Declaration of Independence.” His thoughts on how the government should be by the people and how slavery should be outlawed. As he talks about slavery he says that the people are too scared to stand up for what they believe in. Thoreau and the Founding Fathers both believed in a country where the people governed themselves, but I do not think that is possible. The people need to be represented by individuals that know what they as community or a state want.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading "Civil Disobedience" and thought it was very well written, and I liked all the different references - greek mythology, Shakespeare, the Bible, etc. There are a few quotes from the reading that display the parts I agreed with most: “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” I totally agree with that, especially when you bring it up to date with the war; which I disagree with therefore I wouldn't blindly submit myself to. I think the soldiers that refuse to fight in Gaza are doing what they think is right, according to Thoreau. Another thing that stuck with me from "CB" (Civil Disobedience) was when he said that he didn't come into this world to make it a better place, but to just live in it whether the world be good or bad... I just like his out look on life. Also, I firmly believe “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 its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.” .... Our government is definitely less understood by many of us today, but after reading CD I believe people in America should definitely look into things more before simply abiding it and assuming that it is right and just simply because our government said it was right.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”, I believe that Thoreau made several valid points that coincide with some of my own opinions. However, I could not help myself but to judge him as an ignorant person who wants to be seen as a wise man. I think that Thoreau is very small minded when it comes to his outlook on certain subject matters, e.g. “How many men are there to a square thousand miles in this country? HARDLY ONE.” I feel as though Thoreau believed that everyone should think/feel as he did. He also stated, “I was not born to be forced”. I was not born to be forced either but, I am aware that every society holds certain values, norms, mores, and laws that I must abide by. However, Thoreau seemed as though he liked to do things his way, e.g “If a plant cannot live accordingly to it’s nature, it dies; and so a man”
ReplyDeleteAs for the “refuseniks”, I believe that their acts are somewhat similar to the manner of Thoreau. “Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards!” This quote by Thoreau exemplifies the actions of the “refuseniks”. Instead of doing what they were expected to do they thought morally about what was right and decided to stand their ground and not fight.
Overall, I do think that Thoreau wrote an excellent essay, but like many of my classmates, I do believe that he embellished the truth. It is true that throughout history many barriers including, prejudice, discrimination, oppression, racism, and sexism that prevented the equality of human life were often justified through the government. In this sense, Thoreau was not accurate when he stated, “the government is best which governs least.”
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is just me because I am a history buff, but 12 years after Thoreau released this essay, the United States engaged in what we now know as the American Civil War. At its core, The American Civil War was over the Southern states having the right to govern the way that they want to and maintain their old way of life or their “states rights.” If we held Thoreau’s quote to be true then the Southern states would still maintain their “states rights”.
In some instances, the government is best which governs least, such as Afghanistan or Iraq but like it has been proven in history, the oppressed minority will rise up and overthrow the majority.
After reading this passage, I thought about how different our government is compared with other governments in this world. Part of me is proud to have a free government that exhibits democracy and attempts to be as fair as possible to its citizens. On the contrary, I started to think is it truly “free” and “equal” for the people? Does our country need to change some of its ways in order to achieve a more positive, successful government? After reading a quote from Thoreau which stated, “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?” What I gathered from this quote was that we as people should not always adhere to what our government is telling us to do. In other words, listen to your conscience and believe in what is right for the betterment of our country.
ReplyDeleteI found Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” to be extremely interesting. I felt like Thoreau made some very valid points that even apply to the government we have now. I thought it was funny when he went to jail and became more enlightened about how society works. He then changes his perception of why he pays taxes, but still holds a grudge saying he still "wish[es] to refuse allegiance to the State." One phrase that made me think was when he asked, "What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day?" He really wants people to realize that they are too good to become pawns of the State. You can tell that he is an extremely passionate man, and that he would do anything to live his ideals. He does not conform to the laws of the land until he has reason to do so!
ReplyDeleteSomeone commented that Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" noted the corruption of the government as the reason for injustice. And I have to say that I disagree. While Thoreau does say that government can be corrupt, I do not think that this is what he was trying to convey. What I took from this essay is the importance of knowing what you are and are not supporting. In regards to slavery Thoreau says that you you may "in opinion" oppose something but then help to fund or support in some way that very cause. I think that he calls us to think for ourselves and not simply take what is being fed to us for face value. Questioning your government and its motives is okay; it is the privilege of being man.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that the Refuseniks are acting in the spirit of Thoreau. They are questioning for themselves whether they believe the cause of this war is just or not. Those who don't agree with the cause refuse. I believe that this is exactly what Thoreau's essay calls for. There have been other demonstrations of "civil disobedience". The Civil Rights Movements with its sit ins and marches are such examples.
I found Thoreau's essay to be very agressive. I didn't understand a few points he made such as him comparing the idea of voting to a game. I think that democracy is necessary in the American world today. Without it, the American people would not know any other way. I am aware that there are constantly people who disagree with what government is doing in certain instances, or the choices their President has made for them. I, myself, have been one of these people from time to time. And in this case, I agree with Thoreau. I believe that if someone strongly disagrees with a choice that has essentially been made for them, they should not be forced to comply. But I would find it nearly impossible to allow each and every citizen to abide by the laws they like and disregard the ones they don't and do as they please in today's world. The way the Israeli "refuseniks" are acting is definitely comparable to Thoreau. I think that they think starting a war without any reason is disgusting. Also similar to today's ongoing war in Irag, those people who disagree with the war have not been able to have much of a voice in the matter.
ReplyDeleteThoreau was a thinker and a writer. I think what he was trying to portray in his essay was to live simple. The more the people have a hand in the government the more corrupt it will be. There's no way for us to have a perfect government even by changing and manipulating the laws to fit society. I somewhat agree; I think in today's society it's hard to make everything right/fair and everyone happy. I think if the more people have to change the rules the more the government becomes rules of certain men that the actual government.
ReplyDeleteAs for the citizens who abide by those rules, I don't think Thoreau was trying to say overthrow the government anytime you feel necessary or anytime when it has upset it's people. However, I do feel he was saying each citizen can make a difference by not allowing themselves to be involved in such outrageous government polices. Which can even sort of tie in with today, and how Obama wants each and everyone to take their own part in making this nation a better nation. I think today society has changed so drastically, that it is hard to keep a just government with everything that has to be considered. Although I think it's challenging, I still agree with Thoreau. If we just take it back to the basics where the people didn't have so much to do with the government, society may not be as rebellious against the laws and such. The government wouldn't be corrupt in some of it's issues, and it may be easier taking it back to the basics.
I found Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" to be rather interesting, but while reading it I couldn not help but think of what an ignorant person he seemed to be. It just seemed to me that he did not take any other perspective than his own into consideration when he was talking about government and society. I do agree with some of Thoreau's thoughts, I also do not understand some of what he was thinking. I do not really understand how he could compare voting to be a game. I too understand that we have little say in our elected officials, but I most certainly would not consider it to be a game.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Thoreau's essay, i noticed that he rambled on about several things over and over. And while it did seem quite a bit over exaggerated, I believe he wrote it while venting and just wanted to get a lot out. He wrote and said certain things once then further in the reading said something totally opposite, almost hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteSome of the points that he wrote about were quite overly thought, for instance the part about not having a government at all. I think that he was frustrated while writing this and he simply meant that he just didn't like how the government in his day was handling things. It seems that his main point was to make people want to do something about their unjust government instead of just sitting around.
After reading the essay, I felt that what Thoreau was trying to say and do was almost too radical. Yes, lots of people disagree with the government of today and tomorrow, but this should not be a reason to overthrow the government or break the laws. It is one thing to break the laws if you are being oppressed, but to write off the whole government because you disagree is wrong in my opinion. No one in the history of the world has ever made a perfect government where everyone agrees, so why should you be angry and go against the attempt to govern everyone. Life without government would be much worse than a government that only certain people agree with. People should respect the government in place even if there are some minor flaws, but if the government is corrupt then a revolution can be appropiate.
ReplyDeleteIn “Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau makes it clear that his does not agree with American government. He seems to be a firm believer in “every man for himself”, or so he makes it seem. In part one he says “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable”. In that phrase, he speaks of a revolution; yet, in the opinions of many a revolution implies a change for the better. Thoreau may think that the change he attempts to implement on the people will end well, but I think that having no government is a bad thing. People need rules and guidelines. Without them the world would be a chaotic place.
ReplyDelete