Commenting period (October 20, 2020 11:30 – December 30, 2020 00:59) is closed
5* Excerpt from Civil Disobedience
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Resistance to Civil Government, called Civil Disobedience for short, is an essay by American Transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War (1846–1848).
Excerpt from Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted upon more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
This sentence talks about how the best government is one that governs the least. I think that this sentence is talking about how a government that lets the people make the rules and make decision is more successful, because in the end, the people know what is best for them. Individuality is heavily stressed in romantics, and it is present here in this idea. He talks about how an individual government is the best option, and how he wants to see this idea executed.
I agree Jackson, one of the main ideas of the romantics and transcendentalists was the importance of individuality and self-reliance. In this sentence, Thoreau talks about how a government that governs the least is better than one that governs a lot. This has to do with the romantics and transcendentalists ideals because they don’t like the government because of how controlling they are and when a government lets the people do what is best for themselves they like it more because they are all about themselves and do not want to be told what to do. This is similar to what a parent is like. Many kids like it better when they have a sense of independence because it allows them to do what they want. Overall this sentence has many ideals of the romantics in it and I agree with Jackson.
This sentence talks about how a government that does not control too much over its citizens, is the best type of government to have.In romantics, the idea of individuality is very important and heavily emphasized on. Thoreau talks about how giving some power to an individual is a great idea for a government. He believed that each individual will benefit the society in some way. Having a government that does not have all of the power, but still gives some power to the individuals is the best type of government as the author says.
This sentence is saying basically that the writer believes the less control the government possesses, the better. Yet the first three words, being all capitalized, reflect his tone, which is extremely serious and enthusiastic. Individuality is extremely important to the transcendentalists and they emphasize it proudly. This sentence is also proof of that as seen when Thoreau begins his excerpt in all caps.
This is simply the best line in the passage. It states that there is no such thing as a perfect government. The people who contain all the true knowledge towards happiness can make the best society. A government that does not stunt ones potential in any way is the best. That can only be done however by a nonexistent one. A humans impulse decisions are the best decisions as gifted upon them. A structured government that does not act like that will mostly lead to confusion and eventually crumble. Those who lead in nature and act upon their given instinct will succeed the best.
I agree with you. There is no such thing as a “perfect” government. There are people who are out there that really can change society in a good way. A government always has to have a persons saying into it. If someone has true knowledge of happiness then yes they can make the best society. “That government is best which governs not all” (Thoreau 3).
This American government — what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions, and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads… But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
In this sentence, Thoreau says that the American government is not as strong and active when compared to a human. This means that a single individual can have the power to get more things done than that of a huge group, like the government. In the era of Romanticism, people who considered themselves as Romantics believed in many ideas that defied and differentiated from their previous beliefs. One of them being the idea of the great importance of an individual. They believed that every single human is vital and much more useful in this world. This is what Thoreau meant when claiming the uselessness of the American government.
I definitely agree with your response. This sentence represents the Romantic ideals of individualism and self-reliance. Thoreau was saying that the American government could easily be corrupted by some of the leaders.
Thoreau criticized the government, and wanted the people to make decisions, not the corrupt leaders. As time went on, the government continued to lose its moral soundness. He believed that the individuals would restore the country’s morality. The individuals are what make everything whole. When each person is able to rely on themselves, it benefits the society. Thoreau did not want to completely get rid of the government, he wanted to improve it. This is why he stressed the importance of change through the individuals. This is something that we see today. A lot of people have been encouraging individuals to stand up and get their voices heard. We have to rely on ourselves, if we want to see change in this country. We cannot sit back, and believe that things will change on their own. There are certain things that we (the individuals) have to act upon, if we want the situation to improve. This is why it is so important for people to get involved, even if it seems insignificant. We cannot rely on other people to serve our best interests, especially if they are not even willing to listen. All of this ties into Thoreau’s ideas of the minority, and their importance in the government.
I totally understand what you mean and agree with you. Individuality was one of the things that was very stressed in the romantics era. The government may not get as much thing done as an individual might. The government in a way takes away the individuality of people and force them to do certain things. Every human has a use and has those individual qualities that they are able to express. The argument that individuals would get more done than a group could work out, but on the other hand we still do need the government to help pass laws and do other things.
I agree with your response. This sentence represents how romantic ideals believed in individualism. The author was talking about how the American government can change very easily if the power was fully given to its leaders. The author talks about how he wants the American government to control every single thing without any outsiders input. He talks about how important it is to have some individual input. He says that individuals are the ones who run the government by standing up for what they believe in. We rely on ourselves not on others to tell us what to do.
This sentence of the reader caught my eye and as I read it it is my favorite line on the whole reading. In this sentence, he talks about how the American people the government like a wooden gun. Thoreau believes the government is like a wooden gun because it is not useful and breaks easily. Wooden guns don’t work and break easily because they are made out of wood which is not a strong thing to build a firearm out of. Thoreau uses this example to explain how dumb, useless, and weak the government is by calling them an item that is those things, a wooden gun. This was my favorite line because it is not obvious and definitely not a metaphor we would use today in life. Overall I felt that the metaphor Thoreau used in this sentence made this the best line of the reading in my opinion.
In this sentence, you are able to see the ideals of the romantics and transcendentalism that were present in Thoreau. Thoreau explains that the American people have accomplished many things but due to the government being so controlling he believes that they got in their way and stopped them from accomplishing more in life. This has to do with the romantics and transcendentalists because their main ideals are the importance of the individual and self-reliance in their life. This has a lot to do with this sentence because they believe they don’t need the government and that they are holding the transcendentalists back in terms of accomplishments. Overall this sentence has a lot of meaning, due to the ideals of Thoreau and the Transcendentalists they believe that the government was the ones holding them back from their true potential similar to a strict parent in life today. Today strict parents nowadays cause their children not to enjoy life and they limit their child’s true potential. This is why Thoreau was trying to saw and how this sentence lines up to the ideals of romantics and transcendentalism.
This line really stuck out to me. He says that he does not want no government. That would ultimately hurt the U.S. and our economy. But he says that he thinks the government needs to make some changes and a better government. One that is something that will help everyone with what they need. This could help the country and change how we see each other and how we do business with other countries.
I agree with you about how if a government helped everyone with what they needed, then this would change how we see each other. By giving everybody the same opportunities and chances, then more people would have successful lives, and people would look at each other differently. This could also eliminate the class system that we have in our country today, and more people would live happy and fulfilling lives.
In short, this sentence is basically stating that Thoreau believes that if each individual man speaks up about what type of government he wants, or about what government would “command his respect”, that that would be the first step towards putting that type of government in place. He is saying that the voice of the people matter, and will be a key factor in working towards a new and better system.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. 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? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice. ...
“I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” First of all, I definitely am not a fan of his diction here, which is very gendered. He says “men,” which reserves his ideals only for males. However, aside from this one issue, I think this is a great line. It is very concise but sums up a lot of his ideas. The idea that our duty as civilians is second to our duty to ourselves is very much a romantic era ideal. In their doctrine, being a well-behaved member of the collective was frowned upon. Instead, the optimal route was to prioritize your individuality above everything else. Here, Thoreau is applying that ideal to the law. He says that if our consciousness is in opposition to a law, then we should put our own morals above being a good citizen. This begs the question however: is there a point where just doing whatever you please is too much? Are there not insane, hateful, destructive ideas out there that would be better off suppressed by the law?
What is the price-current of an honest man and patriot to-day? They hesitate, and they regret, and sometimes they petition; but they do nothing in earnest and with effect. They will wait, well disposed, for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret. At most, they give only a cheap vote, and a feeble countenance and Godspeed, to the right, as it goes by them. There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man; but it is easier to deal with the real possessor of a thing than with the temporary guardian of it…
in the sentence Henry says They as of a group going against the remedy when he talks about this it reminds me of the COVID vaccine a lot of people think that the vaccine is evil they don’t trust the remedy because 0f the government they din’t know what’s in it or the side affects that why they said they’ll wait for the others to use it to see what it can do and if it’s a good remedy then they’ll use it
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support. If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man's shoulders. I must get off him first, that he may pursue his contemplations too. See what gross inconsistency is tolerated. … The soldier is applauded who refuses to serve in an unjust war by those who do not refuse to sustain the unjust government which makes the war; is applauded by those whose own act and authority he disregards and sets at naught; as if the state were penitent to that degree that it hired one to scourge it while it sinned, but not to that degree that it left off sinning for a moment. Thus, under the name of Order and Civil Government, we are all made at last to pay homage to and support our own meanness. After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made….
In this sentence Thoreau talks about individuality. This is one of the main ideas of romantics. This sentence talks about how everyone deserves their chance and opinion. He does not want to just do the same thing as everyone else. He has the right to be his own individual and have his own opinion. Even if he does not agree with everyone else he can still contemplate his own way and have his own opinion.
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? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? …
In this line Thoreau, talks about unfair and unjust laws, and whether we should obey them or not. I like this line because it promotes going against or rebelling against what you think is wrong. This idea is also relevant in today’s world, as you see many people protesting against the many problems in the society today. I also like this sentence because it promotes individuality in a way, which relates to what we are currently learning in class. It talks about obey what you believe in as an individual, which is a main point in romanticism.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison. The proper place to-day, the only place which Massachusetts has provided for her freer and less desponding spirits, is in her prisons, to be put out and locked out of the State by her own act, as they have already put themselves out by their principles. It is there that the fugitive slave, and the Mexican prisoner on parole, and the Indian come to plead the wrongs of his race, should find them; on that separate, but more free and honorable ground, where the State places those who are not with her, but against her — the only house in a slave State in which a free man can abide with honor. If any think that their influence would be lost there, and their voices no longer afflict the ear of the State, that they would not be as an enemy within its walls, they do not know by how much truth is stronger than error, nor how much more eloquently and effectively he can combat injustice who has experienced a little in his own person. Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight. If the alternative is to keep all just men in prison, or give up war and slavery, the State will not hesitate which to choose. If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer, or any other public officer, asks me, as one has done, "But what shall I do?" my answer is, "If you really wish to do anything, resign your office." When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow. Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man's real manhood and immortality flow out, and he bleeds to an everlasting death. I see this blood flowing now…
Here, Thoreau is encouraging voting. He also advocates for the minority. He seems to say, that although the government is corrupt, a vote is one of the most powerful choices an individual can make in the government’s current state. This connects back to the importance of the individual as a Romantic ideal and is still relevant today. Many of us believe that our vote is meaningless – after all, what could one less vote do? Yet, so many say the same thing and do not vote – so they become the REASON there is no change. We cannot complain about the state of the government if we are not directly trying to change it.Thoreau believes that the first step in a revolution of sorts is to express your power as an individual and make your voice heard.
I 100% agree. People often brush aside their vote as insignificant, however, in doing so they neglect that they could have been a part of a more powerful movement.
I think this line is particularly interesting since it is a bit of a contradiction. People cast their votes as individuals with their own opinions, however, to get what they want, they have to join forces with many individuals with the same opinion. So while we are acting on our individual morals/views, we are really acting as a collective. Another interesting contradiction here is that Thoreau was totally anti-majority. Yet he is advocating for people with the same views as him to get out and vote. I wonder if Thoreau may be a bit hypocritical. If his views were the majority opinion, would he have the same complaints, or would he happily accept that those with his views were in power and calling the shots?
in this paragraph, the author was encourages people to show their voices. Just people the government has many questionable things that go on, that does not mean that you cannot vote. By voting, you get to show your voice, represent people, and show the government how you feel. By voting, you are making a change in society, you are the reason why society is going to become a better place because of your vote. Take advantage of the democracy that we have. The author is saying that change comes from a single person. One single person can make a change in society.
Over the course of this paragraph, Thoreau is encouraging the individual people of the nation to vote. He also talks about minorities, and we can see that this country hasn’t really changed, it just looks a little different. But this paragraph states the power of the individual, and that although some people believe votes to be meaningless, collectively they aren’t. Sure one vote won’t do it, but what about a thousand, or a million, or one-hundred million? That’s his point. A key reason I believe this is the most important line of this excerpt is that it applies to the now. Voting is still just as important as it was then, and for many if not all of the same reasons. Thoreau is saying that the first step of a “revolution” is to express your individual voice, and to make it loud.
In this statement, Thoreau was encouraging people to make a sacrifice for what they believed in. He was justifying his decision for going to prison. He believed that people who experienced injustice, would have a better chance at fighting injustice. If the people truly wanted equality and fairness, they would have to go to extreme lengths. Justice does not come easily. He wanted people to hold the government accountable. Thoreau believed that if one person wasn’t free, then nobody was free. This all-encompassing view of life is something that we see when people say, “all lives can’t matter until Black lives matter.” We have to take action if we want change. This could be by voting, protesting, petitioning, or some other platform where your voice can be heard. We also have to be willing to make sacrifices, in order to receive justice. When the government is wrong, we have to stand against it, and correct these wrongs. We cannot keep going through a vicious cycle of oppression. There may be a small price to pay for honesty and dissent, but in the end, it should be worth it.
i agree with this because i think more of people that have more experience with situitons with in the government they have a better chance a people hearing their voice .
I agree with what you said about how people should start protesting more and petitioning i think we should start doing that too because if we don’t dp things like that then we won’t be heard it’s so many things going on in the world that we don’t know about that is so wrong and the reason why is because it isn’t enough people that know about it and if we protest then they’ll have to hear and see us and then they’ll understand what’s going on and how it’s wrong,like how in may how the whole united states went out and protested about black live matter everybody knew abut the movement but they didn’t know how all these people believed it too and they made them finally realized that the police are killing innocent black people or putting them in jail for a long time for no reason
this sentence tells how things were back then and within the government and how out of all slave state their was one house that a free man can be honored in at of all the other non free slave houses
This sentence represents Romantic ideals. According to Thoreau, minority groups have to separate themselves from the majority, otherwise they will be left “powerless.” Thoreau criticizes conformity in society, and stresses the importance of self-reliance. The message of dissent against the government illuminates the non-conformist aspects of the Romantic Era. Thoreau viewed the government as an oppressive piece of machinery, where majority rule trumps all else. This vulnerability is something that we see today in minority groups. Groups such as the LGBTQ+ community, non-white people, disabled people, women, and others have been marginalized because they are not the majority. However, if these groups conformed and followed the majority, their voices would not be heard. We all want to be represented in our government. It’s important that we do not have other people speaking for us, when they don’t even know our situation. Relying on the majority will leave us weak, helpless, and silenced. Thoreau’s beliefs of self-reliance and non-conformity are ideals that we should abide by, if we want our opinions to be heard by the government.
I completely agree. Not only is it just Romantic ideals, but this sentence also represents Transcendentalist ideas. Those in support of the movement were strong advocates for human rights. Transcendentalism represents feminism, abolition, communal living, etc., all things that were extremely controversial and/or unheard of during this time period. I also believe that his statement is extremely relevant today, like you suggested. We want to see the government secure our rights, but also, minorities deserve representation and people who can fight for them as well. This also connects to voting, which Thoreau mentioned. In order to get people in office that work FOR the people and not against, we need to make our voices heard and stop conforming to what we are told to believe and settle for.
This is an extremely powerful sentence. Thoreau is stating that, in order for a minority to be heard, it needs to make some noise. The way this relates to Romantic Ideals is that he says a minority is “powerless” while it “conforms” to the majority. This is a statement that is absolutely true and is still important today. Anyone who is of the female sex, isn’t white, or identifies with the LGBTQ+ community, is a minority. They are discriminated against by society. Not necessarily by every part or every person in society, but as a whole. And these groups are speaking at high volumes just as Thoreau recommended. And because of all the work they are doing, and how loud they are speaking, by the end of the 21st century there may not be any such thing as minorities in society.
In this statement, Thoreau is describing what happens to a person when they feel regretful for defying an unfair large group, or when they sacrifice what was important to them. Thoreau describes these hurting people as humans who have lost their strength, braveness, courage, and the brightness that was once in their spirit. When connecting Thoreau’s statement to the beliefs of a Romantic or those of a Transcendentalist, it is clear that Thoreau means to say that once upon a time, before these people began to “bleed”, they were successfully working towards revolution. But as soon as they felt regret for what they did, that is where they immediately start to fail and become disloyal towards themselves. Romantics and Transcendentalists strongly believe in the existence of true power in every single individual living on this huge, wide world. Although this is true for a Romantic, many humans tend to incline themselves towards the popular opinions that society creates, therefore influencing the individual’s opinions. Situations like these happen nowadays, where a person has an issue, but is afraid to speak up for fear of losing something they may eventually regret. Such as the case of many immigrants, where many come illegally for the reason that it was made impossible for them in their former country to ready themselves to come to America legally. Many immigrants get deported since they came here illegally, but their reason behind it for doing it illegally is never realized and they immediately get sent back to their country. Since this happens, many immigrants have learned to keep silent, for fear that they could lose their opportune life here in America. Though others have made the courageous act of exposing themselves, and some have even regretted doing this as it is a dangerous act that is putting their safety on the line. This influence from society is exactly what Romantics and Transcendentalists like Thoreau, do not want anymore. As part of their revolution, it is obligated for each individual to create loud noises for what they truly believe in, so that unimaginable possibilities can be created in our society.
The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? 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. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
I think he states how he see the government and seeing the point about men and their rights , I think he trying to get the to see his point of view but also understanding where there coming from.He definitely connects with romantic ideals because of him seeing and speaking of the importance of individual in this case the men and their rights and how and what the government is not doing as their job for people in general i agree with where he is coming from
Throughout the passage, Thoreau makes his thesis very clear: the individual’s morals, rights, and property are supreme in their importance when compared to the desires of a majoritarian government. This is textbook romanticism. Thoreau, like other romantics, believed that the individual is more important than any collective, be it a religious or governmental one. He goes as far as to say that the government should be derived from within the individual. This goes back to the romantic premise that the universe is a reflection of the inner workings of the individual. In this case, the individual is a reflection of what a good government looks like.
He also criticizes the nature of the government, which involves a majority who calls the shots for everybody. He believes in the importance of even a single individual who dissents from the opinion of 999 others. He extends these ideas about the importance of the individual to the law. He says that laws are practically worthless compared to the innate sense of wrong and right within humans. He calls for people to listen to their own morale compass. This is very in line with the romantic ideal that the secrets to the universe are within each individual. In this case, the secrets to a fair and just society exist in the individual’s own ethics.
His final and most extreme idea is that democracy is just another step in creating a perfect state. He believes that dissenting individuals may civilly disobey the law so that they can uphold their own beliefs. Personally, I don’t think this is a very realistic idea.
I agree with Zach. Honestly when you think about it first it almost seems irrational to make decisions based on Thoreau’s ideals. A government consisting of a single body of a single person is the best government in Thoreau’s head. I wish we could see more about the people who approached romanticism and how things worked out for them. Only after that I think we can assess this better because I think Thoreau in the text is a little vague. If one persons impulses say a different thing from another does that mean they should live separate forever too Thoreau? It feels like it leads to a life of self isolation to me.
This easily demonstrates Romantic ideals.It shows how the government does not have total authority over people as the people are the core center of the universe not the government. The government is allowed to be there, but if the government lives above you that is not allowed. The government does not have all the correct knowledge of the world a person’s self knowledge may. It is unjust for the government to stunt this self knowledge. Just like we see many of the most populous and strongest nations today are far from a perfect government structure. Some of the things that smaller communities have that larger nations don’t have is happiness. happiness leads to success which is derived from within ones self.
Thoreau clearly represents the core Romantic ideals in this sentence. He is saying that the government can never be “good” until they begin respecting the individual and work in favor of the people. His fundamental views on human nature, such as the power of the individual, non-conformity, and free thought drive his want for an evolution of the government. His view of the government is extremely critical and he seems to believe that it inhibits man’s rights. Thoreau’s comment describes the frustration that many of us have with our government today – nothing seems to get done (with constant bickering between the two sides) and normal people seem to have little say in what the government actually does. Like Thoreau is proposing, we should all want and expect more out of those who govern us.
I agree with the points you make throughout your paragraph to prove how the government does not meet the needs of every single individual. What this does not mean is that the government should be attending every single person in a country where there are millions of people; that would be tiresome. Instead, the government should be more liberal towards everyone, because like you claim that Thoreau says, the government should be serving us, not us to them. I like the connection you made about the quarreling government and the silent society, and I would like to add that there have been governments who only desired to benefit themselves rather than to serve their country. For instance, quite some years ago Mexico’s ex-president had received a lot of money to help people, especially children, with cancer to get them the medicine needed for their vaccinations. Instead, he was corrupt and spent the money on himself, leaving the ill without the treatment needed. These behaviors are classified as unfair, and an unfair government is what made Thoreau want to reform it, so that they serve the needs of all.
i agree with what you are saying and i def agree with what the government is not doing and seeing thoreau statement of the point he was trying to make
the author is talking about how a perfect government will never be good enough, since the government does not listen to what the individual has to say. The author goes on to say that in order for a government to succeed, is for people to have input. Let people’s voices be heard. Today, in the United states, we do have a voice, which is why we vote, but still, the government does not fully listen to the citizens which is why there is a constant argument between sides. The author emphasizes the point where he talks about individual voices. Individuality is very important in his eyes, and for a government to be successful, the power also has to be given to the people.
I think this is the best line because like he said there will never be a free and happy state if the state doesn’t come to realize that it isn’t always about power and money they need to think about the people and see how their struggling to have money that’s what the world is really all about having money and power and if we keep thinking like that then it’s going to build up hate and greed and that’s something we don’t want
General Document Comments 0
Read the entire text
Make one substantial comment on the text that focuses on the way in which this text demonstrates Romantic and/or Transcendentalist ideals.
Make one substantial comment discussing the best line in the text.
Make one substantial reply to someone else’s ideas.
Include ALL THREE levels of analysis in your comments. This means that they will each be 6+ lines long, at least.
Due by next Wednesday at 10:30am (though the quicker you finish, the less overwhelmed you’ll be…).
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments