<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Comments by Owen Robinson</title>
    <description>Most recent public comments by Owen Robinson</description>
    <link>https://nowcomment.com/users/88548</link>
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="https://nowcomment.com/users/88548/comments"/>
    <item>
      <title>Reply (extra)</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168807</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168807</guid>
      <description>While I agree with everything you mentioned, I also feel like there is more to this argument. Thoreau most definitely supported individualism and self-reliance as a romantic and advocated for the abolition of any group, system of union that opposed these concepts, but that was simply Thoreau's perspective on the matter. He was openly biased about this during his time in prison, and could not honestly take an unbiased position. However, to say that transcendentalism was in sole opposition would most likely not hold true, for the transcendentalist movement was in opposition to rationalism and science rather than political ideology, and they would not openly oppose a union so much as disagree and remain divided. For this reason I believe that it is most likely that this call for abolition was more in line with the bias of Thoreau rather than the ideas of the transcendentalists.     </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2020 00:03:56 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reply (extra)</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168785</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168785</guid>
      <description>This is so true. While the objective of Thoreau was obviously very biased and swayed by his time in prison, the literal point of view in regards to the balance of power within the people is one not so easily understood. Your observation of the people and the raise in appreciation they need for their influence is undeniable and suggests an overhaul of the government system. Perhaps change would work, but abolition was and always will be Thoreau's battle cry. I also like your point about the perception of the people. There is a great difference between how the government tells us we are to be treated and how the government thinks we should be treated. it is the duty of any common citizen to first understand this difference before they can stand up for themselves. </description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:54:00 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Reply</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168771</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168771</guid>
      <description>I totally agree with this! It's so horribly ironic how America stood on this gospel of freedom, yet failed to give even a shred of human decency or respect to over ten percent of its population. Even today, far too many are wrongfully imprison and subject to hate, violence and prejudice. I'm unsure on Thoreau's exact sentiments in regards to this issue, but if he was truly advocating or at least raising awareness to this rampant hypocrisy, then he was truly a man ahead of his time. Regardless, the mere fact that this was an issue to a scale so large that a man attempting to isolate was aware of it is simply disgusting. We have a long way yet to go, but progress is tangible.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:43:24 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Romantic Representation</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168723</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168723</guid>
      <description>This quote is interesting because while it does not explicitly state a key concept of romanticism, it does suggest a criticism of those who fail to meet these ideas, and thus, explores romantic ideals. Specifically, the crude way in which Thoreau states the people's &quot;...complicated machinery...&quot; implies his opposite view on the matter. The romantic ideas of withdrawal so as to maintain individuality and clarity are tarnished by the government, as it directly opposes this natural human separation practice. People congregate to gain both safety and unity, but this &quot;satisfaction&quot; of human desire is met with contempt and scorn. The people are achieving nothing, but only ignoring the truth of life.  The romantic ideas of individuality and human understanding are cast to the wayside by those too weak to attempt their own journey and will sit there until they regret the weight of their actions, as regret is a vision with perfect clarity.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:30:15 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Best Sentence</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168692</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/236669?scroll_to=2168692</guid>
      <description>This is without a doubt the best line of the text. Presented as almost a thesis of sorts, Thoreau states that this revolution of his dreams sits at the fulcrum of the people and the union of the people. As balance has been wrongfully ousted from the people, Thoreau suggests that the people may reagin this balance (an imbalance, even) through simply dispersing. This revolution is merely a cycle in which the ending is the antithesis of the beginning- unity. Unity is power and power is corruption, so through the refusal by which there is no remedy, the union of government cannot and will not exist without loyal participants. He draws upon these new ideas of natural rights and liberty in an effort to appeal to those like him who view the government as a limitation of right and liberty, and through this line, describes human nature of bonds and affiliation as well.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2020 10:47:19 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nice comment!</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/225798?scroll_to=2051373</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/225798?scroll_to=2051373</guid>
      <description>This is good! I completely agree with your notes here, and i think it's really interesting how diction can use varied repetition to convey different meaning with the same word. Solitude can mean peace or loneliness and it's very clear in the text that both are exemplified in the Native's situation. </description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:39:10 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hallowed</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/225798?scroll_to=2051364</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/225798?scroll_to=2051364</guid>
      <description>I completely agree. I also used the difference of respect, and totally understand your argument of the chief's opinions. It's interesting how different people see the land in different ways.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2020 21:35:09 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Hallowed</title>
      <link>https://nowcomment.com/documents/225798?scroll_to=2046948</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://nowcomment.com/documents/225798?scroll_to=2046948</guid>
      <description>Hallowed - meaning to be made holy or to be revered - is a really tactful use of diction. Not only does it really emphasize the importance of their land, but it also speaks to the contrast of viewpoint between the Native's and the &quot;White Man&quot;. This word really defines the sacred aspect of their homeland and encapsulates the strong connections to it.</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2020 12:17:40 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
