Most recent public comments by Student Zachary Menard https://nowcomment.com/users/88587 https://nowcomment.com/documents/236829?scroll_to=2168410 https://nowcomment.com/documents/236829?scroll_to=2168410 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? Tue, 27 Oct 2020 20:04:56 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/236829?scroll_to=2168400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/236829?scroll_to=2168400 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. Tue, 27 Oct 2020 23:30:39 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/236829?scroll_to=2164503 https://nowcomment.com/documents/236829?scroll_to=2164503 "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? Tue, 27 Oct 2020 02:29:04 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2096948 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2096948 He uses the word alone here, which is a pretty powerful word. It really helps to develop the somber and foreboding tone. The word "alone" is very effective in evoking powerful feelings in the reader, as it is human nature to fear loneliness. However, what is interesting to note here is that the word is being used in a much more abstract manner that we are used to. When he says that we will never be alone, he means this in a more spiritual sense. Deceased natives will not literally be beside us, however, there presence will take on a more metaphysical expression that we cannot escape so long as we dwell on this continent. Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:52:47 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2051009 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2051009 I wonder if when he says "return," he means returning from the spirit world. He speaks about the land in such a heartfelt manner, emphasizing that their spirits will continue to return to the places that are important to them. This is a reflection of human nature since we all have a tendency to long for the places which are close to our hearts. It is also powerful to consider that this phenomenon could continue to occur after our deaths, almost as if our connection to these places transcends life and death. Mon, 28 Sep 2020 17:59:14 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2051007 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2051007 The land is so filled with their people's history that they find meaning in things like rocks, which may seem strange to us, but is really a beautiful thing. It is incredible that humans can find so much meaning in inanimate objects. When the author looks at these rocks, he sees not a simple stone, but the land on which his forefathers lived and perished, and on which his children play. He clearly is resentful of the settlers who likely do not appreciate these details of the land the way that he does. Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:02:35 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2048659 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2048659 He uses the word "sacred." This is effective in showing just how important the land is to them while creating a serious/somber tone. Had he used another word such as "important" or "valuable", the effect would have been different. Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:09:25 -0400 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2048637 https://nowcomment.com/documents/225811?scroll_to=2048637 He uses the term "red skin." I wonder if this is actually how he would have described himself, or if this is the work of the translator. Fri, 02 Oct 2020 15:45:25 -0400