Posted: Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:01 pm Post subject: Due 11/23
Please reflect on the articles you read for homework by responding to these questions or the responses of your peers. Write at least 100-200 words and make sure to include a question in your post!
Do you think these two authors would agree about civil disobedience? What would they say to Henry David Thoreau? Is civil disobedience the same thing as monkeywrenching? What are the risks and benefits of these forms of dissent?
I do think that these authors would agree about civil disobedience. Both authors seem to think that the laws can be broken in order to create a more just society. The first article states that monkeywrenching, even though it is illegal, is "nonviolent resistance to the destruction of natural diversity and wilderness." (pg 5) It points out that monkeywrenching is not targeted at any specific group of people. The second article argues that most people aren't aware of all that the "law" includes. Instead of obeying the law, it is necessary to go outside of it, especially amongst all people.
I think that the authors would agree with Henry David Thoreau because he didn't believe in the government's style of ruling, and argued that people should fight for what they believe in, thereby disobeying the government sometimes. The two authors from this weekend's readings seem to agree that it is ok to disobey the law.
On another note, I thought the wording of the first reading was pretty funny. The first half of the article where Foreman talked about the land was very informative, but the sentences were soo long. Toward the end of the article, when he introduced the principles for the campaigns, I found him contradicting himself a lot as he talked about violence and the risks involved in monkeywrenching.
I pulled out one sentence from the principle section, though, that I thought was interesting and relates to many dissenter's techniques which is: "They ask themselves what is the most vulnerable point of a wilderness-destroying project, and strike there."
Can you think of a dissenter who used this method?
I’m commenting mainly on the Zinn essay, partially because he’s fascinating, partially because I just barely scraped through with Monkeywrenching (no offence, monkeywrenchers). It was so facty and wordy! Anyways, Zinn.
Clearly, the essay we were assigned starts on the first photocopied page of the book, pages 402-403. What I found funny/cool, and what kind of informed the rest of my reading, was that on page 402, the left half of the first page, Zinn actually quotes the Thoreau article we just read. Obviously we don’t get any context as to what Zinn thinks about it, but he seems to put it/Thoreau himself in a positive light. This is confirmed by the actual essay. From the first sentence, “the wrong people are in jail… the wrong people ar in power,” Zinn echoes Thoreau’s ideas. What made him different to me, though, was that while Thoreau seemed to reject all law, and law as an institution, Zinn seems to just hate the way law is now (or in the 70’s when he wrote it), and how people obey it. (Thoreau also thought that obedience was a huge problem, but I think it might mean more to Zinn; it’s the core of his entire argument. And it’s in his title.)
Something I found interesting: Zinn is very pro-Declaration and pro-Bill of Rights (unless he was just being ironic, in which case everything I’m about to say is wrong), and seems pretty frustrated when they weren’t enforced in the form of laws, yet hates when people obey laws in the first place. That to me said a) that he thought we needed to redo all of our laws to reflect the Constitution and the Declaration more accurately, and b) for the time being we should just do what we think is right until they get changed. Then again, that is almost exactly what the Declaration says we have the right to do.
And another thing: Zinn painted a pretty clear picture of his ideal society. It had to be “just… harmonious relationships established… minimum of regulation.” (p. 409) Yes, it’s minimal by definition, but he does include regulation, i.e. law, in his society. But he keeps it small and unobtrusive for a reason, because “the force of law… invariably leads either to total injustice or to rebellion—eventually, in other words, to very great disorder.” (p. 409) That was cool—it flipped everything on its head. Instead of the disobedience of laws that’s messing everything up, it’s really the enforcement of the laws themselves.
Finally, to tie monkeywreching into all this, I think it is a rough application of Zinn and Thoreau’s ideas. Not as extreme, but it is a small example of civil disobedience in the world, more or less in line with Zinn and Thoreau’s models.
Side note… I liked how Zinn would randomly throw in buckets of sarcasm. Dave Foreman/Monkeywrenching leaned more towards dates/numbers/acronyms.
Well, this is kind of all over the place. Question: Why does Zinn throw in the piece about Daniel Berrigan’s mother? What are his views on religion? How do they tie in to the rest of his ideas?
I feel like Dave Foreman and Zinn would agree about civil disobedience in a general sense. It's tough to say, though, because Dave Foreman was a lot more specific than Zinn. It's particularly confusing because Zinn approached civil disobediance as though it is always for the common good. Dave Foreman took a different stance, where he basically said "Even if the majority of people feel differently from you, if you happen to agree with me, then you should do this monkeywrenching thing." It brings up the whole question of whether or not it is one's right, or one's responsibility, or neither, to act in what one sees as the best interest of the majority even if the majority is unwilling to do so for themselves.
I guess Zinn would argue that the majority of people do not have a great deal of influence given the oppressive nature of our government, but he never really broaches a point that I think has a lot of significance. He comes close to it when he says, talking about Hitler in Germany, "They should have challenged...and if we were only there we would have showed them." He's being ironic, but what he's bringing up is people's tendency to NOT resist and NOT dissent. It seems like Zinn has this idea that government is an entity foreign to those it governs. But we set up our government and we have allowed it to evolve into what is.
So my question is this: How close does Zinn come to advocating action against the government when the civil disobey-er is acting against the will of the people?
The monkeywrencher's was also hard for me to get through. But the general idea that I got out of it was that they agreed with dissent (dissenting?) against the government.
I think that Zinn's view on dissent was much stronger than the monkeywrencher's however. (this could be completely wrong because I didn't really get the monkeywrencher reading) Zinn feels very strongly that we need to "go outside the law, to stop obeying the laws.." He feels that we need to restore the values in the Declaration of Independence and the only way to do that is to ignore the laws and do what is right. He is also calling for a worldwide disobedience, which I found interesting.
My question: Is dissenting a long, non-ending loop? Example: Dissenters dont like the government so they overthrow it. New radicals dont like the new government and overthrow that government. I know that the overthrowing part desnt always happen but I think you get my point.
Everybody has a different opinion of what is right. Many are similar (Do not harm other people) would be a base idea that i believe most people would agree with. If everyone was civilly disobedient than there would be many conflicting view points. Perhaps what most people think is right is being obedient in order to keep everything peaceful even if it sometimes conflicts with their personal views. How is it my right to decide what is good and bad right and wrong. Who's right is it then perhaps the majority the problem is that maybe it is not the majority who are setting the rules. The people on top are setting the rules and saying it is the majority.
This however is assuming that you even believe the majority is the definitive judge of right and wrong. Will put it in a interesting way:
""Even if the majority of people feel differently from you, if you happen to agree with me, then you should do this monkeywrenching thing." It brings up the whole question of whether or not it is one's right, or one's responsibility, or neither, to act in what one sees as the best interest of the majority even if the majority is unwilling to do so for themselves."
Is the majority always right and if we take action should we take it in their interest or in ours? And if the majority is not a proper judge of what is right or wrong than who is?
Both authors think people should and have the right to fight against the government if they are not satisfied with the status quo. Monkeywrenching talked about one specific method to dissent, and mentioned that laws don’t really benefit the people and the nation. In Zinn’s reading, he talked more about the general idea of dissenting the laws. He thinks the government has passed too many laws that benefit the rich and the power.
Zinn seems to be more specific on his thoughts, and he delivered a very clear image of a failed government that passed laws that conflicted with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Right. Although I think Zinn will agree with Henry David Thoreau, he has a different point about the government. Zinn thinks there are still laws that do go for the people, he wants the people to go outside the laws and for their right to have all the laws favor everyone. As in his words, “what if everyone obeyed the law?”
I do think two authors agree on civil disobedience according to the readings. Zinn states that people who always obey governments regardless of governments’ deeds are the problems. “Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is the numbers of people all over the world who have obeyed the dictates of the leaders...and millions have been killed because of this obedience”. (405) In the past, massacre of Jewish was one of the recent greatest tragedy occurred in World War II. Author asserts this tragedy occurred because people followed whatever governments say. Although Zinn asserts that laws are very important which protect humans’ right, we should think about the consequences of following laws. “But I think we ought to begin to make very important distinctions about what laws do what things to what people”.
Monkeywrenching is similar to civil disobedience. Although it is not related to any political, social, and economic, it is totally against governments act. Dissenting is a one way of expressing one’s opinion that is against governments’ will. Throughout this activity, governments can know what civilians think. My question will be how are civilians capable of judging from right to wrong about the laws.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
