Michelle Romero
Eng. 48, Dr. Scott Lankford
Author: Henry David Thoreau
"[The American government] is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves; and if, ever they should use it in earnest as a real one against each other, it will surely split.”
In this metaphor of the American government to a wooden gun, Thoreau says a lot about the value of human participation and the significance of our actions. First he says, "[The American government] is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves."
In this part of the passage he compares the government to the actual people and calls the government a mere "wooden gun" in comparison. Compared to the people, the government is just a fake. Thoreau clearly sees true worth in the actions taken by individuals rather than an established, fraudulent government.
In the next part of this passage Thoreau says that "if, ever [the people] should use [the wooden gun] in earnest as a real one against each other, it will surely split." First, by establishing that IF the people were to use the wooden gun (aka the government) against one another it would split, he is implying that the people are simply NOT using the government. This is Thoreau's first step in making his argument: establishing that the people are not taking an active role. He then warns that if they use the government as an instrument to fight each other, that it will break. This perhaps is the most radical part of his statement. He is basically calling out the rebels and saying that if they all join in to their cause and act on thier own, the government will not be able to control them or maintain any power over them.
Thoreau is basically revealing how ineffectual the government is IF the people actual stand up and act out their own will. By calling the government a mere wooden gun, it is as though Thoreau is mocking those who do not stand up out of their own concious against this machine, calling them worshippers of a false power. He believes, apparently, that only those who submit to be ruled can be ruled.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Journal #5
Michelle Romero
Eng. 48, Dr. Scott Lankford
Author: Henry David Thoreau
“Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward” (1858).
I love this quote! Before this passage, Thoreau asks questions leading to this very point: if men were meant just to follow orders, why do men think? Why do men have the ability to reason?
In an ethics class I took we discussed how language and the ability to reason is the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. Humans have a unique ability to determine what is commonsensical and what is right or wrong for themselves through reason.
After first reading this section of Resistance to Civil Government, this exact quote immediately reminded me of the scene in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn where Huck Finn is deciding whether or not he is going to turn Joe, a runaway slave, back in to his owner. According to the law, Huck is obligated to turn Joe in, but according to his conscious he wants to let Joe be free.
Eng. 48, Dr. Scott Lankford
Author: Henry David Thoreau
“Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward” (1858).
I love this quote! Before this passage, Thoreau asks questions leading to this very point: if men were meant just to follow orders, why do men think? Why do men have the ability to reason?
In an ethics class I took we discussed how language and the ability to reason is the only thing that distinguishes us from animals. Humans have a unique ability to determine what is commonsensical and what is right or wrong for themselves through reason.
After first reading this section of Resistance to Civil Government, this exact quote immediately reminded me of the scene in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn where Huck Finn is deciding whether or not he is going to turn Joe, a runaway slave, back in to his owner. According to the law, Huck is obligated to turn Joe in, but according to his conscious he wants to let Joe be free.
Thoreau, like Twain several years later, asks this difficult but common sense question to his readers: is the conscious of man enough to rule his decisions? And if we have an individual conscious, why do we do what is lawful before what we feel is “right”?
This will forever remain the fundamental question of humankind. If we were all to act based on our own individual reason or conscious, our way of life would be so different. I imagine we would view those who are in contempt of court in a new light and put more focus on protest and organizing than on our daily work routines. We would re-evaluate what the important things in life really are.
Journal #4
Michelle Romero Dr. Scott Lankford
Eng. 48A
Author: Henry David Thoreau
Resistance to Civil Government
"For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another along; 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..." (Thoreau 1858).
The above quoted passage is Thoreau spouting off his ideas about the role of government in a capitalist economy.
Thoreau clearly feels the government should take a laissez-faire approach when it comes to just about everything! In this passage, he uses American business to illustrate a hypothetical situation in which the government ruins production with its stupidity. He suggests that legislators are simply busy throwing "obstacles" in the way of progress and his tone is rather condescending. He undermines the authoritative pedestal on which Americans have placed its lawmakers.
I think this passage is so American and speaks to the rebel in us all. Thoreau is basically comparing their old England government to the one they have created and calling them all the same. The early Americans came from a country with an oppressive government, one which imposed its authority on its subjects in all matters. Now, here is Thoreau basically saying the American government is just as useless and even harmful to the freedom of its new citizens.
Those first settlers came to this country to find freedom of religion and to separate themselves, to live a life they could be free to live. Thoreau is calling his readers to look at their present situation twice over and not let the same thing happen to them twice, finding themselves under a governing body of oppressive authority where their freedom is threatened. He urges them to always move toward progress without heed to any theoretical machine.
On the other hand, his passage is a little on the radical side. Thoreau does not often sound middle of the road and sometimes to weight both sides of the issue is beneficial and also necessary. In this case, he says that US legislators would hinder business, but today (as he suspected) we have all these government regulations and federal commissions to monitor businesses and make sure that products do not impose health risks and so forth. Today, we might say that although these regulations may pose an inconvenience, they also help to guard consumers from greedy business owners.
Nonetheless, Thoreau makes his own point clear. I just don’t know if I agree with him.
Eng. 48A
Author: Henry David Thoreau
Resistance to Civil Government
"For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another along; 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..." (Thoreau 1858).
The above quoted passage is Thoreau spouting off his ideas about the role of government in a capitalist economy.
Thoreau clearly feels the government should take a laissez-faire approach when it comes to just about everything! In this passage, he uses American business to illustrate a hypothetical situation in which the government ruins production with its stupidity. He suggests that legislators are simply busy throwing "obstacles" in the way of progress and his tone is rather condescending. He undermines the authoritative pedestal on which Americans have placed its lawmakers.
I think this passage is so American and speaks to the rebel in us all. Thoreau is basically comparing their old England government to the one they have created and calling them all the same. The early Americans came from a country with an oppressive government, one which imposed its authority on its subjects in all matters. Now, here is Thoreau basically saying the American government is just as useless and even harmful to the freedom of its new citizens.
Those first settlers came to this country to find freedom of religion and to separate themselves, to live a life they could be free to live. Thoreau is calling his readers to look at their present situation twice over and not let the same thing happen to them twice, finding themselves under a governing body of oppressive authority where their freedom is threatened. He urges them to always move toward progress without heed to any theoretical machine.
On the other hand, his passage is a little on the radical side. Thoreau does not often sound middle of the road and sometimes to weight both sides of the issue is beneficial and also necessary. In this case, he says that US legislators would hinder business, but today (as he suspected) we have all these government regulations and federal commissions to monitor businesses and make sure that products do not impose health risks and so forth. Today, we might say that although these regulations may pose an inconvenience, they also help to guard consumers from greedy business owners.
Nonetheless, Thoreau makes his own point clear. I just don’t know if I agree with him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
