![]() The Norton anthology of American literature. In this context, it becomes more significant to be aware of evil and contribute to the opposition in possible ways, avoiding overextension. For me, this claim seems anarchistic and, to some extent, extremist it serves as proof of the boundary effect of personal moral standards that every individual possesses. According to Thoreau, the ways of causing legal changes from inside the government, for example, voting or petitioning, are greatly unproductive (Levine et al., 2017). With the consideration of taking the idea of disobedience to its maximum, an individual might soon find himself breaking the laws that might endanger other people’s well-being and invoke punishment, for example, incarceration. I believe it might be the perfect boundary for the level of interference people should make when they face it shorthand. ![]() The idea of making a personal decision to either oppose or not to participate is fundamental in this context. ![]() Yet Thoreau was among the first names I came across when I began to research Muslim-Americans’ responses to the crackdown on their civil liberties following 9/11. I agree with Thoreau’s vision of justice, especially with the part concerning participation in injustice. Often associated with nonviolent civil disobedience, Thoreau isn’t usually the first name that springs to mind when one thinks of violent resistance. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |