| | |
|
JohnBrownandCivilDisobedience 3 - 01 Mar 2010 - Main.AerinMiller
|
| | What form can resistance to government by private individuals properly take?
Thoreau called John Brown, “the most American of us all.” This made me wonder what type of obligation he was trying to imply that we have to act on behalf of our fellow human beings. What form of civil disobedience and protest for injustice is appropriate in society? Do the means justify the end or should we be viewing Brown's actions not from a modern moral perspective but within its historical context? | | | This is undoubtably a very important question to pose. That being said however, our president has pointed out (and I believe correctly) that nonviolent movements are often more efficacious than their violent counterparts. Between moral considerations and the desire to do what achieves a more just social order, I personally find it difficult see how anyone can justify using violence to achieve justice. Tools like political action and moral suasion may seem useless, but when a skilled person (like a smart lawyer) use them, they can produce revolutionary change. So although I think its fruitful to debate the actions of John Brown and question their propriety, I believe that when we really weigh all the facts, it will be evident that Brown was right in fighting injustice, but wrong in how he conducted that fight.
-- TaylorMcGowan - 28 Feb 2010 | |
>
> |
I had a similar reaction to Thoreau’s adulation of John Brown – I admired it, and Brown, but I found his use of violence to be extremely unpalatable. That being said, I think John Brown is a hero, as I think MLK is a hero and Gandhi is a hero. I spent much of Thursday’s class attempting to pin down how I could mentally group these three together. The best I could come up with is that the latter two used non-violence because (morality aside) it was the most effective route to their respective finish lines; the former used violence for the same reason. Violence, like non-violence is a tactic. I can only assume John Brown used violence because non-violence would or could not work, or because he viewed the pace at which the work of his fellow abolitionists was diffused (Walker’s Appeal, etc.) and found it unsatisfactory. From a pure political theory perspective, then, his decision was contextually rational, which offers a decent explanation for the effectiveness of his results (effective insofar as they spread international awareness and spurred political change).
-- AerinMiller - 01 Mar 2010 | | | |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |