Thoreau/MLK/Thinking?
Based upon class discussion and your recent reading of Civil Disobedience and Letter From Birmingham Jail,
what are you thinking regarding individual rights and freedom? Please
respond to this blog post by 2:30p.m. on Wed., Sep. 28th.
posted by Greg T at Monday, September 26, 2016
19 Comments:
After the discussion we had in class my mind kept thinking about what MLK would be thing with our country right now. I believe that Martin would be standing up for all lives mater. We are not free and we do have our rights but those rights get cut down every single year. Martin would tell us that no life is better than another life. We need to become a unit and a country that is a whole and has a purpose. We need to get rid of all this black lives matter and police lives matter. No, all lives matter and society and media are very bias and only show one side of the story. This country needs a new president that will change this country and for the people to feel free again. We need people like Henry and Martin in this generation that will step up and show us the way to feel free and gain our rights back.
What I think is that everyone deserves rights. I saw from what what MLK said about freedom that in those times it was really bad for african-americans. I think it is necessary to go out and fight for rights no matter what the consequences are. In MLK's case he was imprisoned. In the end though he was let out of prison and brought civil rights to the USA. Even though many rights have been brought there are still protests today that bring up the debate whether everyone has civil rights. I can still see today that many follow what MLK did with peaceful protests but when things get violent it makes me wonder what MLK would think. Does violence equal peace or does peace equal peace?
In the conversation today, I saw the main difference between MLK and Thoreau and that difference is that MLK went out in the world and made a stand and took actions on what he was saying, whereas Thoreau did take stand and tried to make a difference he just did so in a way that he didn't put himself or his life at risk for what he believed in. MLK lost his own freedom fighting for others. On the other side of things Thoreau took his words very literally and actually did what he believed and lived his beliefs, where MLK had dreams about what he wanted to happen. I think that both MLK and Thoreau were very bold and brave to take action on what they believed in, both of them were very opinionated and that is very respectable. I think now when people want to make a change they don't do it in the same peaceful way, they try to forcefully make others believe that same beliefs that they do, and I think that Thoreau and MLK's way of getting their point across was most likely more successful.
Regarding individual rights and freedom, I believe that all people are deserving of equal rights and liberties based off of their qualities. These rights and liberties should be limited if a person evades those rights and liberties of others. Both of these authors fought for equal qualities for everyone based off of their qualities and I believe they were right for this. Nothing about a person, how they look or what they believe, should limit their rights and freedoms over someone else's. Fighting to make the rights, liberties, and treatment of all people, based on qualities, has been an issue for much of history and is still a very relevant topic today.
One thing that I thought was interesting during the conversation is when we started to discuss what MLK or Thoreau would right or say today, in the modern age. I think MLK would be disappointed in the community for all of the violence that is happening surrounding the black lives matter situation, MLK was a very peaceful and non violent guy, he believes that violence is not the solution and that is exactly the opposite of how people today are handling the whole situation. As for Thoreau, I think he would have a very optimistic view on the situation, I don't think he would take a side I think he would want to remain neutral.
I feel like many things that were said were pretty true about all questions. Questions like What were they willing to give up made me think that they really gave up a ton in MLK's instance he really gave up everything he went to jail and all the hatred and everything he gave for what he believed in. In fact he ended up literally giving up everything because they took his life because of what he stood for and believed it. Thoreau really just wrote and did what he did because it was him and he didn't really care what the world thought of him he wasn't going to change no matter what. I think that is very cool that they stood up for what they believed in and didn't change for everyone else.
I believe that if a person is being oppressed they should fight for there rights no matter what. Because if you don't rebel against the injustice, who is going to stop that group or person from harming you in some way. In America, everyone is free to say what they want and do what they want. But some people abuse that power to but down others or mistreat others. Just because something is written down and is documented doesn't mean it is the right thing in that particular situation. If i where to write a book about life that influenced a lot of people. The people who read my book would apply my opinions and ideas to there life. But if another person did the same thing a month later, but there ideas where unpopular or the minority. They would get bashed by the majority just because of there thinking. Don't let people oppress you, or you could lose your own opinion and ideas.
Based upon the Civil Disobedience and the MLK’s jail writing, I think there is a lot to learn about individual rights and freedom. It is hard to know when you should protest and when to leave things alone. Knowing Their thoughts and MLK’s thoughts there is definitely a line you don’t cross unless you believe you should. If they are taking down your rights little by little and exposing you in a negative way, and going against your individual nation wide rights I feel like protesting is definitely the right idea. I do also believe that there is never a time where you should retaliate and turn these peaceful protests into violent acts against the government. Maybe they start the violence first, but I feel like holding your ground, staying peaceful, and not reacting back in a violent way shows some sort of respect and dignity.
Individual rights and freedoms are very important things in my eyes, and in the eyes of these amazing people Martin Luther King jr and Henry David Thoreau. Even though they are fighting for the same things, These two men have very separate approaches to this conflict that are interesting to take into account. King says that we can get freedom by helping the government fix its way where Thoreau says that we should isolate ourselves from the government and find ourselves then. I think both of these points are valid but I side towards Thoreau because if you ever want to be truly free, the government can't tell you what to do. I'm not saying im going to go to the lengths of Thoreau for freedom, but I do believe Thoreau was on the right track to full freedom and individual rights.
I am thinking that we as individuals deserve our rights and all the time now we feel as if those have been taken away.These modern days and what is happening with the Black Lives Matter things and these riots breaking out everywhere. Recently it feels like our rights are being violated and have been taken away and we are boxed up and limited on what we can do or say.Our freedom is being taken away because now you cant say what you are thinking without someone disagreeing or someone getting mad and it turning into a fight. We deserve our our rights and freedom as people because they guide us and protect us. We deserve our freedom because we have fought for a very long time for it and we still are.
I really like the way Martin Luther King creates this four basic steps: assure the facts you’re fighting for are true, negotiate, purify yourself and then act for the cause. I think that Martin Luther King would have been a different writer if he was in our times. Thoreau resembles Martin Luther King in the way that they both consider peace and negotiation as the first option before acting. Thoreau wasn’t the person that fights for what he believes in, he just writes about the problems and tries to call society’s attention on the problems that the government and everyone has. Martin Luther King learned from Thoreau and said I want to write this but I actually want to fight for this. These authors go as far as giving up their liberty and freedom for others. They put themselves in extreme risks for the future liberty that will thrive with their legacies. One of the costs of fighting for a cause is giving your freedom as a gift and giving it to everyone. The benefits of fighting for a cause is that you can actually make a change, be remembered in history as the person that changed everyone’s perspective of a certain point of view. As Edwin Markham once said, "To throw oneself to the side of the oppressed is the only dignified thing to do in life."
After reading Civil Disobedience and Letter From Birmingham Jail, I see many connections between the two regarding rights and freedom. Both of the authors want a change within society and they use nonviolent tactics to accomplish their goals. Thoreau writes about change, MLK creates change. There is a higher level of thinking within both pieces. The authors take a complicated situation or idea and solve it with the simplest answer. My thoughts on rights and freedom, relating to the articles, are why do we strive to make things more complicated instead of using the most simple solution? Sometimes the solution to social problems can be reverting things back to their simplest form. Rights are something that a person deserves and freedom, in the United States, is a beautiful thing that can never be taken away. Choosing to live how you want, living deliberately, and sticking up for what you believe in are all things that we get the right to do in the United States. Thoreau says, “The government is best which governs not at all.” I think MLK would also agree with this statement because the government is the one who is creating the segregation laws. Both of these authors have lots in common. They both provide interesting insight on how people should behave towards rights and freedom.
After making connections between the readings Civil Disobedience and Letter From Birmingham, I now see how similar their ideas are but they were executed in different ways. Thoreau is a person who says something but does not execute the words he says. He just says things that feel like they could make a "difference" in other people's lives, but we don't have a real world example. Thoreau can't be a real world example, because he thinks of the most random things that I honestly feel that they aren't very important. While on the other hand, MLK has spoken works that he stands by and executes. What he preaches is something he truly believes in, it's something that will make a difference in the world. They both do believe in the freedom of people, but their freedoms sound similar on paper but very different when actually done. Thoreau believes that freedom comes from the things that you do and the things that you let go. Thoreau wants you to let go of your own social lives and experience because he believes that those things are holding you back from your true meaning of freedom. MLK version or belief of freedom is a completely different way. Society is a thing that should be kept because that's what holds communities together and that also holds a nation intact. MLK was fighting for freedom for his people, not just himself. He wanted freedom within his community, within his people. I just believe that MLKs beliefs are more of helpful thing than Thoreau's words of the wise.
Regarding individual rights and freedom, I am thinking that both Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. shared some very similar ideas about what freedom actually is, and what actually living life is about. While Thoreau followed the idea of transcendentalism, specifically that we are too overcome by the world today to stop and really take in everything around us, MLK believed in equality for all people, no matter who people are, and making change through non-violence. Both Thoreau and King believed that violence is never the answer and nobody wins in conflict. As far as my thoughts regarding rights, I believe that regardless of any traits of a person, everybody should be treated equally. As far as which figures ideas I agree with more, I would have to say I agree with King's ideas more than Thoreau's. I say this because I do not believe that the only way to find yourself and to really "live" is through living in the wild, and disagree with many of his ideas overall.I like King's ideas because I believe that all people are created equal, and they all deserve rights and freedom.
After comparing the thoughts of Martin Luther King, and Thoreau, I would have to side with Thoreau. When talking about individual rights and freedoms, both MLK and Thoreau are fighting for the same things, but in a different way. MLK is fighting for individual rights and freedoms, by talking with the government and help them "fix" there way to more freedoms. Thoreau fights for individual rights and freedoms, by taking it into his own hands. He isolates himself form the government and the world basically. This is where I would have to side with Thoreau. Although it is very extreme and crazy to go out and live on your own in the middle of nowhere, thats the only way to fully escape the government. Even if there are millions of people protesting for the government to change, it will still talk much more than that to change the government. Thats why I think it would be easier if you isolated yourself, and lived on your own, the way you want.
While comparing the two people MLK and Thoreau, I looked at who had a bigger impact in the world overall. I thought that Thoreau at least to today's world had little to no impact on the world. Compared to MLk where he changed America and really the world’s view of African Americans. I believe that MLK’s approach is much more successful than that of Thoreau’s because MLK goes straight up to the gov’t in a peaceful protest, so the gov’t knows what he is protesting. Thoreau goes and hides off in the woods where his message of finding one’s self is hard to understand because he isn’t facing the world like MLK and telling the world what he believes in.
There are a lot of ideas to examine while reading these texts by both of these authors, and a lot of the time these heretics often times agree with each other in their ideals, but other times they contradict each other. During the times of Thoreau and MLK, freedom was a very different concept of what what we view today. I believe people today take for granted what they are able to have ad achieve in this free of a society. When now people are fighting for freedoms such as homosexual marriage, and citizenship, MLK was fighting for being seen as equal human beings the government and people alike, fighting for where they are able to sit on the bus, or which bathroom they can use. That is also one of the few differences these authors have, is that Thoreau is much more transcendental compared to MLK who is fighting for a whole people. Thoreau teaches those hoe to live with one's self, while it is evident MLK is trying to teach how to live with each other. Freedom to yourself is very different from freedom from others, it only take's yourself to free yourself from the ideas of conformity and reliance, but it takes a movement to free yourself from others.
Instead of comparing MLK and Thoreau, I think it is most beneficial to investigate how MLK is influenced by Thoreau. In the letter from Birmingham Jail, MLK stresses the fact that he would not consider himself an extremist. He looks upon people like Malcom X as extremists and thinks that his movement is not extreme, particularly in a violent way. As he comes to think on his own movement he starts to gain "a bit of satisfaction from being called an extremist" as he realizes the whole civil rights movement itself will be an extreme change in societal thought on equality. Similarly, one could juxtapose Thoreau against this and realize that while Thoreau did not consider himself an extremists, he would now be looked upon as extreme. The characteristics of MLK and Thoreau are very similar, which is why I think that MLK and Thoreau shared such similar beliefs on the topic of civil disobedience. Both recognized that there is a time and a place to rebel, and more importantly neither condoned excessive violence in the pursuit of rebellion. MLK claims that "oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever", which is also shown by Thoreau in his own Civil Disobedience when he suggests that there will always come a time when a people must rebel.
From reading both of the texts, I believe there are 3 different types of freedoms. There's physical, social and mental. Thoreau leans more towards mental freedom and becoming your own person. MLK wangs to have anyone who is discriminated to be accepted for who they are. As physical human beings and to be accepted to everyone as normal individuals. Thoreau wants people to accept themselves. To find the person they've always aspired to be and not to go with the flow. Not to do everything people higher up or bigger than you in your life tell you do just because it's the easy way out.
Post a Comment
<< Home