 |
| PHOTO PROMPT © Jean L. Hays |
In 1849 a young American is jailed for not paying his poll
tax as a protest against slavery and the war with Mexico.
In an essay titled "Civil Disobedience," Henry David Thoreau asked “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not
virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?”
Sixty years later Mohandas Gandhi adopted Thoreau’s thoughts
in developing his concept of Satyagraha (non-cooperation).
Years later Martin Luther King Jr., considers the non-cooperation
philosophy as “the only morally and practically sound method open to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom”.
And the circle of life carries on.
***
Written for the Friday Fictioneers. Word count:100More facts than fiction in this post today. When I saw the name I did find information about the town of Thoreau. It did present some ideas especially considering that the Navajo Nation has a strong history and culture culture around the town, But in the end I went with Henry David Thoreau and how his essay written nearly 170 years ago influenced the two giants of the twentieth century.
To read the other writers this week click here.
I'd love read what you think about this post...
And so an idea grows and flourishes.
ReplyDeleteAn idea that changed the world. Thanks for your comments Alistair.
DeleteEnjoyed reading this - and I learnt a few things too. :)
ReplyDeleteSusan A Eames at
Travel, Fiction and Photos
Thank you Susan I am glad you liked it.
DeleteDear Subroto,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately racism marches on. Good piece.
Shalom,
Rochelle
It does but then so does the awareness against it. Thanks for your comments Rochelle, I am glad you liked it.
DeleteI really enjoyed this lesson, Subroto. Well written.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dale, I enjoyed putting it together.
DeleteLots of food for thought here. Would it really be an ideal government if right and wrong were determined by each individual's conscience? There are plenty of people who don't seem to have any conscience whatsoever. Who, then, would decide what is right (legally, morally, ethically) if each person gets to live by his own definition of those things?
ReplyDeleteI'm not looking for answers or debate here. Just thinking out loud :)
Good points Linda but I think that his point was against majoritarianism. It quite remarkable for not only his times but even today.
Delete"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."
Much to think about here. Nicely done.
ReplyDeleteThanks Sandra.
DeleteNicely done.
ReplyDeleteThank you Shirley.
DeleteAn informative and thought-provoking piece indeed.
ReplyDeleteThanks Keith.
DeleteThat was interesting and educational. I still like to think, despite all the set-backs recently, and the social-network-induced stupidity-fest, that overall we're getting better, more just, more enlightened.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments Gabi. There should be more hope for the future but judging by political events around the globe, in some ways we are regressing.
DeleteSome amazing people you mention there. Thanks for sharing the inspirations for Gandhi and Dr King - inspirational
ReplyDeleteThanks Lynn I did like writing about it.
Deleteisn't what life is all about? we build from others success and learn from their failures.
ReplyDeleteTrue. And we learn from ideas that others may float. Thanks for reading and commenting Plaridel.
Delete