Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Conscious

“Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.” – Henry David Thoreau, Essay on Civil Disobedience Sitting upon loveseats in many a suburban home are sweater-wearing people balancing glasses of evening iced tea and opinions against the high-definition backdrop of CBS. Conversation hangs in the mature balance of polite talk and current events directed complaint. Yes, they are wading through post-election blues or joy and the reflected heat of political debates, but overshadowing their wagging-fingered damn the establishments is still the knowledge of work in the morning and ideological protestations set aside in the face of life. Blocking

There are Henry David Thoreau’s refusal to pay taxes in abhorrence of the U.S.’s institution of slavery, Mahatma Gandhi’s 240 mile walk protesting British rule and taxation over India, John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s ‘bed-ins’ against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr.’s commitment to the principle that, in his words, “the choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.” These examples range from gestures designed to bring awareness and attract popular support to actions directed pointedly against an opposing force. Not all of these protests were entirely successful, though many, such as Gandhi’s, instigated great change. It remains to be seen whether many of today’s protests, be they march, rally, traffic blockage, boycott, or something else entirely will accomplish what they wish. The real question here not whether past, present, or future protests succeed, however, for there is value in taking a stance in victory or failure. Neither is the issue truly whether the beliefs driving that stance are right or wrong- people should have the right to believe and protest what they want. By definition, civil disobedience and ‘peaceful’ protesting do not directly harm others. So in the end, does peaceful protesting positively or negatively impact society? Can it truly create positive

Standing in front of traffic is surely misdirected- it will not stop President Trump from barring refugees from the Middle East, but it will make it difficult for regular people to do things like work, providing for themselves and their families, or providing emergency services. So many protests may be perfectly legitimate and tenable, such as boycotting products from unsustainable sources, and yet, there are still so many factors to consider. Decreased demand in a product may very well decrease the need for workers to bring that product to market, therefore contributing to unemployment. It is so easy to take a peaceful stance on an issue and yet still find that it has negative ramifications never intended. Does this mean that people should simply bow to undue authority, support causes or institutions which hold beliefs contrary to their own, or take the easy, short-sighted route of inaction? Of course not. It does mean that we must deliberately ascertain that a) our actions are not misdirected, and b) that we consciously realize the responsibility and risks which come from simply exercising the human right to expressing our own opinions. Peaceful protests can absolutely influence the world positively. Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, and others can attest to that. Yet protesting a cause, however just, and in however peaceful a way, is frankly rather pointless if thrown blindly up against the world