Reflection on Learning
As I reflect on the topics that we have covered during our journey into Humanities I have to admit that my concept of Freedom and Responsibility are in line now with the same concepts that I had before I took the class,. I think this has a great deal to do with being an older student, I have already been exposed to many of the prejudices and stereotypes discussed and found I have had opportunity through personal experience to allay many of the negative notions that have plagued our society since it’s founding.
I have to admit that I had never dealt with some of the horrific episodes in our history in such detail as before I took the course. I knew about the really well discussed topics such as Nazi Germany, and Concentration camps, but I didn’t know that the U.S. had intentionally socially structured and manipulated its own citizen to the degree of sterilization. I had also never heard the story of Emmitt Till, but in reading that story it really solidified the era and even though it has never been my experience to see that level of hate, it makes the reality more tangible even in this day after reading the account.
Overall I feel that having participated in this course I will look at things and dip deeper below the surface of the story to find the why, since that I think is one of the main focuses of the Humanities; not what we do, but why we do it. If we start to understand why, we can work to avoid negative outcomes by heading them off as they approach.
Journal 5 – e-Portfolio submission
Using your reading from this week (Thoreau & King) as a jump off point, I want you to think about what a “citizen” is. How would you define a “good citizen” of the United States? How does Thoreau define a good citizen? Would Martin Luther King agree with your definition or with Thoreau's?
Your Answer:
A citizen is any individual that lives in a community typically with a group of government that dictates common laws and rules of conduct. I would define a good citizen as a person whom follows the rules and conduct of their government which also include following the laws that control change to the laws already established.
Thoreau defines a good citizen as someone that does anything within their means even defying the law of the government if you do not personally agree with those laws or rules of conduct. I feel that Martin Luther King would agree with my concept of a good citizen because overall his outlook and methods were assertive, but non violent. My concepts and that of King were to encouraged confrontation strong enough to start a conversation, but not a physical contest.
Martin Luther King, like Thoreau, says we have a “moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” What is an unjust law? How can one show respect for law even while breaking it? What if everyone acted according to their conscience?
Your Answer:
I believe that an unjust law is any law that segregates rights and responsibilities for a citizen based on a cultural, ethnic, or gender bias. If the law saw everyone as if they were a purple polka dotted person of no particular faith, and of the same education level; it is likely to be a law that will be fair. Having stated that, there is a civic responsibility that goes beyond the law for the community to care for those that cannot care for themselves. This is where civil disobedience really comes to the fore, obey laws that protect the person of others, that do no harm and do not slander or slur others, but stand forth and express why you feel that a law is unjust and if you must violate laws of trespass or such to do so then it is a place to stand firm, not an action to harm another or to cause them loss. In the four freedoms this was expressed very well and I agree with them. When laws are made it is by people that interpret the wishes of those that they represent, and if there is peaceful protest it conveys to the policy makers that even though they thought in good faith that they were performing a service for those they represent that they in fact do have those which disagree with policy and it is an opportunity to open dialog to correct or modify a law so that it is more acceptable to all. If everyone acted according to their conscience we would have a country of political activists that would work toward reform of their society to the betterment of their community, or if we had individualistic self centered outlooks it would be chaotic and fall back toward a dog-eat-dog mentality.
What should be done with people – preachers, iconoclasts, educators, or anyone else – who seemingly undermine the values of the society where they live as Thoreau was doing in New England, or Martin Luther King in the South? What seems to be the proper relation between the individual and the community, and between the local community and society in the broader sense? Consider Kay Anderson’s attempt to stop Michael Moore from speaking at UVSC a couple of years ago because “this man does not represent the values of this community.”
Your Answer:
People, regardless of profession need to be conscious of their impact on society if they take the fore to become a spokes person for change. Unfortunately there is no clear or easy answer that comes to my mind on how to constrain an individual that wishes to peacefully yet forcefully express their wants and desires. We have two easily defined examples. If we look back toward King whom was seeing his group of people being treated differently than another group in an unjust manner, it would seem that all rational people would agree that he had a just cause and his methods were benign for the most part. On the other hand if we have an extremist that feels that it is ok to take from others that have, if you do not have enough and espouses violence or encourages fraud, guile, or deception to get what you wish if you have a need; I do not believe that this type of leader should have the protection of the pulpit, but this is my opinion and others may feel that any person that puts themselves forward deserves protection and should be allowed to work unhindered. I believe that everyone in a society has a right to be heard, and that the audience given full information to then decide without prejudice whether to give weight to the information provided by the speaker. When Kay Anderson attempted to stop Michael Moore by stating that he doesn’t represent the values of this community, I don’t think that she had the right to speak for her community until they had the chance to listen to Michael Moore and then state whether they agree with her or not. After the community heard his points and comments, they may agree that he does not represent their values, but they may find that it solidifies their views and that indeed his are not theirs and it was still a benefit to hear a differing opinion.
