Civil Disobedience Final Essay

Zinn interview, 2192.  In my opinion civil disobedience is a huge problem in society these days.  Zinn says, "Our problem is civil obedience, not civil disobedience."  It's hard to live in a society where you are judged on your acts and the decisions you make.  Howard Zinn states how it is seen in strikes, historically and today, acts of direct action.  Direct action means you are reading directly on your protest instead of waiting for representatives to act.

I see people all the time getting judged for protesting and its wrong.  I think it is civil disobedience to not protest the wrongs in our society cause there is so much.  Howard Zinn says that we should worry about civil obedience and he is right.  Nowadays people are constantly mistaking civil obedience with civil disobedience.  Teens are constantly joining the military not recognizing they are gonna go to war which can not be morally justified, Says Zinn.  Zinn also says how people will also fall into injustice cause there scared and feel they have no other alternative.

Zinn states that the justice system favors the rich, white and orthodox over the poor, black and radical.  This justice system alone is a big act of civil disobedience in my opinion.  This system makes it so that only the rich people make it in these big jury positions but no poor are represented in the court.  Howard Zinn states that the checks and balances which states not one branch of government can dominate simply doesn't work in times of war.  Zinn says that every war since world war  II has violated the requirement of the constitution that congress alone can declare war not the president alone.

The British, French, Chinese and Russian revolutions are all violent revolutions.  One revolution that wasn't was the revolution that took place in Africa.  " It solved a fundamental problem without the massive violence of civil war or a revolution," said Zinn.  The south Africans set an example that non-violence wars may not solve all problems but it will solve many without destroying the economy.  Zinn talks about how non-violent revolutions avoid the horrors of war and move a step closer in the direction of justice.

In todays society it's so hard to start a movement cause people are brainwashed constantly by the media.  Zinn states, " It is more difficult to build a movement because of the greater control of the media by the government.  Zinn says how the British administration is more cruel and way more ruthless than the Johnson or Nixon administrations.  This administration basically denies any sort of protest or revolution.

When we have protests our protests have always been non-violent in the civil rights, Anti-war and women movements.  We should be blessed as a country that at least we know someone is listening.  At least our protests aren't as violent as those in other countries.  This information came from Howard Zinns  interview with " State of Nature."  Zinn has wrote a number of popular and informing books and is still an inspiration and role model till this day.

Civil disobedience has always been a debated and polar opinionated topic since the first days that it was presented. Whenever it comes to going against a law that is set in stone as something to abide by in a society, some controversial actions are going to follow. The person who played the role as somewhat of a backbone in this movement was Henry Thoreau. In 1849, when Henry Thoreau re-iterated the idea of civil disobedience to the people of American following the Mexican war, it was viewed by some as extremely controversial, some viewed it as treason, and then there were the followers that were completely accepting of it and felt it necessary. This is why, when the idea came of mixing this idea of civil disobedience that was already controversial, with the slavery and whether it should be used against the fugitive slave act, was a real catalyst for uproar and praise. The uproar clearly came from some people with high positions in the United States.

Thoreau stated that people "cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences to their property and families of disobedience to it" . So it makes sense that most people would not be willing to risk losing their property, family, or their life. However, we should not feel this way because Jefferson also stated that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed."Jefferson then went on and stated "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government." It is not as if people do not have problems with the government. We protest the same things that Thoreau did: paying for wars, services that we personally do not use, corruption in our government, etc. Yet our society today does not use productive means to invoke our "Right of the People" and demand a "better government". 

There are people who actually do choose to abide by some of Thoreau's suggestions for dealing with our government. Many people refuse to pay taxes. Jefferson did claim that "imposing taxes on us without our Consent" was grounds for a request for new government. Is there actual anyone who enjoys paying taxes? Thoreau did not have a problem with paying "for no particular item in the tax-bill". He just did not want to show "allegiance to the State". He believed that he did not join the "incorporated society" that is the State so why should he pay its debts. The people who refuse to pay today simply prefer to keep their money. So according to Jefferson, that is technically ok.