Today in class I asked when do the citizens of the state lose their right as individuals for the quality of the state. Chad noted that when an agreement on a revolution is made to change the previous agreement, it is at that point the citizens claim their individual rights back to start this revolution. But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?
Yes. Both groups can fight for their rights, and both can be successful. The tactics of fighting for these rights may be different, but they have the capability of a positive outcome. This point relates to Stanton and her list of capabilities, a quote I want to take from her declaration is as such: “…when a long train of abuses and unsurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security” (164). It is their duty and capability to revolt against an unjust government. But the idea of allowing only those in mass numbers to revolt against an unjust government is equally unjust. Luckily, the “smaller men” in a community have revolted against these “big brothers”, and we are active in an equally just community.
The creation of co-ops within the United States is an example of “smaller men” fighting for their just quality of life. I have personal experience with co-ops because our electric company at home is a co-op within northwest Ohio. Small town farmers whose property were being bought out by large companies like Toledo Edison created co-operations. These farmers created land barriers by creating their own source of electricity, which is networked with other farmers across the state, which leads to a water-based electric plant in Cincinnati. The point being that these few men, needed courage to fight against a bigger power. And they were not the majority; the majority was for the spread of the large electric company. The moral of the story: the majority is not always right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Jessica said, “But how many citizens are enough to start this revolution? Does it take a small group from a town to realize that their rights are not being treated accurately? Or does it take a larger group that has courage because of the shear number of people? Can it be both?”
I agree that it is a combination of both. I believe it takes a small group of people to start the revolution and then if the group grows into a larger one, it will be more likely to be successful. The larger the group, the more likely others will take it seriously. For example, take the women’s rights movement that was in Stanton’s article. In the beginning women’s rights seemed absurd, by men and women, but when more women finally started to join, the movement became more and more appealing and closer to their overall goal. Furthermore, I believe at the start of any revolution a small group of people are a very important factor in breaking from the majority and spreading the word around until the group gets bigger. Once the group is bigger then their chances of success are more in their favor.
I agree it is both as well and a group can start off small and grow but what happens if others still do not take it seriously and the group remains small? Does the group give up or continue fighting for what they want? Of course without a vast number of people it is going to be hard to be heard and get the groups ideas across to others but this does not mean they should surrender and lose hope. Even a small group would be capable of accomplishing their goal if they have enough facts and support to back it up. However, in my opinion, it seems hard to fight for something you really want when the majority is against you. That is why I think half the time people don’t start a revolution or express their ideas.
Post a Comment