Summary Of Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

1358 Words3 Pages

In 1992, citizens of South Central Los Angeles started a riot and caused chaos in their neighborhood (Smith 261). Many looted business stores and burned down many properties. The riot was caused by the injustice in the neighborhood. Henry David Thoreau would probably partially support the citizen’s action during the riot. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau mentioned “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable” (para. 8). Thoreau is saying that it is okay to resist and go against the wrongs. However, Thoreau also stated “It is not a man 's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, …show more content…

Thoreau is saying that majorities are not always fair, but most likely win because they are stronger. I also agree with Thoreau for this statement, because I believe that it is wrong to have the majorities to decide what has to be done or not since the results may not always be fair to others. I remember when I was in high school, my friend was running for vice president of a club. She had her speeches prepared. However, on the day of election, one of the popular basketball girls decided to run against her. Members of the club all voted for the basketball girl, even though she was not well prepared, and she did not have much knowledge about the club. They chose her because they liked her, not because of how she can benefit the club nor how great her speech was. This taught me that majorities do not always make the right decision. Therefore, I believe the citizens of South Central Los Angeles made a good decision to fight against the stronger group to get their justice back, but a bad decision on who they choose to

Open Document