A Debate
Today in class we discussed the Espionage and Sedition Acts. Here are two often-quoted statements - which one better represents your thoughts?
"Dissent is unpatriotic."
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
"Dissent is unpatriotic."
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
posted by Crosby | 9:31 AM
27 Comments:
Well, in the strictest definition, isn't someone who disobeys established law or doing what the government expects unpatriotic? In my personal view, however, dissent is very patriotic--rushing into an issue without hearing the opposing side is often a very rash thing to do, and the people who push the envelope are often the ones who make history.
There was a question just like this on Ackerman's blog, too. :)
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is one of my all time favorite quotes and I even have a pin that says it. I completely believe that if it weren't for dissent, there would be no America. The only reason why our country got started in the first place was becuase the settlers decided to rebel against the oppresive rule of England. If people don't continue to stand up against governments and policies that are not beneficial to the humanity, than there will never be peace or freedom. If people continue to stand up and say that it is not okay to engage in war, than eventually this will spread and the world will lose its love for destruction and find that only by helping others will the human heart ever find happiness.
As far as the espionage and sedition acts go, I just feel ashamed for our country that we were so weak during a war that we were willing to give up our basic principles and freedoms just to win a war. This shows that our country still had a lot to learn, and still does. If we have people who are willing to take away the sacred human right to dissent, than we have a government which is not working in the way that our forefathers envisioned it. We see this also during WWII when Americans of Japanese heritage were stripped of rights and put into camps. We don't see it to the same extent today, but we do discriminate against muslims simply because that is the religion that dominates the countries we are fighting against (or I guess the government would say "liberating" but whatever I don't think that is true). The point is that we must learn from this scourge on our history and take action now to never let it happen again. We need to let the government know that it is not okay to pass acts like this and also the Patriot Act, which is very reminiscent of the Alien and Sedition act becuase it takes away privacy and makes the country less open to free dissent. It is absurd to think that this was a good thing to have happened in U.S. history, and I hope that people see this.
(sorry that this was so long but I feel really passionate about this subject!)
The second quote better represents my thoughts because often having opposition can point out flaws that need to be reformed in society. Denying people of the First Amendment is not what this country is about and so denying them opposition to what the government is doing is just that. The way our government is set up is so that things can be changed for the better good. I understand that it is important to stay united in a war but that does not mean that everyone has to believe the war is right. People have the right to believe what they want to believe. Also if there was no opposition than people could get away with things that aren't always just or noble and they wouldn't get called on it and people would stay miserable. To tie into that, just because the majority of people belive in something doesn't mean what they are doing is right.
I dissagre with Hannah. She goes on to say that dissent is haw our country got started and our forfathers, blah blah blah. What she doesn't understand is that we were not fighting amongst our selves we were in fact fighting against what was percived as a foriegn threat. When we wnt agains brittain that was becomeing united as a country agianst another country, not mere dissent. If there is dissent against your own country then it is just as bad. In that way you are trying to turn the country in on itself, the last thing you need when fighting a WORLD WAR, trying to deffeat another power in the great war would have ended badly if we could not ever agree on anything. Same in World War Two, if the japenese people decided that they didn't like the US as much as Japan our country would become divided. Ever hear about the civil war? That could have potentially happened again, and this time in the middle of another war. As for proclaiming peace bringing about world peace? The middle of a war is not the time for that. Saying that the US should not join any wars, but once we have, there is no turning back, once you are on the rollercoaster, going up the hill trying to climb out is not a good idea, anyone agree? On the alien and sedition acts, many people are missing the point. They say that people will try to voice their oppinions anyway but that is true. What the laws do is make the dissent sound dumb and idiotic. It is the same as if someone is saying that everybody should go and rob banks, because that is against the law few people are going to go and actually rob any banks.
On another note I do not belive muslims should be discriminated against, but you have to agree most terrorists that hate the US are muslim so the reasons for the disrimination are obvious, and although it is a stereotype it is stereotyped for a reason. By the way those countries we are "liberating" hateded us before we ever got there. If they could, they'd invade us in an instant.
Once again dissent is not really good, ansrchy is bad when the country is already involved in one war, and while opinions can be voiced it should not be to create dissent. Dissent is a state of division and overall semi-ansrchist movement. All should agree that, thwt state is not favorable, especialy in war.
by the way Matta is Matt a in your second block.
I agree with the second quote, but both are true in some ways. There always have to be those that agree with an opinion or action, and those that challenge it. By challenging an opinion or idea, the idea is usually forced to improve, to gain more supporters, and in this way dissent is patriotic.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." This quote better describes my thoughts because i believe that without disagreement there would be nothing. Opinions show that citizens understand what is going on and are willing to stand up for what they believe is better for the country...showing immense patriotism. Aslo without dissent everything would kinda be communistic in a way that everyone was relitivly equal in what they thought. Dissagreement and opinions show intrest and without them there is no america...we need them to build.
Matta, I had a feeling you would disagree with me, so should I put you in jail? Just kidding. First off, could you maybe try to use good grammer on the blog? I know that sounds mean but it is just becuase I am a little OCD about spelling. But that is not why I am blogging. I am blogging because you are saying about our forefathers is incorrect. When they fought against Britain, they were NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT their own country!!!!! They were still a part of Britain, so they were dissenting against THEIR GOVERNMENT. Also, you said that there is a reason why it is okay for us to discriminate against muslims, and I find that really derogatory towards that religion. If a group of christians decided to burn a synagogue in the U.S. and killed Jews, would the whole country turn against christians? No, they wouldn't, because it was an isolated group that just happened to beleive in that religion. I just found that comment highly judgemental and I disagreed with it. Also, if Americans hadn't stood up against the Vietnam war, would it have ended when it did? Would more of OUR YOUNG BOYS have died in a conflict that did not even affect America? Answer that question.
Oh, and also I am interested to know after your comment on WWII, did you agree with the atom bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I agree with the first quote that dissent is unpatriotic. However, I do not think that the government should have the power to imprison people for being unpatriotic; it is a choice that every one has a right to make for themselves. It was by definition unpatriotic to go to war against Britain but does that make it bad? Dissent can be a good thing in alot of ways and that is how this country was formed.
Btw about the whole Muslims thing I heard this quote that said not all Muslims are terrorist but all terrorist are Muslims. because of some things that have happened in this country and world wide,some of societies opinion about them has changed. If you’re in an airport, who is more suspicious looking? a grandmother in a wheel chair or a 20 year old Muslim man with no suitcase and a one way ticket? It is not fair or right but it is the truth.
As for dissent being the highest for of patriotism, how is not supporting your country being patriotic?
And I don’t really know you Hannah but I agree with dropping the bombs because it saved many more lives than it lost.
This is clearly a topic about which some of you are passionate, but let me remind you of a few ground rules. First, everyone who participates on this blog must be respectful of others. You may be critical of stated stances, but you may not belittle other bloggers. Second, you need to write in a professional manner. If your writing is difficult / impossible to read, people will not give much credence to your ideas.
I will also address a few statements:
1. Do the people in charge of a government at any one time actually get to decide what is patriotic? If so, then the definition of "patriotism" will be ever-changing.
2. Some of you clearly have different definitions of dissent and therefore each blogger needs to define dissent according to how he or she is using it. For example, you could say that the British North American colonists originally dissented against the British government (disagreed with government policies), but when they rebelled against the government they ceased to be dissenters and became separatists. Dissent, in this sense, implies disagreement, not armed rebellion.
3. Do not assume that those who disagree with U.S. government policies in 2007 are advocating the overthrow of government. They are disagreeing with policy and policymakers, not with the concepts of federalism, republican democracy, separation of powers, etc.
4. Regarding the quote about Muslims, let's be clear: terrorists are NOT always Muslim. For example, the men responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing were not Muslim.
5. Be careful of stereotypes. You cannot tell who a person is (or what his intentions are) just by looking at him. We can debate profiling and such, if you wish, but assuming that you know someone's intentions just by looking at him is dangerous.
Way to step in, Crosby. You did an excellent job of keeping things civil without biasing discussion.
My definition of dissent is "to disagree" from the American Heritage Dictionary. I think that "dissent is the highest form of patriotism" is a little simplistic, but I agree in spirit. I think a true patriot works for the good of the nation, and does not blindly follow prevailing opinion. A patriot will speak out against something they see as harmful to their beloved nation.
I find myself taking the side of agreeing with hannahl. matta, I don't see the reasoning behind your statement that a civil war "could have potentially happened" due to a Japanese uprising during WWII. There is not evidence that suggests this, and the japanese population in America, according to the census before WWII, was less than .1%, not nearly enough to start a conflict on the scale of the civil war.
I also disagree that the middle of a war is not the time to turn back. The analogy of a roller coaster of is not appropriate, because pulling out of a war will not cause our nation to die like falling from a roller coaster, except in rare cases, such as an invasion.
I think that making dissent sound "dumb and idiotic" is against the spirit of representative democracy. Dissent is half of the process of public discourse, and without it we are left with a top down system of ideas, which is inherently un-democratic. Believing in the sanctity of leaders is one of the things our founding fathers fought so hard to escape from.
matta, you also mentioned that the countires we are "'liberating' hated us before we ever got there." I am not sure what point exactly you intend, but if you view that as justification for invasion and occupation, I think that is a dangerous path to start down. If not liking us is punishable by military force, the US should probably prepare to invade France and Germany and the host of other countries that didn't hate us before we started liberating people.
And although Crosby already said it, I think it is worth restating that anarchy and dissent are far from synonymous.
Benh, I totally agreed with what you said. And good backing of your ideas as well!
Hannah and Matt- I'd say you both bring up good points. I'd have to agree with Hannah, though- putting people in jail for dissent is completely unconstitutional and against our First Amendment rights. Yes, Matt, unity in times of hardship is best, but that doesn't mean we should outlaw the expression of opinions. Maybe, like you said, the idea of the laws (to discourage dissent)had good intentions, but the fact is that taking away freedom of speech is just not right.
Matt-I'm sorry, but I totally don't agree with your comment about the bias against Muslims. We know of terrorists that are Muslim, yes, but that gives us no right to assume anything about the Islamic faith. Like Hannah said-Americans are afraid of them because they are foreign-we wouldn't create a bias against a prominent group in our own country based on a couple of individuals.
Hannah, to answer your question, dropping the atom bomb was completely unnecessary. I'd say the mass killing of any people in any situation is wrong.
But anyway, I don't agree with either statement. Dissent is not unpatriotic, because it could eventually benefit your country. On the other hand, it isn't the highest form of patriotism because it could potentially hurt the country, too.
I really like the point that caryn brought up at the end of her comment. "On the other hand, it isn't the highest form of patriotism because it could potentially hurt the country, too." I think that the context of dissent is really important too. In the end, it is the positions taken by the dissenter that matter. Right and wrong are, in a sense, unrelated to dissent. What really matters is standing up for what is right, regardless of what those in power believe.
Thanks, Ben. You put my comment into the words I was looking for. Really, I find this question rather pointless. One shouldn't disagree with the government just to be patriotic. It doesn't make sense to disagree if the government has the right idea. Then again, is it really patriotic to disagree? Isn't it just the right thing to do, disagreeing with an unjust government?
Just like voting for someone because they're listed under a certain political party-if they don't have the same views as you, being in the same political party doesn't really mean much, despite what some think about being loyal to your party.
Caryn and Ben, I completely agree with what you said about dissent. It is integral to seperate dissent with fitting into a party or a group of people. This reminds me of the quote, "what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular". I think that both parties have a problem these days with beings so polarized that we lose the ability to agree with certain issues in one party and other issues in the other. This is why I wish that third parties were more prominent. Disagreeing with something just for the purpose of disagreeing is not patriotic, it is selfish.
hannahl and caryn s, I am really glad that you have come back to the post. When everyone just "posts and runs" you can't really have a good discussion.
I think the issue of party polarization is a very important one, and one that is especially relevant today. I just read an article about how Republican candidates are trying to "out conservative" each other. (Not that I am saying this only happens with Republicans, that was just the article I saw.)
I often hear that people are frustrated with parties constantly disagreeing, but I think that is the purpose of politics. If you don't have opposing viewpoints, how can you reach the best conclusion?
But at the same time, I think that the "race to radical" is dangerous, because politicians begin to abandon their true beliefs to please the party. I think that in any case where politicians abandon their beliefs, either to become more moderate or radical, it is damaging to the political process.
That was an interesting article, Ben. I am disgusted at the way those politicians rip at eachother to make themselves seem "more conservative" than the other.
One thing I don't understand, though-if they spend all their time before the nomination election illustrating themselves as extremely conservative, how can they expect to win the presidential election? They have to appeal to the Democrats of the country, too. The whole idea of twisting your beliefs to please a group of people seems completely pointless-it'll get you caught in a big web of lies that'll be hard to untangle.
On another note, Ben-I'd say it's very annoying when the parties constantly disagree. Yes, we need different viewpoints, but is it really necessary for the parties to accuse and attack eachother? I don't think it's the fact that they disagree, but rather the blatantly unpleasant way they do it.
I agree with both ben and caryn. Ben, I agree that the disagreement between parties is good for the people. However, I also agree with Caryn that it goes way too far sometimes. I think that the biggest problem I have with this is that there is not an inbetween. The simple act of disagreeing is completely necessary, but the whole "out-conservative" thing is going too far. If only there were more parties to be part of these great debates, than maybe it would become more about certain issues than parties.
I rather dislike the party system in general, I'd rather choose a candidate based on their individual views rather than voting blindly for a party (although theoretically they are supposed to represent a group of like-minded individuals, but I'm sure we all know how much variation there is). If the candidates themselves begin to act this way my beliefs are further cemented; we need dissenters so we're not stuck choosing between the lesser of two evils.
Incidentally, my parents were watching this programme on Masterpiece Theatre tonight entitled "The Amazing Mrs. Pritchard," about an average woman in Britain who becomes prime minister due to her lack of prior involvement in politics. The whole premise is really quite ludicrous, but I think there is an important message there about having a unique political identity.
That program sounds interesting, Tom. Now that I think about it, I would rather have no party system, also. If the system didn't exist, we could have elections like they happen at school.
By the way, are our school officer elections fair? Just a question.
But when we elect school officers, all the voters know about the candidates are their stance on school-related issues. I think it's better that way, because voters can choose the candidate that really represents them best.
I know that's not a very good example because there aren't many "issues" to vote on, but whatever.
Caryn, aren't cliques just like parties in a way? Maybe our freshman year we don't notice it because we don't know anyone, but still, don't you vote for the people from your middle school just becuase you know them? Do you realize that next year it will probalby be jocks voting for jocks and drama kids voting for drama kids? Cliques are like parties.
Good point, Hannah. I think I was thinking of freshmen elections when I said that.
I think by next year it will be a popularity contest, but at least, if there are "clique-parties", there would be more than two main parties. Hannah, isn't it you that said you wanted a third party voice?
Yes, it was me. I think that more parties would make more ideas come through and there would be less party polarization and more focus on certain issues.
I agree with what has been said recently, but I might disagree that everyone knows positions in class elections. I often find myself seeing a person on the ballot I have never even heard of, especially as a freshman. So I think that unfortunately class elections often default to a popularity contest because the candidates don't even give speeches or anything like that.
As far as parties go, I do think some parties are good, so that like minded people and organize and get the word out on their positions. But I think Canada is a really good example of a many party system, even if only handful hold power. Here are a few articles I looked up really quickly.
List of Canadian Parties (Wikipedia)
The Rhinoceros Party: It is essentially a joke (Wikipedia)
I think that Arapahoe should allow the candidates to speak in an open/assembly forum in order for the decisions made to be informed. I find myself voting for people I know. This would help with that. Also, I agree that Canada is a good example of a many party system. Unfortunately, Canada tends to fall by the wayside in international politics. It is often overlooked and forgotten. However, many things in Canada are very coveted by other nations (such as their very low crime rate). Why aren't they more recognized?
Post a Comment
<< Home