When is it okay to dissent? Sometimes the world is a dark place, filled with tragedy and it seems like some fresh new hell is just around every corner. We bristle at injustices and cruelty towards innocent people or groups while others ignore or applaud such actions.
Dissent is not something people like to talk about. Those who dissent are often ostracized and sometimes targeted by those who hold a majority opinion. However, in order for anything to change, dissent needs to be present.
There is no real guideline or rule for dissenting, and everyone’s reason for dissenting is going to be different. The consensus is that dissent is ‘okay’ when an individual or a group of people are unjustly hurt and no one is held responsible or justice is not had.
In Friendswood, dissent of any kind would not and is not looked upon kindly. Lee is isolated and ostracized by the majority of the townsfolk due to her inability to “stop making a fuss” (page 53) about Rosemont and the pollution there. The readers can understand Lee’s position and beliefs, considering the recent tragedy in Indiana. About a thousand people in Indiana are being forced to find new homes after being informed that the soil is poisoned with lead. Angry, and with good reason, at the government and EPA for not doing more to help them or warn them, many of the residents can identify with Lee’s struggles, and if things take a turn for the worse, her grief. Lee lost her daughter to cancer caused by the chemicals and the people in Indiana could potentially lose their children due to the high lead content in their blood. This is more than a good enough reason to dissent.
Due to what we know about Friendswood and what we know will happen to Willa, we can assume that some form of dissent is going to happen, and most likely she will be ostracized, or even blamed for what happened to her. Like the Stanford rape victim, Willa can’t remember what happened, and people will most likely try to invalidate her accusation or what happened to her because of this. The Stanford rape victim had the two men who helped her, her family, friends, boyfriend, and people across the U.S. supporting her and demanding justice. When the judge denied her that, it became another case where the people responsible for protecting others have failed in their duty.
Who should speak? Ideally, it should be everyone, but not everyone is willing or able to speak up, for a myriad of reasons, and there are other ways to dissent that do not involve being vocal about it. However, just thinking something isn’t enough to cause change. People. Everyday people, like the two men who helped the Stanford rape victim. People like that guy that owns the pizza place across the street. People like that woman walking to the park with her children. People who are willing to give to cause they believe in. People who want to cause change for the better. Most importantly, people who are responsible for the welfare of millions of people need to speak up and be honest.
Halina-I really found the way you articulated your ideas to be quite compelling, particularly when you really drove home your views regarding who should speak. Your utilization of varying syntax in the last paragraph, particularly when you listed off all the types of people who can speak, immediately caught my attention. The short cut sentences really emphasized the idea that all people have the right to speak up, and the constant repetition of the word “people” reiterated this belief until it was well ingrained into the reader. You also effectively used references from the articles as evidence to show when it is okay to dissent. By highlighting the injustice afflicted on Lee, the Standford rape victim, and the Chicago residents, a clear picture of when it is okay to dissent is formed into the reader’s head.
ReplyDeleteYour connections to Friendswood and the articles from class were utilized in such an effective way that amplified the meaning of the article. By shedding light on the clearly troublesome tribulations of the victims, you enhanced the desperate need to dissent. The horrible violations to health that were suffered clearly needed to be spoken out against, and you made this crystal clear.
Your selected images also contribute to your overall point of view because they emit an aura of pro-dissent that makes the reader feel empowered to speak their mind. The righteous fist incites a deep sense of empowerment that surges the reader into a feeling of momentum to do good.
I closely identify with your views, but just to get us both thinking, would you still feel the same if the content of dissent wasn’t so clearly an injustice? What if someone was dissenting against something that was against your moral values? What if people were using their right to dissent in a way that protested against something that you saw just and fit? The idea of what is just varies widely, so what if the right to dissent is used to rally against something you find to be good?
Victoria--
ReplyDeleteWonderful questions! Your writing clearly demonstrates your authority with words. Your comments were insightful.
At the same time, does Halina clearly follow through on her point? What specific detail from the articles is used to support her position?
Halina--your opening paragraphs show your understanding of the characters, in particular why Lee is ostracized.
If you were to revise this post, where could you add detail from the articles to support your position? In what way could you have developed the problem in Illinois to Friendswood.
I enjoyed reading your writing. You write with such confidence.
Warm regards,
Prof. Young