Fear has the capacity to paralyze the masses. A single person might speak out, but the general populous is slow to rouse. Strength in numbers may eventually overwhelm a tyrant, but if those numbers never materialize, the people will not take action. And if the tyrant moves the masses for his own purposes, his followers will overrun those who understand the truth. Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.
There have been attempts by single people to overthrow a government. However, smaller numbers of people can move to action faster than the entire society. Secret societies are often formed from the percent of the population that would, by nature, always resist the tyrant regardless of the situation. If this number was, say, 15%, there would be an equal amount on the other side of the political fence that would always support the tyrant for whatever reasons. The central 70% must be won over, but it is extremely difficult to persuade two-thirds of the population over the opposition. It is much easier to act alone, but this will not cause the masses to move in unison. Several times in history, the assassination of a dictator has been met with indifference; after all, another would soon take his place, and their condition does not change. The masses are generally provoked, over time, to either support or oppose the tyrant, but to provoke them to rebel is another extreme case entirely.
In Animal Farm, the animals agree to rebel against mankind at one time or another. This was a decision supported by all present. When Jones failed to feed the animals, and then drove them from their food by whip, the starved animals reacted through instinct. To secure food to survive and to drive away the common threat, the animals together removed Jones from power. This supports the fact that a coup only occurs with prior agreement and in critical situations. When Napoleon took control, the situations may have been critical, but there was no general consensus to overthrow Napoleon. No animal could offer a solid reason; no common irritation existed. The sheep, seeing no overt act of tyranny, continued to bleat slogans, as did Boxer. And between the two of them, no one rose to challenge the pigs, who tactfully silenced any single individual who spoke out. Additionally, at the mass execution, there was no objection, even though the situation had become life or death, because the remainder of the animals had not agreed to overthrow Napoleon. They may have been shaken, but certainly weren’t moved into action.
1984 also shows an occasion where no general impetus exists to remove a tyrant. Individuals committed crimes, but the general masses quietly obeyed Big Brother regardless of what was said. Conditions may have been poor, but they were not life or death so long as the rules were followed. The proles could never be united against the Party; they had no reason to. Thus, tyrants are capable of remaining in power so long as they keep their subjects in their control. If the masses are not allowed to agree to overthrow the leader, they will never do so with a concerted effort. With careful statements and strategic assassinations, the tyrant can prevent a general consensus against him and ensure that, perhaps even in a life or death situation, he will find no great opposition.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
got it
“Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.”
I will take the above to be your claim which I intend to disprove.
First and foremost, you referenced two pieces of literature to support your claim. What is significant about this, you may ask? They are FICTIONAL novels. Using works of fiction to support a real-life claim is a sure-fire way to lose credibility right off the bat. It matters not that these two works, Animal Farm and 1984, were intended to have realistic aspects. Every single word in the two of these books is subject to the opinion of George Orwell. So in other words, George Orwell is your source for all information supporting your conclusion. George Orwell would be a false authority upon which to base facts.
Furthermore, you referenced only two (completely fictional) accounts to support your claim. Basing an argument off of solely two accounts, especially fictitious ones, is to make a hasty generalization. One cannot assume that because your claim is true in these to instances, it is true in all instances. Your claim works in absolutes, which can not be supported by merely two examples.
You say that “Secret societies are often formed from the percent of the population that would, by nature, always resist the tyrant regardless of the situation. If this number was, say, 15%, there would be an equal amount on the other side of the political fence that would always support the tyrant for whatever reasons.” POST HOC. One cannot assume that because there is a minority faction on one side of an argument, there must be one of approximately equal size for the opposite. There is a leap of logic made in your statement that renders it erroneous.
Now to use supporting evidentiary proofs that are contrary to your claim, proving it untrue…
Consider when America (or what was to become America) overthrew Britain in the American Revolution. America was the minority in the struggle, as it was certainly smaller than Britain. Not only was the population of America smaller than Britain’s, but a minority movement in America took it upon themselves to set the stage for revolution. In the Revolution, it was much more about a smaller group of individuals than it was about the majority of the population acting. In fact, not all of America was even completely in support of the movement. Furthermore, this was not a life and death struggle, necessarily. Americans were not faced with choosing between death and revolution; they simply had to choose whether or not they wanted to face taxes from Britain. When people refer to being “taxed to death”, they do not mean it literally.
Or consider Fidel Castro’s military coup in Cuba. The Castro brothers banded together a small army and overthrew Batista. This was most certainly not a majority movement, nor was it truly a decision between life or death.
Overall you constructed a well thought-out argument. The main two problems were your use of fictional evidentiary support, and your attempt to make what is typical an absolute. When dealing with absolutes, consider all possible variables.
To Diego: You make three statements that I wish to address.
"Using works of fiction to support a real-life claim is a sure-fire way to lose credibility right off the bat."
I disagree. Fiction mirrors life. It depicts the human condition. Certainly it may be used as an example. Orwell is hardly a false authority in describing the human condition. Are you prepared to say that Orwell does not describe his characters realistically?
Second statement:
"One cannot assume that because your claim is true in these to instances, it is true in all instances."
anonymous does not claim universality. The author merely uses two examples to support his/her thesis. How many examples would you require?
Third:
"Americans were not faced with choosing between death and revolution; they simply had to choose whether or not they wanted to face taxes from Britain."
The immediate choice may have been to choose between paying and not paying taxes. Ultimately they faced death as the British considered refusal to pay taxes rebellious and prepared to bring them under control. If it meant death, then so be it.
And...Castro's actions in overthrowing Batista certainly was a life/death choice. The brothers knew they easily could be killed. Several people were killed during the conflict.
To anonymous. You write:
"Several times in history, the assassination of a dictator has been met with indifference; after all, another would soon take his place, and their condition does not change."
What instances in history come to mind? You write there were several times.
I need to start responding quicker.
Let me begin by admitting that my claim was designed to be objected to. I certainly hoped that whoever it was who commented found fault with it. However, I would also like to point out a major mistake of mine, considerately pointed out by Diego. My thesis statement in paragraph one refers to the tyrant's subjects. What I forgot to include, that I reference in the later paragraphs, is that MOST of the subjects will not revolt. So, I do apologize for my error, though it does probably explain why I directly contradict the apparent thesis in the following paragraph.
That having been said, I regret to say that, aside from politely observing that I used fictional works of literature, I still have some validity in my statement. Diego, your two examples contain interesting references to, again, a minority overthrowing the tyrant. As I mention in paragraph two, there will always be a minority that will try and overthrow the government. However, continuing from my statement, the central two-thirds will not be quick to move. They will generally be passive, unless a clear public opinion is expressed and the situation is life and death. (to your post hoc claim, I refer you to AP Language class and the general formula for persuading an audience...or did period 3 not hear it?)
The colonists, even if the choice was taxes or no taxes, were not the central players. The small minority was. Some supported rebellion, the Patriots. The others, the Tories, supported England. Most people didn't care. MOST PEOPLE. DIDN'T CARE. There was no general consensus against Britain, nor was it an immediate life or death situation. The rebellion was from a minority, not the majority. The Castro example also suggests that minorities change things as the general populous goes along for the ride.
In history, most of the time this is the case. The Cold War was studded with examples of this. Foreign nations would have their leaders replaced, even by us, but the people often understood that there would still be a dictator and they'd still be miserable. No one opposed it, but no one cheered either. One could say (especially you, Diego) that Middle Eastern nations suffer greatly from this malady. When Saddam was taken down, people were glad that he was gone, but they certainly didn't want us in there, either. The people might not like a dictator, but few will actually take action. Their lives are not immediately in danger. So, even if a really bad dictator is in charge, the central majority of people will not oppose him unless they've A: agreed on it and B: are in danger. The French Revolution never kicked off until King Louis refused to feed them or listen to them, right? And the vast majority hated him. No one liked Robespierre, either, and finally took him out once he got out of hand. Anyway, perhaps this will keep the conversation going, and I again apologize for making my statement unclear.
P.S. My Word Verification vanished. Literally. I downsized this screen and it wasn't here when I maximized it again. I'm sick of this login security safety net technological devolution.
To theteach:
Teach, I’m sorry but I very much disagree with you on this one...
Firstly, to say that fiction mirrors life is a fallacy: hasty generalization. Some fiction mirrors life, but that is not to say that all fiction mirrors life. That would be to examine several pencils and find their points sharp, thus concluding that all pencils have sharp points. Certainly all pencils do not have sharp points; noting commonality and concluding it as universal law is a hasty generalization. Orwell, though he does often accurately depict human condition, is biased. To cite a biased, subjective, opinionated piece of fiction as evidence for an issue of universal importance is simply not sufficient. Sure, you can use it as an example in PART of an argument, but it should not be the basis of all evidence. It does not matter how acclaimed or esteemed Orwell may be, opinion is opinion, and fact is fact; the blog’s claim was stated as fact, and thus should not be supported with solely opinion.
Secondly, of course anonymous claims universality. Look closely at the words of his thesis: “Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.” Please make special note of the words “unless” and “will not”. The blogger dealt with absolutes in his claim, hence universality. “Unless there is a general agreement among the majority of the society, and preferably the situation becomes one of life or death, a tyrant will not be overthrown by his or her subjects.” How much more universal can one possibly get when one says, “Unless this happens, this will not happen?” That seems to be an absolute conclusion, and it seems to be encompassing all possible instances—past, present, and future.
Thirdly, I’m noting some historical discrepancies here…In the American Revolution, OF COURSE it became a life or death struggle. BECAME being the operative word in the previous sentence…It was not a struggle of life or death to begin with. On that, I believe we can agree, no? At the beginning, before the revolutionary movement began, the people of the colonies had two choices: subservience or rebellion. They chose rebellion, thus CHOOSING to make it a life or death struggle. There is an ambiguity about Anonymous’ statement, “and preferably the situation becomes one of life and death…” The ambiguity to which I refer is with regard to the time frame—was he referring to there being a life and death struggle to provoke the revolution, or did he mean there was one during, or even after? I think we read that part of his thesis differently, and responded thusly. Considering this, the same applies to the Cuban Revolution of which I spoke. After rereading and re-rereading and re-re-rereading, perhaps you took his statement correctly and I erred. The contrary is also quite possible, though. As I said: ambiguity.
Diego, never apologize for disagreeing. Why should you apologize. As for my statement being an hasty generalization, you have no idea how long I may have considered what I wrote. :)
Diego, you write"
Look closely at the words of his thesis:
Who is "his"?
theteach: Sorry for saying sorry! No, just kidding. I was politely disagreeing. As for my mention of hasty generalization, I simply used that term because it is one we just learned in ap lang...We were told to find all fallacies present on these blogs, so I figured I'd point that out. I was not incinuating that you arrived at your conclusion quickly or "hastily", rather I was more referring to a "fallacy of insufficient statistics" or a "generalization from the particular."
And for the sake of clarity, when I refered to "his" thesis, I was referring to anonymous' thesis. I should've made that clearer.
Diego, you are a delight.
I enjoy your analysis, though I do not agree.
I think we probably will have to agree to disagree. :)
Post a Comment