Have you ever given up because something took an effort to change or fix? A characteristic of a dystopian society is the people's inaction when something perceived as negative in society occurs. People in dystopian societies tend not to do anything to make their lives better out of fear of the government. In fact, the societal tendency is to do the opposite and support the government. Unfortunately, we too have restrictions, but fortunately, in our society, people are not ignorant, and the society tries its best to change for the common good. The protagonists in Fahrenheit 451 and The Giver show us the ignorance of the people in their dystopian societies, whereas, in our modern-day society, people have the ability to speak up and take action. …show more content…
For example, in Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, Faber explains to Montag how he could have spoken up for the people who were "guilty" and possibly changed things, but he acted cowardly and did not speak. "‘Mr. Montag, you are looking at a coward. I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I am one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the 'guilty,' but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself’" (Bradbury 78). As this quote shows, in this dystopian society, the real problem is that people break the law instead of trying to change it. In our modern-day society, people try to change the law so that they will not have to break …show more content…
For instance, in the U.S., there are more than 30,000 statutes of law, and in the State of California, there are 395,608 regulations, yet we still have freedom. Luckily, while our country was still forming, people decided to create a democracy so that everybody would get a say. "The authority of the state comes from below, not from above." In other words, we created some of these laws for the greater good, and we were able to do this since we spoke up. And even now we still have problems, but if there is something that many people do not like, they get together and protest. If there is a problem that somebody doesn’t like in a certain environment, they report it. And the ability to take these actions is what people in dystopian societies
In the world of Fahrenheit 451 they don't give you enough time to think but in the world of 1984 it is illegal. Fahrenheit 451 by ray bradbury and 1984 by george orwell both are dictatorships that censor the media. 1984 is a harder to overthrow dictatorship in 1984: the government gives no power to people, has more severe punishment and does not give anybody time to think.
The griot is a person from traditional african society that tells stories of the past from their ancestors through music. So how does he relate to dystopian characters? An old man called the Giver from Lois Lowry's The Giver is like the griots because he transfers memories to the main character Jonas showing him the past and its history. The characters shown in the last chapters of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury are reminiscent of the griots due to their knowledge of the past led by their knowledge of books. Both of those stories show a character that tells the tale of the past through some part of history.
Everyone has their perfect or utopian world, but once you put that world into everyone’s perspective, it looks darker. A government that creates an emotionless world can cause problems with sympathy towards others or fear keeping us away from danger. Governments that also control their people through common appliances can put everyone into some sort of trance. Our government is like those in dystopian-style books in that our government censors certain information they don’t want us to know. Fahrenheit 451 and The Giver are good examples of governments that prefer control over conformity.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” Thomas Jefferson once said. Jefferson believed that from the moment anyone was born, they were granted certain undeniable rights as a human being, including the right of freedom. In America, people are lucky to be free to express themselves and choose their own paths in life, but what if all of their rights were suddenly taken away? Try to imagine living in a world where people were no longer free to think for themselves. Imagine a world where being an individual was against the law.
Imagine living in a country where letters on paper never existed. Society would not have the same movies and novels to decompress. But society might also spend more time enjoying the things around them. So there can be good and bad when governments create restrictions. When people are allowed to make their own decisions, society benefits.
Who would want to live in a world where there is no freedom? A world where people cannot learn on their own, or even use the pronoun “I” all in an effort for world peace and equality. No one would, except for those who do not know anything other than that lifestyle. Even then though, there is always a few outliers that strive to learn, feel, and stand out in society where people frown upon being different. In the stories Anthem and Fahrenheit 451, the authors Ayn Rand and Ray Bradbury, focus on explaining the future in a dystopian world to reveal that true world peace is miserable and not always what is best.
“More than a third of governments (62 out of 160) locked up prisoners of conscience – people who were simply exercising their rights and freedoms,” according to the “Amnesty International Charity”. Antigone and “The Speech to the Second Virginia Convention”, written by Sophocles and Patrick Henry respectively, demonstrate when to speak up. On the other hand, Animal Farm, by George Orwell, had the perfect opportunity for the common people to stand up, except not a single person stood up to make the change. If people don’t speak out against laws they don’t believe in then nothing will ever change. People need the courage to speak out against the atrocious laws of their nation.
Sydney Krcmarik AP Argument Essay 30 January 2023 Disobedience Sparks Progression Oscar Wilde’s statement about disobedience being a valuable way to promote social change is valid as long as those who are fighting remember that they are fighting to bring positive change to their community. When citizens are motivated to really see change and think more about their community as a whole, rather than their own personal power, real change is possible. For example, Susan B. Anthony’s fight for women's rights led to her doing many disobedient acts. Nonetheless, she did them unapologetically, knowing that she was bringing necessary change and progress. However, when the angry civilians of the French Revolutions rebelled, their leaders tried to strike
Unjust laws must be broken - my own commentary Everyone will have freedom (J.F.K Library). G. Conclusion Echo Thesis Statement: In conclusion, Thereau’s proposal of civil disobedience, in “Resistance to Civil Government”, influenced important movements in both the Republic of India and the United States of America. Lived out many transcendentalism beliefs (Tyrkus).
By true definition, censorship is the suppression and illegalization of speech, public communication, and other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, or politically incorrect as determined by the government in authority. The purpose of censorship is perhaps to protect the people, however, negative outcomes typically follow when this route is taken to control a governed people. Censorship directly attack the main characters of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 and George Orwell’s 1984. Although government censorship was perpetuated to create a whole and perfect society, Fahrenheit 451 and 1984 both demonstrate that censorship brought on by the government negatively controls a community’s thoughts, actions, and their people as a whole.
Zora Neal Hurston Once said “ Those that don’t got it, can’t show it. Those that got it can’t hide it.” In context of change, if someone can not change then there is nothing to do about it but if someone can, it is their responsibility show the world that change. Change is an idea also brought up by Zora Neal Hurston in her book Their Eyes Were Watching G-d. In the book, Their Eyes Were Watching G-d, Zora Neal Hurston shows us that if people truly want change, they must prove that to society and rebel against it. Hurston displays the harm of not rebelling as well as the positive impact of publicly rebelling.
Some examples of this is in Harrison Bergeron and in the short film called The Lottery. One major characteristic of a dystopian society are through different types of control that a government takes. This could be making the people of a ruled locations lives miserable. They could take away basic human rights that all people rightfully deserve. Another major characteristic of dystopias is people losing their individuality.
This factor is relative to other two factors. People aren’t able to generate their own ideas based on the totalitarian government and the dysfunctional system. With the long time gripe and coercion, they become slavishly submissive, which caused them lost the sense of self. In the dystopia of Fahrenheit 451, citizens are the government’s chessmen. People have no use unless they get the government things they wanted.
In the 1984 society , people are purposely left to feel alone to make them fear getting caught by the Party. Although many people commit thoughtcrime, they will remain silent because they know the consequences of engaging in rebellion. This constant source of fear holds the community together and manipulates people’s thought processes. The government often leaves the people
Because in a true democracy, it is the responsibility of the citizens to disobey the laws that aren’t truly aiding in the progressive nature of society. A democracy can’t be effective without active participation. With that, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is a cornerstone in how we should approach the discussion of whether it is or isn’t reasonable to disobey a law. King agrees with St. Augustine in that “an unjust law is no law at all.” This enforces the idea that an unjust law is virtually not present because it is inevitably meant to be broken.