Individuality Against The Majority Analysis
The idea that individuality against the majority creates repression for the individual is very prevalent in our society, and has been for centuries. By evidence from several sources such as Anderson, Murrow and Starnes, it is encyclopedic how repression occurs when an individual goes against the majority. Going against the majority, and or against what is expected of one by society, is not an easy task. For example, “when the Millikin University football team decided to protest the national anthem by remaining inside the locker room - instead of on the sidelines… Connor [Brewer] chose to stand - alone” (Starnes 1). Going against the majority means that you will have to stand alone, sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally. To stand alone
…show more content…
For example, Barack Obama became president for two terms by acquiring the most votes in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. Logistically, this means that the majority of voters voted for him. According to a newsource, as biased as it was, “If you didn't vote for Obama [then] you are a racist” (Anderson 1). Anderson continues along on this theme, calling the non-voters of Obama “bigots,” “biased,” et cetera (Anderson 1). As bad as being called names for your personal, majority non-conforming, views is, the actions that were taken against those who went against the majority were far worse. For instance, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused Edward R. Murrow of being a communist sympathizer for many irrelevant reasons, ranging from the fact that Murrow was linked to someone who was part of the socialist party, to Murrow being linked to the “Institute of International people… [that sponsored] summer schools in foreign countries” (Murrow 1). Murrow was repressed for these affiliations, as non-voters of Obama were, but on a more extreme scale. Murrow’s career was put at risk when he was publicly accused with no reasoning, other than the fact that McCarthy thought that “anyone who criticizes or opposes [his] methods must be a Communist” (Murrow 1). McCarthy used his power to try to stop Murrow from expressing his individual views, just as Anderson attempted to shame people who did not vote for Obama to become president. The repression from expressing a view that does not conform to the majority of society is ubiquitous in the world
For example, Barack Obama became president for two terms by acquiring the most votes in both the 2008 and 2012 elections. Logistically, this means that the majority of voters voted for him. According to a newsource, as biased as it was, “If you didn't vote for Obama [then] you are a racist” (Anderson 1). Anderson continues along on this theme, calling the non-voters of Obama “bigots,” “biased,” et cetera (Anderson 1). As bad as being called names for your personal, majority non-conforming, views is, the actions that were taken against those who went against the majority were far worse. For instance, Senator Joseph McCarthy accused Edward R. Murrow of being a communist sympathizer for many irrelevant reasons, ranging from the fact that Murrow was linked to someone who was part of the socialist party, to Murrow being linked to the “Institute of International people… [that sponsored] summer schools in foreign countries” (Murrow 1). Murrow was repressed for these affiliations, as non-voters of Obama were, but on a more extreme scale. Murrow’s career was put at risk when he was publicly accused with no reasoning, other than the fact that McCarthy thought that “anyone who criticizes or opposes [his] methods must be a Communist” (Murrow 1). McCarthy used his power to try to stop Murrow from expressing his individual views, just as Anderson attempted to shame people who did not vote for Obama to become president. The repression from expressing a view that does not conform to the majority of society is ubiquitous in the world