The paramount cause of the rift between the Native Americans and Americans was America’s denial of the Native Americans’ right to their natural rights: the continuous demands the American government imposed without the consent of the Native Americans infuriated and caused the latter to instigate riots. From a seemingly contradictory perspective, Americans’ failure in instituting an absolute monarchy over the Native Americans resulted in the calamitous American Indian Wars. John Locke affirmed in his book Two Treatises of Government that a prosperous government must enact a consistent protection of the natural rights of all people or the people had the right to overthrow the government and establish a beneficial one. In contrast, Thomas Hobbes
…show more content…
The two philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, emphasized the need for enforcing steadfast protection of life and establishing a potent, absolute monarchy, both of which the boys in Lord of the Flies by William Golding conclusively fail to develop. The lack of these necessary governing components ultimately incites the turbulent destruction and anarchy in the boys’ society. Lord of the Flies depicts the desperate attempt a group of naive schoolboys show to survive when they are deserted on an uninhabited island. The boys endeavor to formulate a constructive government; however, they fail to do so and fall into an chaotic unrest when Jack, the leader of the hunters, becomes ravenous for power and revolts against Ralph, the initial chief of the community where the boys’ natural rights are …show more content…
Locke’s contemporary Thomas Hobbes believed that a government should be in the form of an absolute monarchy that bestowed its ultimate power to one ruler (Lloyd). Every servant of the king is to succumb to the outright power the king exercises to make constructive decisions for his or her subjects. Hobbes attested that all humans were inherently evil and selfish, always striving to aggrandize their wealth. He envisioned a world filled with people fighting for their own interests if absolute monarchy was not executed efficaciously (Internet). Violating Hobbes’s dogma of a successful government, the boys on the island lack submission to the absolute authority, a consequence of which leads Ralph and Jack to struggle for power. As animosity and dissension build up between the two, Jack plots to overthrow Ralph and calls for a meeting to elect a new chief. Nevertheless, Jack’s insidious intrigue fails; he is immensely humiliated and decides to secede from the group, declaring, “ ‘I’m not going to be a part of Ralph’s lot-’ ” (Golding 127). Jack’s infuriated statement “not going to be a part” delineates the antagonistic insubordination that Jack
The two philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, emphasized the need for enforcing steadfast protection of life and establishing a potent, absolute monarchy, both of which the boys in Lord of the Flies by William Golding conclusively fail to develop. The lack of these necessary governing components ultimately incites the turbulent destruction and anarchy in the boys’ society. Lord of the Flies depicts the desperate attempt a group of naive schoolboys show to survive when they are deserted on an uninhabited island. The boys endeavor to formulate a constructive government; however, they fail to do so and fall into an chaotic unrest when Jack, the leader of the hunters, becomes ravenous for power and revolts against Ralph, the initial chief of the community where the boys’ natural rights are …show more content…
Locke’s contemporary Thomas Hobbes believed that a government should be in the form of an absolute monarchy that bestowed its ultimate power to one ruler (Lloyd). Every servant of the king is to succumb to the outright power the king exercises to make constructive decisions for his or her subjects. Hobbes attested that all humans were inherently evil and selfish, always striving to aggrandize their wealth. He envisioned a world filled with people fighting for their own interests if absolute monarchy was not executed efficaciously (Internet). Violating Hobbes’s dogma of a successful government, the boys on the island lack submission to the absolute authority, a consequence of which leads Ralph and Jack to struggle for power. As animosity and dissension build up between the two, Jack plots to overthrow Ralph and calls for a meeting to elect a new chief. Nevertheless, Jack’s insidious intrigue fails; he is immensely humiliated and decides to secede from the group, declaring, “ ‘I’m not going to be a part of Ralph’s lot-’ ” (Golding 127). Jack’s infuriated statement “not going to be a part” delineates the antagonistic insubordination that Jack