In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau looks at old issues in new ways, asking: is there ever a time when individuals should actively oppose their government and its justice system? After a thorough review of the evidence, Thoreau comes to the conclusion that opposition is legitimate whenever government actions or institutions are unacceptable to an individual's conscience. What is particularly interesting is that Thoreau's creative mind took him deeper into the argument, as he concluded that this legitimate opposition really wasn't enough. In Thoreau's opinion, anyone who believed something to be wrong had a duty to resist it actively. These ideas were completely at odds with the prevailing opinions of the day - that it was the duty of every citizen to support the state. Thoreau connected ideas and notions in a novel manner and went against the tide, generating new hypotheses so that people could see matters in a new light. It is a mark of the success of his creative thinking that his views are now considered mainstream, and that his arguments are still deployed in defence of the principle of civil disobedience.

This book discusses a number of ways in which the dialogue about Europe's past and future could be rendered more inclusive, such as the promotion of critical and sentimental education and the creation of virtual and actual social spaces in which citizens and organised identity groups can participate. The discussion about European memory is far from being a "merely" symbolic issue with no political consequences. Imagining Europe and its past in different ways will lead to different real political outcomes. For instance, thinking about European integration as an embodiment of the values of the Enlightenment (such as human rights, liberal democracy, and reason), as a guarantor of peace on the continent, as a guarantor of prosperity, or as a guarantor that massive human rights violations like genocide will "never again" be committed on its soil, all entail different political objectives. Similarly, conflicting understandings of European memory as either a thing or a social construct, as either one memory or a plurality of memories, as either the end point of deliberation or a dialogical process, represent not merely inconsequential cultural "froth on the tides of society," but crucially important issues with real political consequences. The book is intended to contribute to this discussion about the common European approach to the past (and thus to the future).

This book discusses a number of ways in which the dialogue about Europe's past and future could be rendered more inclusive, such as the promotion of critical and sentimental education and the creation of virtual and actual social spaces in which citizens and organised identity groups can participate. The discussion about European memory is far from being a "merely" symbolic issue with no political consequences. Imagining Europe and its past in different ways will lead to different real political outcomes. For instance, thinking about European integration as an embodiment of the values of the Enlightenment (such as human rights, liberal democracy, and reason), as a guarantor of peace on the continent, as a guarantor of prosperity, or as a guarantor that massive human rights violations like genocide will "never again" be committed on its soil, all entail different political objectives. Similarly, conflicting understandings of European memory as either a thing or a social construct, as either one memory or a plurality of memories, as either the end point of deliberation or a dialogical process, represent not merely inconsequential cultural "froth on the tides of society," but crucially important issues with real political consequences. The book is intended to contribute to this discussion about the common European approach to the past (and thus to the future).

In Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau looks at old issues in new ways, asking: is there ever a time when individuals should actively oppose their government and its justice system?

After a thorough review of the evidence, Thoreau comes to the conclusion that opposition is legitimate whenever government actions or institutions are unacceptable to an individual’s conscience. What is particularly interesting is that Thoreau’s creative mind took him deeper into the argument, as he concluded that this legitimate opposition really wasn’t enough. In Thoreau’s opinion, anyone who believed something to be wrong had a duty to resist it actively.

These ideas were completely at odds with the prevailing opinions of the day – that it was the duty of every citizen to support the state. Thoreau connected ideas and notions in a novel manner and went against the tide, generating new hypotheses so that people could see matters in a new light. It is a mark of the success of his creative thinking that his views are now considered mainstream, and that his arguments are still deployed in defence of the principle of civil disobedience.