Gandhi’s writing is a lot different than that of Thoreau. Gandhi was known as more of a peacemaker, and was always very peaceful and gentle in his writing. Even as he is writing, he is still telling the people what to do to remain a good nation, and even though they are going to be losing their leader, Gandhi, they should still stay strong as Gandhi says here:
“I stress only one condition, namely, let our pledge of truth and non- violence as the only means for the attainment of Swaraj be faithfully kept. For the rest, every one has a free hand. But, than does not give a license to all and sundry to carry on their own responsibility. Wherever there are local leaders, their orders should be obeyed by the people. Where there are no leaders and only a handful of men have faith in the programme, they may do what they can, if they have enough self-confidence. They have a right, nay it is their duty, to do so. The history of the is full of instances of men who rose to leadership, by sheer force of self-confidence, bravery and tenacity. We too, if we sincerely aspire to Swaraj and are impatient to attain it, should have similar self-confidence” (Gandhi).
I really like that statement that Gandhi makes, just because it is so different from what Thoreau says, who believes that the people should just agree with the government, and although they have the right to be free, the government has the last say or word in everything (Thoreau). That is something that I partially agree with. Because, I mean, people should be able to do whatever they want, when they want, but in order to keep organization throughout, the government needs to step in and show that they have the authority to do so.
So although both writers had somewhat different views on life and politics and all that, I still find myself agreeing with both of them. I like the way Gandhi uses a more peaceful approach, but that is not to say that Thoreau is not one of peace either. They both just had different opinions that they felt needed to be shared with the world. However, Gandhi is talking more to his people whereas Thoreau is talking to everyone it seems. (Gandhi, Thoreau).
One point that I happened to agree with, and also understood was when Thoreau said:
“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus, etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it” (Thoreau).
Thoreau is basically saying that men cannot be bred like animals, nor should they be treated like animals. They are not indispensable, but despite being treated like dirt, they still do their job. Men should not have to do that, but they do it anyways.
Therefore, I agree with both authors and their writings, but I must say I prefer Gandhi a lot more than Thoreau due to his more peaceful outlook to life and the way it should be lived.
Works Cited:
Gandhi, Mohandas. "On the Eve of Historic Dandi March." American Literature Textbook. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print. November 13, 2010.
Thoreau. "Civil Disobedience." American Literature Textbook. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2009. Print. November 13, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment