As time progresses, it is only reasonable that political thinking evolves and morals change yet overarching concepts remain constant. Though nearly a century apart, authors John Steinbeck and Henry David Thoreau discuss the long disputed issue of the role of a government in their respective works, Grapes of Wrath and “Civil Disobedience.” While Thoreau published his critical essay during the impending Mexican American War, Steinbeck focused on the Great Depression era and subsequent crises. However different the circumstances, both writers convey similar underlying thematic notions about the influence of the federal government and the rights of the people. In some respects, their perspectives clash and in others they coincide.
Within his intercalary …show more content…
In its most elemental form, a government is established to serve the people it governs and when it fails to do so effectively, all men have a “right to revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government” (Thoreau). While the migrant farmers generated their autonomous institutions, “they learned...what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed,” which included, but were not limited to “the right to intrude upon privacy, the right of seduction or rape, the right of adultery, theft, and murder” (Steinbeck). Because the families strongly opposed such prerogatives and assumed that their communities could not sustain this injustice for even one night, “these rights were crushed” immediately (Steinbeck). Advocating organized resurrection against unjust legislation, Steinbeck’s views align impeccably with Thoreau’s. Believing that immoral laws exist and that the people should strive to amend them, both writers defend the importance of political activism to bring about change and justice. Furthermore, just as Steinbeck stressed privacy at camp, Thoreau promoted no government intervention in personal affairs. Essentially, the major theme that surfaces is that a government must respect the inalienable rights of an individual before it is adopted and accepted by the
Within his intercalary …show more content…
In its most elemental form, a government is established to serve the people it governs and when it fails to do so effectively, all men have a “right to revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government” (Thoreau). While the migrant farmers generated their autonomous institutions, “they learned...what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed,” which included, but were not limited to “the right to intrude upon privacy, the right of seduction or rape, the right of adultery, theft, and murder” (Steinbeck). Because the families strongly opposed such prerogatives and assumed that their communities could not sustain this injustice for even one night, “these rights were crushed” immediately (Steinbeck). Advocating organized resurrection against unjust legislation, Steinbeck’s views align impeccably with Thoreau’s. Believing that immoral laws exist and that the people should strive to amend them, both writers defend the importance of political activism to bring about change and justice. Furthermore, just as Steinbeck stressed privacy at camp, Thoreau promoted no government intervention in personal affairs. Essentially, the major theme that surfaces is that a government must respect the inalienable rights of an individual before it is adopted and accepted by the