“Grapes of Wrath” vs “Civil Disobedience” Opinions about government and the role government has in the lives of the country's citizens has always differed in the eyes of the public. Many of these opinion holders have expressed their thoughts and ideas in novels and articles such as “The Grapes of Wrath” by John Steinbeck and “On The Duty of Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau. Steinbeck and Thoreau have some similar beliefs about the government when it comes to following laws, however their views may differ because Steinbeck believes that not all governments are bad.
Steinbeck and Thoreau’s beliefs are similar in the sense that both believe the government should have little to no say in the lives of the citizens. In “The Grapes of Wrath” Steinbeck explains how the migrant people created their own communities and were able to agree upon certain rules without having to discuss them. They were able to keep peace among them because, “the families learned, although no one told them, what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed” (Steinbeck 265). These families were able to respect each other and maintain a peaceful …show more content…
Many governments are founded on a central idea that was deemed to be best by more than one person. Steinbeck backs up this idea by explaining that, “a man who was wise found that his wisdom was needed in every camp” (Steinbeck 266). Some have views which they believe would benefit the rest of the community and would have the power to unite the people as a whole. Thoreau contradicts this idea with his belief that the people are never united entirely because, “the mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies” (Thoreau). The people are never equal to or one with the government and will always be below them. Everything the citizens or communities do are controlled by the
Steinbeck and Thoreau’s beliefs are similar in the sense that both believe the government should have little to no say in the lives of the citizens. In “The Grapes of Wrath” Steinbeck explains how the migrant people created their own communities and were able to agree upon certain rules without having to discuss them. They were able to keep peace among them because, “the families learned, although no one told them, what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed” (Steinbeck 265). These families were able to respect each other and maintain a peaceful …show more content…
Many governments are founded on a central idea that was deemed to be best by more than one person. Steinbeck backs up this idea by explaining that, “a man who was wise found that his wisdom was needed in every camp” (Steinbeck 266). Some have views which they believe would benefit the rest of the community and would have the power to unite the people as a whole. Thoreau contradicts this idea with his belief that the people are never united entirely because, “the mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies” (Thoreau). The people are never equal to or one with the government and will always be below them. Everything the citizens or communities do are controlled by the