Two authors, two different people, do not always share the same views on everything; especially government. This is demonstrated through John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath and Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience. Both touch on the topic of government, and what rights human beings are entitled to. Politics is a very controversial topic in itself, but it is incredibly important that everyone creates their own opinions and convictions about said topic. One thing numerous people are always able to agree on is that the citizens’ rights should always be preserved and protected; even if that means the downfall of the government. All subjects mentioned are either shared by Steinbeck and Thoreau or differed greatly. To compare and
…show more content…
John Steinbeck expressed that rules created and enforced by the government had a purpose. “The families learned what rights must be observed – the right of privacy…the right to refuse help or to accept…[and] the rights of the pregnant and the sick transcend all other rights” (Steinbeck 194). This is an obvious representation of what Steinbeck is trying to convey; that all countries/societies have rules, laws, and some form of government in place because there would be complete chaos without them. These are all rights that everyone deserved to have, and they should be laws enforced by the government that everyone has to follow. Based on Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, one can tell that he disagreed with Steinbeck. It seemed as though Thoreau would prefer no laws or rules to avoid the corruption of government, and that obviously contrasts to what Steinbeck wrote in the quote above; in anything, Steinbeck wanted those rules to be enforced. “And the families learned…what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed: the right to intrude upon privacy…the right of seduction or rape…” (Steinbeck …show more content…
“All men recognize the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government…” (Thoreau 1). Steinbeck did not really mention this in The Grapes of Wrath, but he was a very big fan of preserving the rights of the people; and by Thoreau stating this in his essay, it helps promote both of their ideas that supporting the people and the rights they naturally have is tremendously important. Men have the right to revolt when they believe what is happening to them is unjust. Some of it is within reason, and some are completely unreasonable. Thoreau’s declaration that all men have the right to resist the government gives men the right to rise up to fight for what they find to be true. Perhaps it is not the absolute truth, but they, nevertheless, have the ability to revolt. Steinbeck believed all families had “…the right of privacy…the right to keep the past black hidden in the heart; the right to talk and to listen; the right to refuse help or to accept…” (Steinbeck 194). This is a quote from Steinbeck stating what rights should be persevered and protected. These are all freedoms that everyone is granted. All of them, although very simple, offered additional power to the people. By officially affirming that these were rules that applied to each person, the people had more power over their own lives.
John Steinbeck expressed that rules created and enforced by the government had a purpose. “The families learned what rights must be observed – the right of privacy…the right to refuse help or to accept…[and] the rights of the pregnant and the sick transcend all other rights” (Steinbeck 194). This is an obvious representation of what Steinbeck is trying to convey; that all countries/societies have rules, laws, and some form of government in place because there would be complete chaos without them. These are all rights that everyone deserved to have, and they should be laws enforced by the government that everyone has to follow. Based on Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, one can tell that he disagreed with Steinbeck. It seemed as though Thoreau would prefer no laws or rules to avoid the corruption of government, and that obviously contrasts to what Steinbeck wrote in the quote above; in anything, Steinbeck wanted those rules to be enforced. “And the families learned…what rights are monstrous and must be destroyed: the right to intrude upon privacy…the right of seduction or rape…” (Steinbeck …show more content…
“All men recognize the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government…” (Thoreau 1). Steinbeck did not really mention this in The Grapes of Wrath, but he was a very big fan of preserving the rights of the people; and by Thoreau stating this in his essay, it helps promote both of their ideas that supporting the people and the rights they naturally have is tremendously important. Men have the right to revolt when they believe what is happening to them is unjust. Some of it is within reason, and some are completely unreasonable. Thoreau’s declaration that all men have the right to resist the government gives men the right to rise up to fight for what they find to be true. Perhaps it is not the absolute truth, but they, nevertheless, have the ability to revolt. Steinbeck believed all families had “…the right of privacy…the right to keep the past black hidden in the heart; the right to talk and to listen; the right to refuse help or to accept…” (Steinbeck 194). This is a quote from Steinbeck stating what rights should be persevered and protected. These are all freedoms that everyone is granted. All of them, although very simple, offered additional power to the people. By officially affirming that these were rules that applied to each person, the people had more power over their own lives.