Argumentative Essay
Thoreau or Gandhi- Who makes the better point? In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote about the need for change in the U.S. Government in his essay titled “Civil Disobedience”. Thoreau wrote this because he saw fault in his government that took his tax dollars, yet did not oppose the “political and moral evil” of slavery. Likewise, in 1916 Mahatma Gandhi wrote “On Civil Disobedience” after having been beaten and jailed for what he calls “arbitrary laws” in South Africa. Gandhi’s peace would eventually have tremendous impact on social and political reforms through his non-violent protest methods. Although Henry David Thoreau makes a good case for the need for change within his government, Gandhi makes a better case for change with his essay because he believes pride can develop into fascism, no nation can be happy as the result …show more content…
Gandhi states that, “Pride makes a victorious nation bad-tempered”. This quote is important because the author is suggesting that pride will become into nationalism. Which nationalism will have an excessive desire among its people to then be national in advancement and wanting political independence. After all that, nationalism will become fascism. Therefore, all the result of “pride’’ becomes fascism, which generates or leads to “bad-tempers’’ in the country. In addition, Gandhi says that no nation can be happy as the result of war, it can show that the country is in agony. Gandhi indicates that, “No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war”. This quote is important because the author is suggesting that there is no country that is never been “happy as the result of war’’. Therefore stating that the dead soldiers and citizens lost their money toward guns and ammo. This also shows that it angers is still lingering between the countries because the cause of the
Thoreau or Gandhi- Who makes the better point? In 1849 Henry David Thoreau wrote about the need for change in the U.S. Government in his essay titled “Civil Disobedience”. Thoreau wrote this because he saw fault in his government that took his tax dollars, yet did not oppose the “political and moral evil” of slavery. Likewise, in 1916 Mahatma Gandhi wrote “On Civil Disobedience” after having been beaten and jailed for what he calls “arbitrary laws” in South Africa. Gandhi’s peace would eventually have tremendous impact on social and political reforms through his non-violent protest methods. Although Henry David Thoreau makes a good case for the need for change within his government, Gandhi makes a better case for change with his essay because he believes pride can develop into fascism, no nation can be happy as the result …show more content…
Gandhi states that, “Pride makes a victorious nation bad-tempered”. This quote is important because the author is suggesting that pride will become into nationalism. Which nationalism will have an excessive desire among its people to then be national in advancement and wanting political independence. After all that, nationalism will become fascism. Therefore, all the result of “pride’’ becomes fascism, which generates or leads to “bad-tempers’’ in the country. In addition, Gandhi says that no nation can be happy as the result of war, it can show that the country is in agony. Gandhi indicates that, “No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war”. This quote is important because the author is suggesting that there is no country that is never been “happy as the result of war’’. Therefore stating that the dead soldiers and citizens lost their money toward guns and ammo. This also shows that it angers is still lingering between the countries because the cause of the