Mohandas Gandhi: The Characteristics Of David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

743 Words2 Pages

In 1849, a great man who we all have admired over the years wrote the renowned book about the injustice and the inhumanity of the United States government, during the Mexican-American war. With this treatise, nations upon nations were influenced by David Thoreau. He was a man of great virtue; being an extraordinary writer of poetry, philosophy, and critical discussions. He had a strong belief in the idea that the government manhandled the rights of the people, telling citizens what to do and what not to do. He focused his efforts to demonstrating the rule of the American government, by writing “Civil Disobedience”. At the time no one reacted to his beliefs, believing he was wrong in his accusation, but when 1920 came along it grew to involve …show more content…

His name was Mohandas Gandhi. At a very young age, Gandhi exhibited traits, such as responsibility and loyalty toward his religion and his people, that would further his leadership skills as his intentions to revolt against the British grew. In the beginning of his journey, he had just graduated and was given a job in South Africa, where he soon realized that his rights, of being an Indian, were limited because of the empowering rule of British civilians. After realizing the indifference of the way the british treated the Indians with disgust and the way the Indians allowed to be treated so poorly by the british, he spoke up. He was then arrested after publicly expressing his rebellious outbursts in a train station. He was starting to doubt himself, believing he should just give up while he was ahead. All those thoughts were vanquished as he began to read the book, “Civil Disobedience”, by David Thoreau. Thoreau’s ideas made Gandhi realize his cause is more important to uphold, than to ignore, and not to give up. His words inspired Gandhi to be the change he hoped for in South Africa and most parts of …show more content…

He used the perspective of soldiers to encourage the reason for disobedience, to help persuade the people to side on his beliefs, with the thoughts and emotions that the people could empathize. Thoreau used this method as well, describing the experiences soldiers at that time had to endure when faced with orders from the government. Both these forms of allusions are used to emphasize the idea that the ruling powers didn’t allow room for conscience ideas of their people. They seemed to want “minions” to follow their every command and not think about the hardships they had to encounter. Which ultimately helped the idea behind the metaphor, “...the machine of government,...” that was brought up in “Civil Disobedience”, by explaining the workings of the whole operation that the administration upholds while controlling robotic, non-conscient populations to withstand their commands.
In both Thoreau’s and Gandhi’s outlooks on the concepts of the rulers and the ruled, both writers expressed the idea that the government is not there just politically, but as a system of negotiation between state and subjects. “No clapping is possible without two hands to do it, and no quarrel without two persons to make it.” is a quote from Gandhi and “Men at all? Or small movable forts and magazines, at the service of some unscrupulous man in power?”, is a quote from Thoreau, that both

Open Document