The early 1900s arose a series of revolutions in the southern and eastern Asian countries of India and China, that ultimately led to a significant change in governmental systems and ideas that are still valued today. Tensions between the British government and Indians caused much anger and devastation to Indian societies, such as the Amritsar Massacre which exposed the true nature of Britain’s power over India. Indians all throughout the country were infuriated by the authority Britain had gained over the years. China dealt with problems of its own: foreign imperialism, warlord uprisings and a great disorder in the government and society itself.(The Modern World, 405) The revolutions in these two countries was brought about by two important characters of the revolution: Mohandas Gandhi and Mao Tse-Tung. Even though the two wanted change in their countries, they went about it in completely different ways. Mao sought after the use of violence to obtain political power, whereas Gandhi addressed the power love through nonviolent protests. While Mao and Gandhi both believed in, and practiced a form of civil disobedience, their views differed when it came to their use of violence and how society should be structured. Gandhi and Mao both believed in civil disobedience, though they did not interpret disobedience in the same manner. Thoreau’s ideas about civil disobedience influenced Gandhi to refuse to obey laws created by the colonialists of India that seemed unjust for Indians. He influenced Indians to boycott on British goods, refusing to buy things the British sold, mainly cotton textiles, and encouraged Indians to make their own products, like they did before the British arrived. During the time, there were many laws made... ... middle of paper ... ...y of life. Unlike any ordinary leaders of a revolution, Mao and Gandhi knew just how to take on what their countries really needed. Whether it was freedom from colonialism, or oppression from higher classes, they knew what their people needed. Gandhi knew his people had rights the British outlawed, and peacefully fought hard to retrieve them. He also believed that the Indians shouldn’t forget their traditions and culture, no matter how much the Western World pushed to change them. Mao believed the working class should have equal if not, more power than any other class in China. In fact, he believed there should not even be any classes at all. Everyone wants equality, whether in China or in India. Mao and Gandhi were able to give their country equality, freedom, and a philosophy that would influence their countries’ political and moral decisions for decades to come.
Society’s norms change generation by generation. Every once and a while, someone will break the rules of society. Sifting through history, there are outcasts and rebels that went against what society thought was the right thing to do. Jesus Christ is among the most famous rebels in society. His rebellion against the religious establishment at Jerusalem created a large following of Christians after his resurrection that threatened Judaism. Christianity spread throughout all countries of the world. Jesus Christ was not the only non-conformist in history. On October 2, 1869 another great rebel was born. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, more commonly known as Mahatma Gandhi, was raised in Porbandar, India. Gandhi studied law in London, England but traveled to South Africa in 1893. Here, he spent twenty years opposing discriminatory legislation against Indians. Returning to India in 1914, Gandhi remained to follow his civil disobedience campaign. Even after his death, Gandhi’s commitment to nonviolence is living. The next famous rebel in history, became one of the world’s most influential men to ever live. Martin Luther King Jr. was an African American non-conformist during the civil rights era. King led one of the most suc...
After millions of years under imperial rule in China, nationalist rebellions made the government unstable eventually making way for communist ideas. For over twenty years the nationalist struggled to keep democratic power in the country. The Xinhai revolution was a civil war between the nationalists and the communists. The Communists were led by Mao Zedong and they emerged victoriously. In September 1949, two good things happened. It was the celebration of the communist victory and the unveiling of the communist regime that would subsequently rule over China. Mao and his communist supporters had been fighting against a corrupt and abandoned Nationalist government in China. Mao denounced that those who opposed the communist government are imperialistic and domestic reactionaries. Mao also declared that communi...
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, when there was unfair discrimination against the Afro-American community and Americans refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican War. They used civil disobedience to eventually get legislation to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Civil disobedience is defined as refusal to obey civil laws or decrees, which usually takes the form of passive resistance. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider the law unjust, and want to call attention to its injustice, hoping to bring about its withdrawal.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was an American philosopher, author, poet, abolitionist, and naturalist. He was famous for his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, and his book, Walden. He believed in individual conscience and nonviolent acts of political resistance to protest unfair laws. Moreover, he valued the importance of observing nature, being individual, and living in a simple life by his own values. His writings later influenced the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. In “Civil Disobedience” and Walden, he advocated individual nonviolent resistance to the unjust state and reflected his simple living in the nature.
Millions of peoples was falsely accused and persecuted during the political movements of the Mao period as the CCP focused on class struggle instead of economic development during the period and tens of Millions of peoples died due to starvation as there were widespread food shortages during the great leap forward movement. This raises the problem, does the cost of the revolution outweighs the benefit and if so, can the revolution still be considered a success. This is a very difficult question as the value of human lives cannot be quantified and therefore the comparison of cost and benefit automatically creates a very excruciating dilemma. However, one study done by Barrington Moore in his classic Social origins of Dictatorship and Democracy demonstrated the experience of India during the same period of time. India shares many similarities with China in terms of population, land size and geographic proximity and therefore the two countries’ economy is highly comparable. India, which did not go through a socialist reform, nor a land reform, thus a weak industrial base and low economic growth is currently in an economic situation where half of the country is ‘slowly starving to death’, that is, more than half a billion people are chronically malnourished and will die prematurely . Comparing China with India, it can be argued that the revolution brought more benefit than cost to China and its people and therefore is a success, although the misconducts and terrors created during the Mao era were indefensible and it can be contended that the socialist reform can still occur without the persecutions and famines, however, it should be kept in mind that history cannot be assumed and thus one may only analyze what has already
Mohandas Gandhi and Mao Zedong were two great leaders who succeeded in many ways by their actions and decisions. Gandhi was an Indian leader and Mao a Chinese leader. However, their approach to success, peace, and ultimately, a revolution, was very different. Mao favored peace through violence, and Gandhi favored peace through non-cooperation and standing up for what is right. He also believed that these changes will be accomplished by “conscious suffering”, was the way he put it. However, despite their differences, these two leaders were similar too. They were both very charismatic leaders who successfully made it through their revolutions. Mao’s revolution led to change in class structure while Gandhi’s revolution involved India as a country, and he wanted people to realize that working together is a great way to gain independence. While Mao and Gandhi both believed that each of their countries have the need of independence, their views differed when it came to the use of violence, development towards the revolution, and their thoughts on a caste system.
Mao Zedong will forever live on history as a revolutionary, not only in China but across the globe. There are very few communist nations today because of the many difficulties of having a homogenous population, which shares the same ideals. Mao was able to modernize and re-socialize his citizens in a short amount of time. He defined himself as the face of change in China. Mao’s vision of equality for all Chinese citizens has still not been achieved but it is well on its way. The only question lies in, does the end justify the means.
Mao ZeDong and Gandhi have influenced our political views and aspects on how we view our society and country today. Both used their power differently and succeeded and failed but are looked up to incorporate their theories and philosophies in our decision-makings. Noticing the experiences they encountered are the main reasons for their beliefs, which led their paths to either using violence, or non-violent acts.
Initially, for a revolution to be effective, it is necessary to have a strong leader that will motivate and impact people. After Gandhi’s leadership in the “Indian medical corps that fought on the British side in the Boer War...Gandhi’s reputation as a leader grew” (source B). He showed people that through nonviolent civil disobedience, there can be success. His leadership as a strong and nonviolent man pulled people towards him and his incentives to create a new India free from British rule. A person that can express strong leadership skills through their efforts in battle or through their ability to
Hitler and Stalin will probably go down in history as two of the greatest known evil leaders of the 20th Century. What could bring two men to become the menaces they were? What kind of upbringing would cause someone to turnout the way they did? This report will compare the two through their adolescence till the end of their teenage years.
Webster's dictionary defines civil disobedience as "refusal to obey governmental demands esp. as a nonviolent and usu. collective means of forcing concessions from the government." Henry Thoreau wrote an essay titled Civil Disobedience that has through the years become the authoritative argument on the subject. People as distinguished as Martin Luther King and Gandhi have used this essay as a cornerstone in their respective movements. However, I see Thoreau more as a hypocrite and an anarchist. While his goals might have been noble, like most theorists, he does not take into account the realities of the world we live in. I will convince you in this essay that Thoreau's argument was not valid for several reasons, but mainly due to his logos and ethos.
First Mao Zedong went through many events and travelled a long journey to establish The Peoples Republic of China. When Chiang Kai-shek, became the chairman of the Kuomintang he started a violent purge of the communists in China. At first Mao tried to fight back with an army of peasant but was handily defeated which forced the remnants of the army to retreat to the Jiangxi Province. ...
Chairman Mao along with the CCP believed strongly in marxist economic theories and ideology. People of the early 20th century r...
Mohandas Gandhi was a non-violent promoter for Indian independence.He was married young at 13,and went to London to go to law school.Gandhi got his degree there and was on his way to being a lawyer.He went to his first case,but couldn't even speak. Gandhi then got invited to South Africa from a businessman. Gandhi’s luck their was no good either.European racism came to him,after he got kicked off of a train,because he was “colored” and was holding a first class ticket.When Gandhi fought back because of it,was arrested and was sent to jail.After this, he became know as as a leader.Gandhi returned to India in 1896,and he was disgusted by it.British wanted them to wear their clothes,copy their manners,accept their standards of beauty,but Gandhi refused.Gandhi wanted people to live free of all class and wealth.Gandhi tried so hard and was more successful then any other man in India.They won independence in 1947. Gandhi’s non-violent movement worked because,Gandhi used clever planning, mass appeal, conviction, and compassion to win independence for India.
Ahimsa is a concept that was practiced by political and ideological leader Mohandas Gandhi; a concept that he used to promote the use of non-violent tactics and passive resistance against colonial rule in India. Mohandas Gandhi used Ahimsa as the means to an end and therefore, ultimately rejected Machiavelli's advice on the qualities a prince must possess to retain his title. Machiavelli advises that the leaders have military experience and, “In peace time he must train himself more than in times of war. This can be done in two ways: one by action, the other by the mind” (Jacobus 40). Ghandi does not have military experience and Ahimsa, loosely translated, means abstinence from violence either by thought, word, or deed. Ahimsa requires a harmless mind, mouth, and hand (Maheshwari). The concept of Ahimsa and the actions of Mohandas Gandhi directly contradict the qualities and practices of a Machiavellian prince or leader.