Martin Luther King And Gandhi And Henry Thoreau's Civil Disobedience

There are two people that are similar in a way, but also very different. Two do not have to believe in the same religion nor do they have to have the same lifestyle. They can compare negatively or positively in such a way that others may not understand. This is where Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Henry David Thoreau come in. The two compare and contrast with each other in more ways than some would ever think of.

In Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he is writing to the American people. He is trying to spark a desire for change, for people to oppose their government without actions. He uses this work to criticize the American institution of slavery as well as the Mexican-American War. Thoreau is attempting to convey the importance of listening to one’s conscience over the laws, believing that it is more important to do what they feel is right rather than listen to the laws given by the majority. Thoreau feels that people should protest against their government, but not using violent actions. He is trying to persuade the people to voice their opinions and break the chain of majority rule. Thoreau is writing during the time of the war between the United States and Mexico, which took place between 1846 and 1848. He writes to oppose the government’s actions and policies during this time period. He refused to pay a tax that would support the war and was imprisoned for a day. Thoreau uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade his audience to agree with his view of the American government and to voice their oppositions.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience talks about politics, government and the issues concerning these areas today. "Government is best which governs least." This motto means that the government should not have complete power over the people. The people's opinion is what matters the most. Individualism is stressed throughout his writing. To stand up for what you believe in and not bend backwards for the government is necessary. He speaks of Slavery and the war in Mexico and how is must be put to a stop. The people are responsible for this happening. Many people opposed these things yet did nothing to change it. Allowing yourself to be a part of injustice makes you a part of the negativity. Paying taxes to a corrupt government makes you

Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” and Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” collectively persuade their audiences to disobey authority when it concerns social injustice. King takes a more assertive yet respectful approach, and makes it a point to explicate the intolerable treatment that the black community had to endure under the encroachment of segregation laws. In addition, Thoreau expounds why it is so important for citizens to object and take action upon the corrupt laws that the government had imposed on the blacks, insisting that civil disobedience is a means of freedom. Both of these influential men successfully utilize occasion, purpose, tone, appeals and rhetorical strategies to

In other words civil disobedience indicates that the main objective of disobedience is to bring changes in the social or political order that would affect the freedom of citizens. Nonviolence is the right answer to moral issues and is crucial in politics for any government on our time the need for human mankind to overcome oppression avoiding violence without resorting to oppression with violence.

Civil disobedience has been shown in a great amount of different ways throughout the years. Martin Luther king Jr. expressed his way of civil disobedience by taking direct action but in a calm way which was effective. He wanted the people to be aware of what was going on and open doors for better groups of people who weren't given the same rights as others. Henry David Thoreau on the other hand took action as well but in a different manner directly with the U.S. citizens and government because he wanted more individual rights for the people. Both had the same ideas but took action in different ways and at the end, ended up succeeding in their persuasive ways.

Civil disobedience has always been a popular way to refute an idea in society. The most famous person that encouraged civil disobedience was Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi was famous for encouraging this behavior stating that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Gandhi was a perfect example of how to deal with a life threatening problem in society: Oppose your unfair leaders with peace; simply disobey them, because in order for them to be “leaders” they need society. In order for them to be “leaders” they need a society that cooperates. If you take this away from unfair leaders, then they will crumble. The basic ideology behind civil disobedience that many get wrong is that there is a mutual relationship between political leaders

The Declaration of Independence states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal” (Jefferson). As the United States was built with an emphasis on equality for all citizens, it is increasingly pertinent to ensure that these values are retained. Throughout this country’s history, many conflicts regarding the ultimate equality of all citizens have resulted in the people themselves resisting restrictive laws. Protests, when peaceful, have always had a positive effect on retaining the freedoms promised by the Declaration of Independence. In order to pass on these values, American children are taught about those who chose to resist. Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Susan B. Anthony are only a few of

Henry David Thoreau was a philosopher, poet, and essay writer who lived from 1817-1862. His essay “Civil Disobedience” was written when the Mexican American war was happening and slavery was still being allowed. Thoreau made his essay trying to convince the people of that current United States to rebel against the government when the government is being unfair. His purpose was to create a community which was aware of the government and fight for others not just care for themselves. He did this to get people to care for the mexicans and the slaves who were being mistreated. Throughout the essay Thoreau sounds concerned for the people of his time who do not care for the mexicans or slaves. To convince his audience that we need revolution audience he appeals to their logic by using rhetorical strategies, like extended metaphors, rhetorical questions, and oxymorons.

The two pieces of literature, Henry David Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” and Harlan Ellison’s “’Repent, Harlequin!’ Said the Ticktockman”, are two very distinct pieces of literature, but they are also very closely related. The quote is related to the short story because the concept of the quote is exemplified by the story. The machines are the people who conform, the leaders of the state by their heads are the Ticktockman and his staff, and the hero and enemy is Everett C. Marm, who is also known as the Harlequin. A way that the quote is exemplified in the story is that each element of the quote, the machines, leaders of the state by their heads, and the hero that is seen as an enemy, are personified in the short story.

To start, Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience has influenced many Americans over the years to fight for what they believe in. . Civil Disobedience has motivated many people to speak out against government policies which they disagree with. Thoreau points out by saying, “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.”Thoreau is arguing that governments can get corrupted and depraved but the people need to speak out and try to make things

In his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.

During his confinement in Birmingham city jail, Martin Luther King Jr., a man of patience and virtue, wrote, “…we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive” (Ali-Dinar). Throughout his life, King led peaceful protests to further equality and justice in the African American community; many were opposed with police brutality and fierce discrimination. Had it not been for the media, which broadcasted to Americans nationwide, the eyes of the public and the President would have remained shut to the continuing unequal treatment of the law and violent oppression that many African Americans faced. Despite attempts to halt their movement, the protesters

Henry David Thoreau was an American writer and protester, who wrote the influential essay “Civil Disobedience”. In his essay, he advocates for citizens to protest against government actions that they deem unjust and to stand up for one’s rights, putting morals before law,

After reading “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, I believe that this historic piece of literature can still have a substantial impact upon the current beliefs of the American people. The reason that this essay has such significance to America is because this essay addresses the proper way to go about civil disobedience in addition to providing education about the nature of civil disobedience. I believe the most significant message that this essay could teach Americans is expressed in this quote, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” This quote expresses the need to not just believe in a cause but to actively support it. This is in contrast to a wide spread phenomenon called false activism that is prominent in society. We all know someone who is, and for the most part all of us are guilty of seeing a cause online, claiming to support it, and then not doing a single thing to progress the cause. For example, most everyone you talk to would claim to strongly support more environmentally friendly methods of gathering energy yet the majority of us have not done anything to progress the cause of green energy.