More handpicked essays just for you.
Grapes of wrath summary
Steinbecks role as a social commentator in the grapes of wrath
Steinbecks role as a social commentator in the grapes of wrath
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The novel Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck and “On The Duty of Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau have the same fundamentals. In chapter seventeen of Grapes of Wrath, Steinbeck writes about the migrant families integrate into one family, despite facing opposition from the government, land owners, and more. In “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”, Thoreau discusses the function of the government and how it is not applicable towards today’s society. Steinbeck writes about the passivity of the government on the times before and after the Great Depression and how this event affected many families. Steinbeck does not suggest that the government should intervene in the people’s problems, rather the people should rise up against their oppressors, who are the land owners. Thoreau writes about how the government is ineffective and unjust in its acceptance of slavery and its actions in the Mexican-American War. Both Thoreau and …show more content…
Steinbeck agree that the government needs to change their ways in how it is run and that the people need to fight back. Steinbeck writes about the Great Depression and how the government’s action caused it. He writes about the passivity of the government during this time and how they took away any remaining piece of individuality of the migrant families. These migrant families who are stranded in a foreign place, eventually come together to form a ‘family government’ where “without any signal the family gathered by the truck, and the congress, the family government, went into session” where they decided things as a unified group (Steinbeck 66). Steinbeck writes this because he believes that the only way change will happen is if the people do something. In chapter seventeen, the “twenty families [on the road] became one family” where they worked together with their own ‘laws’ and enforcements (Steinbeck 131). The families were no longer separate but are now one big family. This big family now needs to fight back against their oppressive government to get the same treatment for all. Thoreau writes about the ineffectiveness of the government and how it is an unjust system. He believes that the government does not focus on the needs of the everyday people and that they only take care of themselves and the elite. He criticizes the acceptance of slavery in the country and the government’s stance in the Mexican-American War. A major theme throughout his writing is “That government is best which governs least” (Thoreau 1). This means that the government should either stop governing because in Thoreau's’ opinion, their values are not correct or change the way they govern. He believes that if the people do not believe that the government's way provides for everyone then they should not follow the law spoken by the majority or the lawmakers. If one does not believe in something that it widely accepted, they should not conform, rather they should fight back. Thoreau wants the people to gain independence and think for themselves. Both Steinbeck and Thoreau agree that change needs to happen in the government and without it, either people’s lives will stay the same or things will only change for the worse.
They both have a radical way of thinking where believe they people should rise up and fight for what they want in a government. In Steinbeck’s novel he believes that the migrants should fight back against the government since they took all their land, belongings, families, homes and much more. For Thoreau, he believes that the people should fight back because it is one’s civil duty to fight back and refuse unfair laws. Thoreau believed that the people should fight back against the government due to their support of slavery and their aggressiveness in war. Thoreau believes that the only solution would be fighting back because voting achieves nothing and no reforms occur in the government. He thinks that “every man [should] make know what kind of government would command his respect” (Thoreau 1). This is only achievable through the people standing up for
themselves. In all, both Steinbeck and Thoreau express their views in Grapes of Wrath and “Civil Disobedience”. They both agree that change needs to occur in the government and that the only way to achieve this would be if the people were to rise up and fight back. Steinbeck believes that people should fight the government due to their treatment of migrants and Thoreau believes that the people should fight because of the government’s stance on slavery and the Mexican-American War. Steinbeck and Thoreau have different reasons why the people should fight back, but they both concede to the fact that the government needs to change and the only way for this to happen is if the people were to stand up for themselves.
One of the ironies of Steinbeck’s novel, The Grapes of Wrath was that, as Ma Joad said, "If your in trouble or hurt or need -- go to poor people. They're the only ones that'll help -- the only ones."(pg 335) The irony is that if you need something you have to go to the people who have nothing.
History has encountered many different individuals whom have each impacted the 21 in one way or another; two important men whom have revolted against the government in order to achieve justice are Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both men impacted numerous individuals with their powerful words, their words carried the ability to inspire both men and women to do right by their morality and not follow unjust laws. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by David Henry Thoreau along with King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, allow the audience to understand what it means to protest for what is moral.
...goals, they both discuss similar topics of morality and justice under a government’s rule. In hopes of informing and motivating people, Thoreau and King explain how and why these people should take non-violent action towards unjust laws. From each author’s vivid examples and brilliant analogies, we learn the importance of fighting for justice and maintaining morality. Most importantly, Thoreau and King argue in favor of civil disobedience not only to inspire a fight for freedom from the government, but also to ensure that the people’s God given rights and rights to individuality are preserved for generations.
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck had many comparisons from the movie and the book. In 1939, this story was to have some of the readers against the ones that kept the American people in poverty held responsible for their actions. This unique story was about the Joad’s family, who were migrant workers looking for a good decent job. They were also farmers from Oklahoma that are now striving to find some good work and success for their family in California. This novel was one of Steinbeck’s best work he has ever done. It was in fact an Academy Award movie in 1940. Both the movie and the novel are one of Steinbeck’s greatest masterpieces on both the filmmaking and the novel writing. Both the novel and film are mainly the same in the beginning of the story and towards the end. There were some few main points that Steinbeck took out from the book and didn’t mention them in the movie. “The Grapes of Wrath is a
I’ll Have What She’s Having We live in a time where gender equality is almost a reality. Women can do many of the same jobs men can do and in single families or in times of need take a patriarchal role in their family or the workplace.
Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 after spending a night in the Walden town jail for refusing to pay a poll tax that supported the Mexican War. He recommended passive resistance as a form of tension that could lead to reform of unjust laws practiced by the government. He voiced civil disobedience as "An expression of the individual's liberty to create change" (Thoreau 530). Thoreau felt that the government had established order that resisted reform and change. "Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary" (Thoreau 531).
In Henry David Thoreau's Walden and Civil Disobedience, a problem is presented in the way in which we live our lives. Thoreau sees this problem and goes to Walden Pond to find the solution. Yet his solution is controversial in that it seems to propose actions that go against human nature. Thoreau's prescription for American desperation cannot be accepted by the masses for it is rooted in anti-socialism when humans are essentially social in nature. However, this conclusion is not entirely accurate, as one needs to explore Thoreau's entire solution and the intent of what he is saying in this work.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was a philosopher and writer who is well known for his criticism of the American government during the time. During Thoreau’s life, there were two major issues being debated in the United States: slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues greatly influenced his essay, as he actually practiced civil disobedience in his own life by refusing to pay taxes in protest of the Mexican War. He states that the government should be based on conscience and that citizens should refuse to follow the law and have the duty not to participate and stay as a member of an unjust institution like the government. I argue that the notion of individualism and skepticism toward government is essential to the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
Almost immediately after the publication of The Grapes of Wrath, John Ford began directing the movie, which was released March 15, 1940. The book was so controversial in this period, that a lot of copies were burned, which just brought more attention to this incredible story. It was great to have a movie so quickly, to display the piece visually.
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck is about a family and the struggle of its members to get through tough times without breaking up as a family. The 1930's was a time of hardship in the United States Of America. The Dust Bowl was in effect while on top of that the Great Depression was also occurring. The Joads and many other families from Oklahoma were forced out of their job and had almost no choice but to move to California. They faced many forks in the road, none that can be beaten without the support of their loved ones. The novel provides the stories of two "families" : the Joads and the rest of the migrant workers. Family is the true reason for survival; through these adversities we observe something unbelievable as the migrants join together as one, learn to rely on each other, and see how life on the road forms new "families."
Trouble is what is brought up to one’s mind when they think about disobedience. Usually, one would think that there are consequences to disobedience, but what if disobedience along with rebelling are the solutions and improvements to our human society? Oscar Wilde’s claim is valid as not through history, but even know disobedience has for a matter of fact had an impact in the progress of the world through people like Galileo Galilei, Rosie Riveter, and even now through the coming together of U.S. citizens in rebelling against our current gun laws.
Humanity has never been perfect. Throughout history, there has been repeated abuses of power against people where liberties and rights are stepped upon and people lose their voice in society. Ranging from English colonists in new America disobeying the British to Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to, even today, Native Americans and others refusing to leave their land for a pipeline, civil disobedience has permeated our history. It promotes the recognition of our freedoms and equal rights while opening minds to the injustice and unfairness that goes on in our society. Without it, we would be living in a society that hinders us while also succumbing us to become brainless guppies, following every word the government says.
or fear." Thus, if Ma acts as if everything is all right, then the family
There are two main characters in The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck. Those characters are Tom Joad and Ma Joad. Well, I guess now is as good a time as any to start actually analyzing them, since thats what a character analysis is for.
Tom's and Casy's actions demonstrate the openness of the disenfranchised masses to revolutionary practice; the prophetic voice articulates revolutionary theory. To note that Steinbeck's narrative method gives him useful opportunities for setting forth political doctrine is not to argue that his chosen doctrine is an especially revolutionary one. Steinbeck was a Popular Frontist when he wrote The Grapes of Wrath: he railed against the "fascist utilities and banks" running California and was loosely affiliated with the [Communist Party] through the League of American Writers (of which he remained a member after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin pact). As the coupling of Paine and Jefferson with Marx and Lenin suggests, however, what this democratic antifascism entailed was an etiolation of the text's class warfare theme, even in the interchapters where the prophet fulminates most angrily. But the interchapters do not always articulate a doctrine to the left of that embedded on the level of the "story."