Gandhi vs. Thoreau

The main difference between "Civil Disobedience" by Henry Thoreau and "One the Eve of Historic Dandi March" by Gandhi is very simple. Gandhi had a true purpose to fight the government and the wrong they were doing. Thoreau, however, had no real, important purpose. He was jailed for his refusal to pay a poll tax- he spent one night in jail, probably less than 24 hours, and was given good food before someone else paid his poll tax and he was released (Thoreau). Gandhi, on the other hand, spent countless nights in jail. He was beaten and went on hunger strikes and did this all without complaint- because he was making a point. The British control in India really was unfair, and as was their treatment of the native people (Gandhi).

Thoreau was being egotistical. He did not pay his due poll tax because he did not want to vote, and this is unfair. There were probably plenty of other people around that did not want to vote either, but they probably paid the due tax and stayed out of trouble (Thoreau). Thoreau did this for himself, not for others. He was selfish and impractical and was trying to make a point that really did not need to be made. Just because he thought the taxes were doing towards a war he didn't support didn't mean that they actually were. Eventually, this money could have come back to him in another way.

Gandhi was much more justified in his civil disobedience. Although I do not agree with or condone breaking the law, I think that there are exceptions. Like...if you lived in Nazi-Germany. Or India during this time period...Gandhi was fighting for his rights and the rights of his fellow countrymen. He not penny pinching and trying to avoid a relatively small tax, he was trying to change history and do good things so that people would be treated more fairly and altogether better (Gandhi). Thoreau was definitely not above the law...and neither was Gandhi, who paid for the misdemeanors he committed. A big difference is that Gandhi anticipated and did not complain about the consequences of his actions. He knew that, by law, he was doing wrong. But Thoreau, on the other hand, seemed to kind of think that he was above the law in the way. He tried to make himself a martyr when it was his own fault he was jailed for a short period of time.

One more difference is that Gandhi...he's the real deal. He was not just playing around, he was not just trying to make a little point. He was trying to change the world- and he succeeded. Great people like Martin Luther King Jr. have followed in Gandhi's nonviolent tactics, and Gandhi also eventually won the fight against the British influences in India. Thoreau seemed to be...dabbling in civil disobedience, just to see what would happen. I do not think that he was all that serious about taxes, but what trying to make a point. His approach was poorly thought out and he came off looking like a really stupid person. I am not a fan.

Gandhi, Mohandas. "On the Eve of the Historic Dandi March." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 229-230. Print.

Thoreau, Henry."Civil Disobedience." Glencoe Literature. Comp. Jeffery D. Wilhelm. American Literature ed. Columbus: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 220-227. Print.