Ryan+Burns


 * Right from Wrath **

In today’s society people are faced with many hard decisions. Two major decisions involve the questions, how does an individual judge right from wrong, and how should an individual confront injustice. The novel //Grapes of Wrath// by John Steinbeck, and C//ivil Disobedience// by Henry David Thoreau, and “On Compassion” by Barbara Lazear Ascher address these issues. Steinbeck believes the individual should choose what is right, and whether to confront injustice. Thoreau believes it is the duty of the individual to confront injustice. Finally Ascher believes that society has degraded so much the individual can no longer tell right from wrong. Individuals must judge right from wrong by considering many viewpoints and angles, injustice must always be either confronted or accepted. Chapter three of Steinbeck’s novel realistically tells of a turtle attempting to cross a highway. While trying at this, a truck swerves to hit the turtle. However, the turtle’s shell protects it from the blow. The injustice in this chapter is literally portrayed as the truck, and the turtle is the character facing and confronting this injustice. The turtle confronts the injustice by using its shell. Aside of the literal interpretation of this chapter, the truck which swerves to hit the turtle represents the injustice of the bigger corporations taking complete advantage and control of the small farmers like the Joad family. In this interpretation, rather than the turtle, each piece of the turtle’s shell represents each member of the Joad family, all working together to evenly disperse the blow in order to lessen it for each individual and in order to protect the unity of the family, or “the turtle.” The Joad family confronts injustice by working together to decrease the blow, just like the shell of the turtle. In chapter seven of Steinbeck’s novel he allows the reader the make their own assumptions about what is right or wrong. He depicts a scene in which poor farmers are being taken advantage of by smarter car salesmen. “Well, I don't know- Now, look here. I'm givin' you my shirt, an' you took all this time. I might a made three sales while I been talkin' to you. I'm disgusted. Yeah, sign right there. All right, sir. Joe, fill up the tank for this gentleman. We'll give him gas.” (Steinbeck)The reader feels sorry for the famers, but must also consider the life of the salesman. In chapter nine another wrong is committed, however in this situation Steinbeck states the wrong rather than letting the reader decipher it. The farmers are forced off their land and forced to sell their belonging so they can travel to California. The buyers started lowering their prices because they saw the farmers needed to sell everything. Farmers eventually made almost nothing. “Fifty cents isn't enough to get for a good plow. That seeder cost thirty-eight dollars. Two dollars isn't enough. Can't haul it all back-Well, take it, and a bitterness with it. Take the well pump and the harness. Take halters, collars, hames, and tugs. Take the little glass brow-band jewels, roses red under glass.” (Steinbeck) Finally in chapter twelve the farmers are now on tier journey from Oklahoma to California. As they continue on their trip their cars need repair, they are constantly harassed at stops, and overcharged for repairs. “We got to get a tire, but, Jesus, they want a lot for a ol' tire. They look a fella over. They know he got to go on. They know he can't wait. And the price goes up.” (Steinbeck) On the topic of confronting injustice, Steinbeck places the farmers in a position of now power. They are unable to confront the injustices which face them and must live in very poor conditions. Steinbeck hints that it is the individual’s duty to confront injustice. Tractors are used to kick owners off their land, “But what’ll happen to us? How’ll we eat? You’ll have to get off the land. The plows’ll go through the dooryard.” (Steinbeck) Farmers are not powerful enough to defend themselves; however they still try and fight. Later, as the farmers are traveling to California, they form small communities at roadside stops. When in these communities they are able to create some power and fight injustice. “The twenty families became one family, the children were the children of all. The loss of home became one loss, and the golden time in the West was one dream.” (Steinbeck) Steinbeck’s and Thoreau’s views are very similar, the main ideas being that individuals must fight injustice. The difference is Thoreau allows the person to make a decision to either intervene or be content with injustice. He also states this idea clearly with no need for interpretation or in-depth reading. “Some are petitioning the State to dissolve the Union, to disregard the requisitions of the President. Why do they not dissolve it themselves – the Union between themselves and the State – and refuse to pay their quota into its treasury?” (Thoreau) Thoreau also includes his view on government. He believes it should be small and the power should be contained within the people, to minimize injustice. “That government is best which governs not at all.” (Thoreau) Finally in Ascher’s work “On Compassion” a choice between right and wrong is explored. Ascher visualizes a scene in which a stranger is given money; she ponders whether it is given out of compassion or fear. “The baby, weary of the unwavering stare, pulls its blanket over its head…The mother grows impatient and pushes the stroller before her, bearing the dollar like a cross…Was it fear or compassion that motivated the gift?” (Ascher) Ascher is confused at the modern world and infers that life has become so skewed that decisions between right and wrong now have different meanings. Overall, an individual’s decision of right and wrong is now a tough choice and must be looked at from many angles. A person must confront injustice, or be willing to live with it. Steinbeck, Thoreau, and Ascher have all demonstrated, in one way or another, these ideas throughout their works.