¶ … George Orwell. Reflections on Gandhi and Freedman Speech are taken through a point-by-point comparison and the author gives the reader a chance to see likenesses and similarities in both ideas and writing styles. There were two sources used to complete this paper.
DIFFERENT MESSAGES YET THE SAME
Throughout the years, historians and authors alike have used their skills to persuade the audience of certain truths as they see them. If we look back in history, we will find that different people often produced similar schools of thought at different times for different reasons. One of the most classic examples of this occurrence would be the Freedman Speech, by Frederick Douglass and the Reflections on Gandhi, by George Orwell. Each of these works reflect similar styles of writing, as well as similar points of admiration as well as critical thought toward the hero in question. While Douglass and Orwell discuss heroes of their time, in President Lincoln and Gandhi, they also use the works to point out some of the fallible qualities of each man. When one holds the works side-by-side, one will see that each man admired the person he spoke of but took care to uncover their humanistic qualities as well. The comparison of the two works illustrates the fact that great leaders combine heart and head when driving society to make positive changes.
In each of the works that are studied the reader is given the opportunity to uncover the human side of those being evaluated. Gandhi was well-known as a legend for his emotional and human attachment to not only his beliefs, but also his desire to better the world for all who inhabited it. Abraham Lincoln however, was not always known for his diplomacy or emotions. Each of the works compared here highlight the author's belief that the man in question did indeed have humanistic and similar characteristics, which they used in their professional and leadership roles. Orwell opens his dialogue with the questioning of Gandhi's motives.
"In Gandhi's case the...
However, as the reflections continue Orwell illustrates the evidence of the humanistic qualities that Gandhi possessed. One of the examples he uses to do this is the example of the immense influence that he had. Gandhi truly was successful in self-actualization, which involved reaching his full potential as an interactive human being (Orwell pg 1). This is displayed in his life and works as Orwell points out throughout the essay.
Frederick Douglass also develops the audience understanding of the humanistic foundation from which Abraham Lincoln operated when he gave his speech that was published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1866. It was titled Reconstruction and in it Douglass uncovered the humanistic qualities he felt Lincoln displayed during his term.
"The strange controversy between the President and the Congress, at one time so threatening, is disposed of by the people. The high reconstructive powers which he so confidently, ostentatiously, and haughtily claimed, have been disallowed, denounced, and utterly repudiated; while those claimed by Congress have been confirmed (Douglass pg1)." This passage helps to underscore the self-actualization that had been achieved by Lincoln that was so solid he could plant himself firmly between the two factions and remain an admired leader of the people.
The authors of these two works use a similar tactic when further exposing the humanistic qualities of the men in question. Orwell reminds the reader that Gandhi had a bone to pick with the British and much of his works may have stemmed from the desire to prove himself right. In like methods Douglass points out to the reader that Lincoln stood against many who did not support his beliefs and defied Congress in the act.
Each author was successful in the attempt to show the men…
Band Compare/Contrast The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are two of the most popular and prolific bands that emerged during the British Invasion of the 1960s. While they became popular around the same time, each band had a unique style and sound. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones helped revolutionize music by introducing audiences to music they had never heard or experienced before. The Beatles consisted of John Lennon and George Harrison
The perspective might seem extreme. In this sense, it is important to understand that Van Gogh was trying to break free from the limitations of the perspective frame which imposed realistic perspectives and proportions. Moreover, towards the end of his life, at the peak of his artistic maturity, he rebelled against the muted colors that Dutch painters were using at the time. Stylistically, the task of understanding Van Gogh's paintings
Lakoff Reaction The author of this report has been asked to review one of the recent Democrat or Republican debates in March 2016 and then compare/contrast what was covered in that debate with the words of author George Lakoff. In particular, there is to be a comparison about the rhetoric and the function of the mind when it comes to family values and how people define that term internally and externally.
In Animal Farm, Orwell more directly satirizes real world events, as the overthrow of a farmer by his animals and the progression of the new order established there to a totalitarian dictatorship closely mirrors that of Russia's sudden transition to Communism and Stalin's iron-fisted rule. Whereas 1984 drops the reader immediately into the world of a government gone wrong, Animal Farm shows the emergence of such a government. Things begin
George Orwell's last novel, 1984, was released in 1949. The world was still reeling from the effects of World War II and the Soviet Union was emerging as the next great threat to world security. That same year, the Western world watched as the Soviet Union exploded the first atomic bomb, sparking forty years of the Cold War. Supporters of capitalism and democracy quickly hailed the book as a warning
In other words, Orwell's fictional government wanted the citizens to know what the government felt would be good for them to know, not what people really truly needed to know (i.e., the truth). As to the Bush Administration's censoring science to spare the public from hearing the real facts, the Christian Science Monitor reported that the White House "has broadly attempted to control which climate scientists could speak with reporters,