Compare and Contrast George

¶ … 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 questions on feels inclined to ask are: to what extent was Gandhi moved by vanity - by the consciousness of himself as a humble, naked old man, sitting on a praying mat and shaking empires by sheer spiritual power - and to what extent did he compromise his own principles by entering politics, which of their nature are inseparable from coercion and fraud? To give a definite answer one would have to study Gandhi's acts and writings in immense detail, for his whole life was a sort of pilgrimage in which every act was significant" (Orwell, pg 1). 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 they portrayed as successful politicians. Orwell used the points of German Holocausts to illustrate Gandhi's ploys. According to Orwell, Gandhi was a well-known pacifist but it did not mean he was not willing to give up lives. He may have been against violence however; he believed the Jews should demonstrate to the world their plight by participating in a mass and collective suicide (Orwell pg1). That did not happen and when millions of Jews were killed during the Holocaust Gandhi used that to further his own political rising. He reminded the world that the Jews died anyway and it would have been a far more powerful statement had they performed a mass suicide to protest their treatment to the world. Douglass also commended Lincoln on his political prowess in this work of his when he outlined Lincoln's ability to tightrope between the two factions and remain standing (Douglass, pg 10). In each case the man in question was credited by the author for the ability to read the landscape of the people and use that knowledge to further their own agendas.

One of the most interesting points to both of these works is that the authors both praise and criticize the men they write about in the same works. Orwell discusses his question of Gandhi's motivations for his life's work. Using many examples to illustrate the self-driven and at times self absorbed desire to prove his points, we are reminded of the fact that he was willing to lose family members to the cause.

"The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children, but at any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was willing to let his wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never actually occurred, and also that Gandhi - with, one gathers, a good deal of moral pressure in the opposite direction - always gave the patient the choice of staying alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the decision had been solely his own, he would have forbidden the animal food, whatever the risks might be. There must, he says, be some limit to what we will do in order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side of chicken broth. This attitude is perhaps a noble one, but, in the sense which - I think - most people would give to the word, it is inhuman"(Orwell pg1).

However, Orwell had set the stage earlier in the reflection when he discussed the fact that Gandhi's full life confession consisted of a few misdeed as a youth, thereby underscoring the purity with which he lived his own life and was not hypocritical about his beliefs even when it came to his family. Douglass was more harsh in his criticism of Lincoln during his speech .