Discriminative Aspects in Oliver Twist and Great expectation

Discriminative Aspects in Oliver Twist and Great expectation

Charles Darwin also known as ‘father’ of evolution said that the environment people live dictates their existence and the role they play in the society. Survival for the Fittest explains that those who have certain characteristic to survive will do, but those who do not have will either die or migrate. This aspect can block individuals from perusing what they ought to have gotten were it not for such discrimination. The paper presents discriminative aspects such as wealth, race, and gender seen in Oliver Twist and Great Expectation by Charles Dickens and how they affect the community.

Dickens highly criticizes the idea of wealth and upper class when he gives an elementary argument that wealth and value are not necessarily the same. For example, Scrooge has wealth, but he realizes that what he has is very little in terms of value. On the other hand, the Crachit family has no wealth but has more in the way of value (Kendall 40). In this, there is an opposing idea that wealth is not everything, and members of a community should not be judged by their wealth, but their significant contribution to its livelihood and development.

Race is portrayed in Dickens’ article Olivier Twist, when Olivier is born he sees himself as anybody of any social rank in the society, but marking him as a poor orphan and a parish errand boy makes everything be impossible for him. This makes one know how class distinction can ruin personal ambition in the society (Kendall 35).

In the Victorian community, certain groups such as the wealthy people are given priority over the poor, who have to work extra hard in order to make ends meet.  Although making it to the upper economic class is hard for the poor and racially neglected people, their hard work is significant to the relationship that exists in the society.

Works Cited

Kendall, Ryan. “Prop 8: Advancing Civil Rights through Cultural and Constitutional Change.” New York University Review Of Law & Social Change 37 (2013): 29-45