The Pearl, by John Steinbeck and The Secret River, by Kate Grenville both explore issues surrounding racism and classism. However, while The Pearl places a heavy emphasis on classism due to racism, The Secret River discusses the racism and preconceptions experienced by those who live in a hierarchical society. Resistant readings, common to all texts, manifest themselves as feminist in The Pearl and The Secret River – although more so in the former. Readings such as Marxist and procolonialist are also seen as resistant in The Secret River. In both texts, indigenous populations are depicted as enjoying the important things in life; like family, love and respect for nature. Interestingly, the white population in both books is presented as corrupt and disrespectful due to their monetary system. The Pearl and The Secret River share many similarities, particularly regarding their respective issues. However, even if their resistant readings differ, their message remains the same; everyone is equal – despite everything. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay. Both The Pearl and The Secret River explore myriad issues surrounding racism, classism, and the ingrained and accepted ideas surrounding these attitudes. The first text places a strong emphasis on racism and its effects on classism. Steinbeck implies that it is almost purely racism that motivates classism and the division it creates in society. The Pearl reflects its value on equality and the idea that classism would have no basis if racism did not exist. His use of cinema to represent the poor and oppressed Mexican population allows Steinbeck to present his belief that racism creates classism. It depicts the Mexican population as simple, spiritual and content with what life has given them. Although they find the divide between societies difficult, they do not harbor bitterness and instead use their energy to protect and support their own society. Steinbeck presents Caucasians as greedy, cunning, manipulative, and ignorant of the simpler joys of life. This is evident in the contrast between Kino's morning; “he crouched near the hearth and rolled a hot corn cake in his hands… the sun warmed the little brush house, piercing the crevices in long streaks…” and the doctor's morning; “His eyes were fixed on inflated hammocks as his mouth dropped in displeasure…he was brushing the crumbs of a sweet cake from his fingers.” Grenville has an attitude toward money similar to Steinbeck's. She presents her hypothesis that money eats away at the soul in her text The Secret River, describing William Thornhill as a poor man who does the unspeakable in order to ensure the security of his wealth. She presents Australia's white settlers – freemen and convicts – as similar in their shared value of money. If the social system divides them, it also unites them when they face a common enemy: the indigenous population who does not have a monetary system. Grenville uses this contrast to present the conflict that occurred between the white settlers and the indigenous population. In doing so, she represents white settlers as ignorant and too absorbed in their own lifestyle to appreciate anyone else's. His use of Thornhill's child accentuates this value, as he plays with the native children and brings home knowledge that Thornhill himself is jealous of – but too proud of.