We discussed the final two books in The Poisonwood Bible, which were Song of the Three Children and The Eyes in the Trees.
The first things we discussed were the metaphors brought up in the final book, “The Eyes in the Trees.” The first metaphor we discussed was the tree, which we thought could represent the Congolese people since there are so many trees but not enough resources to support them. Also, we thought the tree could represent independence, since it rises above everything else seeking the light of freedom, but has the vines of Mobutu strangling it and preventing it from growing. Also, the tree could be Orleanna, because it produced seedlings, which could represent the Prices sisters. Also, the vines wrapping around the tree could be Nathan’s grip on Orleanna. We also discussed how the spider that was killed when it was helpless on its back could be Lumumba, since he was killed having done nothing wrong. Also, it could represent Adah, who was helpless because of her handicap and was squished emotionally by the people that looked down on her. We also talked about the rotten stump that had seedlings growing from it. We believed that the rotten stump represented Nathan who used to be great, like a tree, but had lost his importance and rotted into a crazy outcast, and we thought the seedlings were the Price sisters since Nathan had shaped their adult lives. We also talked about the snake, which we assumed was Ruth May because the snake was a thread through the forest and Ruth May was a thread through the sisters.
We then talked about the okapi and spider, which was proof that you always change the things around you. For example, when the family went into the forest, they were destined to kill the spider, but would scare away the okapi, making it more cautious and stop it from getting shot by hunters. This shows balance, which is something that Adah believes in because of her newfound belief in science.
We then discussed the religions of the girls. Rachel never really accepted Christianity because of her dislike in her father, so instead she believes in money, since she is somewhat of a gold digger, and she also believes in herself because she is very self-centered. Adah now believes in science for her religion. It is interesting, however, that Adah, who was the most cynical towards religion, now is the most needy for it, which is probably because she was cured of her handicap. Leah replaced her belief in Christianity with a belief in the Congo. She probably did this because when she replaced Nathan with Anatole, she replaced everything Nathan believed in with everything Anatole believes in. Orleanna’s new religion is her garden. This also has extra significance because it shows that she is independent from Nathan because tending gardens was Nathan’s job, and this symbolizes her new beginnings from Nathan. Also, with Ruth May’s forgiveness she can now finally plant her new seeds of life, since she could only move on with her life with Ruth May’s forgiveness.
We then discussed the nickname for the Price sisters, which were Lock, Stock, and Barrel. Rachel is Lock because she locks up her emotions so that she isn’t affected by the Congo. Adah is Stock because she stays in the background and takes stock of what happens between the sisters. And Leah is Barrel because she barrels forward fixing problems, such as her goal of solving the Congo’s problems.
Finally, we discussed the final phrase in the book, which was “walk forward into the light.” This shows that Ruth May finally forgives Orleanna. This demonstrates Adah’s idea of balance because the book began with Orleanna’s guilt and ended with her being forgiven.
These last two books were a good way to end the book because it showed how everyone changed, especially their beliefs. Also, the book represented many of Adah’s beliefs. For instance, the book began with a family in the jungle, and it ended with the same family. Also, the book was in perfect balance, since the beginning had Orleanna feeling guilty and the end had her forgiven. Overall, this book was very interesting, since it was told through many points of view. I believe that this book had many important messages such as the message of the okapi, which basically said that everyone changes the world, in both good and bad ways and you shouldn’t worry about the bad things and accept everything as a part of life.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Lit Circle #5 Psychological Critic
For book 6: Song of the Three Children and book 7: The Eyes in the Trees, in The Poisonwood Bible, I am the psychological critic which means I have to observe how the characters' minds work.
Rachel:
In book six: Song of the Three Children, Rachel is now fifty years old. And as a result she has changed drastically. Throughout her childhood, she had been completely helpless; she couldn’t even cook an egg omelet. However, now she successfully runs her own hotel. In fact, the work she put into her hotel has allowed her to develop a love for the hotel that she never had with any of her family; she feels bound to the hotel since she worked on it so much. Even though she changed a lot, Rachel still is extremely self-centered. She still has refused to truly adapt to Africa, even though she lives there. Also, she still believes in the book she had read that had told of how to survive dangerous scenarios by using other people, like a parasite. In fact, her hotel that she treasures so much is the result of this very thinking. She also still misses America and the lifestyle she left behind, but since she now has a calling in Africa she can’t go back. I’m still disappointed that Rachel still hasn’t developed a sense of empathy and still thinks that people exist to be used. However, at least she has developed a love for something other than herself, even if it is just a hotel.
Adah:
Adah’s change mainly comes from the correction of her handicap. She now can communicate and as a result we can see the personal side of Adah, which is completely different from her poetic observations that we were so accustomed to. Her love for books and poetry still remains, but her fascination with palindromes has nearly disappeared. This is probably because she can now protect herself with her own hands and doesn’t need to protect herself with her palindromes. If we look at her emotions, we see that she sees everything as equal, from humans to viruses. And as a result, she studies viruses not to rid the world of their evil, but because she admires them. Also, she feels that people like her only for her new body, and as a result she pushes them away. In this sense, she is similar to Rachel because they both do not believe in human relationships anymore. Instead, they fill their empty lives with their work; Rachel tends her hotel and Adah tends her viruses. This isolation from humans is probably the result of Ruth May’s death, which must have made them unable to create a relationship in fear that it would end as tragically as Ruth May’s death.
Rachel:
In book six: Song of the Three Children, Rachel is now fifty years old. And as a result she has changed drastically. Throughout her childhood, she had been completely helpless; she couldn’t even cook an egg omelet. However, now she successfully runs her own hotel. In fact, the work she put into her hotel has allowed her to develop a love for the hotel that she never had with any of her family; she feels bound to the hotel since she worked on it so much. Even though she changed a lot, Rachel still is extremely self-centered. She still has refused to truly adapt to Africa, even though she lives there. Also, she still believes in the book she had read that had told of how to survive dangerous scenarios by using other people, like a parasite. In fact, her hotel that she treasures so much is the result of this very thinking. She also still misses America and the lifestyle she left behind, but since she now has a calling in Africa she can’t go back. I’m still disappointed that Rachel still hasn’t developed a sense of empathy and still thinks that people exist to be used. However, at least she has developed a love for something other than herself, even if it is just a hotel.
Adah:
Adah’s change mainly comes from the correction of her handicap. She now can communicate and as a result we can see the personal side of Adah, which is completely different from her poetic observations that we were so accustomed to. Her love for books and poetry still remains, but her fascination with palindromes has nearly disappeared. This is probably because she can now protect herself with her own hands and doesn’t need to protect herself with her palindromes. If we look at her emotions, we see that she sees everything as equal, from humans to viruses. And as a result, she studies viruses not to rid the world of their evil, but because she admires them. Also, she feels that people like her only for her new body, and as a result she pushes them away. In this sense, she is similar to Rachel because they both do not believe in human relationships anymore. Instead, they fill their empty lives with their work; Rachel tends her hotel and Adah tends her viruses. This isolation from humans is probably the result of Ruth May’s death, which must have made them unable to create a relationship in fear that it would end as tragically as Ruth May’s death.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
If Everyone Cared
I was just looking through youtube and found this video and instantly thought about english class. This song is called "If Everyone Cared" by Nickelback. It talks about how a few people that cared for others changed the world. Such people like Nelson Mandela, who stopped the apartheid that had affected South Africa for decades, and Bob Geldof, a musician that organized the world's first global charity concert, Live Aid, and raised over one hundred fifty european pounds to stop world hunger. It then goes on to propose what would happen if everyone cared like these people did. Our world would be a brighter place and everyone could be happy. To me this song showed that no matter how small you are, you can do great things, as long as you are dedicated and truly believe you can do it. It ends with this quote:
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead
Lit Circle #4 Reflection
In class, we discussed Book 5: Exodus of The Poisonwood Bible.
The first thing we talked about was the developments of the Price sisters after Ruth May’s death. Rachel had lived with Eeben Axelroot, and married an ambassador’s aide and a rich old man. Her relationship with Axelroot allowed her to escape the Congo, and her marriage to the ambassador’s aide allowed her to escape Axelroot. However, as a result of her last marriage, she acquired a hotel. Because of her constant marriages for her own gain, we determined that she only uses her husbands and is a gold digger. Adah fixes her paralysis after someone says that it is a neurological disorder and sets her up on a program to reprogram her body. Leah becomes love struck with Anatole and marries him. Leah’s marriage to Anatole brought up a comparison between her and Orleanna. Leah wanted to be with her husband in the Congo and shared his goal to continue Lumumba’s work for the better of the Congo, but Orleanna didn’t want to be in the Congo and just followed Nathan. This then brought up a comparison between Anatole and Nathan. Anatole and Nathan both are devoted to a cause; for Anatole it is Lumumba and for Nathan it is Christianity. They also both were willing to sacrifice for their cause; Anatole went to jail and Nathan’s daughter died and his family left. However, Anatole seems to care for others through his work, since it will help everyone, whereas Nathan is sharing Christianity largely as redemption for himself. Also, Anatole is willing to assimilate other cultures, like when he went to America and tried to learn as much as possible, whereas Nathan doesn’t want to assimilate any other culture since he feels his is the only right one. After this we discussed how all the girls felt guilty for Ruth May’s death and how each one of them is trying to work through it and find redemption. Leah does this by helping the Congo through her pro-Lumumba work with her husband. Rachel opens a hotel that caters to white people in the Congo, which was something she had wanted in her stay in Kilanga. Adah goes to college and cures diseases and fixes her paralysis. And Orleanna got her daughters to safety and makes a garden that grows not food, but flowers pretty plants. We then discussed about Adah and how she had changed the most in Exodus. Not only did she go to college and cures diseases, but she also fixed her paralysis and now can communicate unlike before. With this, we see that she is actually very emotionally needy and wants her mother’s love. We also discussed the Price sisters’ reactions to Nathan’s death. Basically it affected Leah the most, who had loved her father the most and was only able to separate from him through her love for Anatole. We also noted how Leah and Adah have somewhat switched roles; Adah is perfectly healthy and is living a pretty normal American life, while Leah feels out of place because in America her family is isolated and in the Congo she is isolated. Also, Nathan’s death was similar to Jesus’ in the sense that both were killed atop a construction for sins, but Nathan was burned on a construction for killing children after trying to baptize them, whereas Jesus was killed on the cross for our sins. We then talked about the events that happened to the people in Kilanga. Nelson married and had multiple children, but Mbutu’s men killed Pascal when he was on the road. Kenge, Tata Ndu’s second son, took over as chief after Tata Ndu died because Gbeni was run out of town. And Tata Kuvundu lost respect after Ruth May’s death since he had planted the snake that killed her and he died a lonely death. We then talked about the historical events that took place. Mbutu’s attempts to strengthen the Congo put them in debt and he also used funds for aide for himself. He scheduled a boxing match called Rumble in the Jungle, which was between Mohammed Ali and George Foreman. Ali represented Lumumba because he tried to understand the Congolese, whereas Foreman took an American mindset and didn’t like the Congo. We then discussed the “you” Orleanna always refers to. We figured out that it means multiple things, like Ruth May, the Congolese, countries, even ourselves.
I think that this book was very good for closure. It basically tied up the loose ends in Kilanga and talked about how the girls had matured after their experiences in Kilanga. The death of Nathan, the one responsible for bringing them to Kilanga, marked the end of their story in Kilanga and now it seems they can move on with their lives. The lives of Adah, Leah, and Orleanna all seem the way they should be, with Adah and Leah living generally happy and Orleanna being mournful but relatively well since her daughter died. However, I find that Rachel still has a very bad personality and hopefully she’ll correct it by the end of the book.
The first thing we talked about was the developments of the Price sisters after Ruth May’s death. Rachel had lived with Eeben Axelroot, and married an ambassador’s aide and a rich old man. Her relationship with Axelroot allowed her to escape the Congo, and her marriage to the ambassador’s aide allowed her to escape Axelroot. However, as a result of her last marriage, she acquired a hotel. Because of her constant marriages for her own gain, we determined that she only uses her husbands and is a gold digger. Adah fixes her paralysis after someone says that it is a neurological disorder and sets her up on a program to reprogram her body. Leah becomes love struck with Anatole and marries him. Leah’s marriage to Anatole brought up a comparison between her and Orleanna. Leah wanted to be with her husband in the Congo and shared his goal to continue Lumumba’s work for the better of the Congo, but Orleanna didn’t want to be in the Congo and just followed Nathan. This then brought up a comparison between Anatole and Nathan. Anatole and Nathan both are devoted to a cause; for Anatole it is Lumumba and for Nathan it is Christianity. They also both were willing to sacrifice for their cause; Anatole went to jail and Nathan’s daughter died and his family left. However, Anatole seems to care for others through his work, since it will help everyone, whereas Nathan is sharing Christianity largely as redemption for himself. Also, Anatole is willing to assimilate other cultures, like when he went to America and tried to learn as much as possible, whereas Nathan doesn’t want to assimilate any other culture since he feels his is the only right one. After this we discussed how all the girls felt guilty for Ruth May’s death and how each one of them is trying to work through it and find redemption. Leah does this by helping the Congo through her pro-Lumumba work with her husband. Rachel opens a hotel that caters to white people in the Congo, which was something she had wanted in her stay in Kilanga. Adah goes to college and cures diseases and fixes her paralysis. And Orleanna got her daughters to safety and makes a garden that grows not food, but flowers pretty plants. We then discussed about Adah and how she had changed the most in Exodus. Not only did she go to college and cures diseases, but she also fixed her paralysis and now can communicate unlike before. With this, we see that she is actually very emotionally needy and wants her mother’s love. We also discussed the Price sisters’ reactions to Nathan’s death. Basically it affected Leah the most, who had loved her father the most and was only able to separate from him through her love for Anatole. We also noted how Leah and Adah have somewhat switched roles; Adah is perfectly healthy and is living a pretty normal American life, while Leah feels out of place because in America her family is isolated and in the Congo she is isolated. Also, Nathan’s death was similar to Jesus’ in the sense that both were killed atop a construction for sins, but Nathan was burned on a construction for killing children after trying to baptize them, whereas Jesus was killed on the cross for our sins. We then talked about the events that happened to the people in Kilanga. Nelson married and had multiple children, but Mbutu’s men killed Pascal when he was on the road. Kenge, Tata Ndu’s second son, took over as chief after Tata Ndu died because Gbeni was run out of town. And Tata Kuvundu lost respect after Ruth May’s death since he had planted the snake that killed her and he died a lonely death. We then talked about the historical events that took place. Mbutu’s attempts to strengthen the Congo put them in debt and he also used funds for aide for himself. He scheduled a boxing match called Rumble in the Jungle, which was between Mohammed Ali and George Foreman. Ali represented Lumumba because he tried to understand the Congolese, whereas Foreman took an American mindset and didn’t like the Congo. We then discussed the “you” Orleanna always refers to. We figured out that it means multiple things, like Ruth May, the Congolese, countries, even ourselves.
I think that this book was very good for closure. It basically tied up the loose ends in Kilanga and talked about how the girls had matured after their experiences in Kilanga. The death of Nathan, the one responsible for bringing them to Kilanga, marked the end of their story in Kilanga and now it seems they can move on with their lives. The lives of Adah, Leah, and Orleanna all seem the way they should be, with Adah and Leah living generally happy and Orleanna being mournful but relatively well since her daughter died. However, I find that Rachel still has a very bad personality and hopefully she’ll correct it by the end of the book.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Lit Circle #4 New Critic
“Leah and Adah and I started bickering practically the minute we met up in Senegal. We could never even agree on where to go or stay or what to eat. Whenever we found any place that was just the teeniest step above horrid, Leah felt it was too expensive. She and Anatole evidently have chosen to live like paupers. And Adah, helpful as always, would chime in with the list of what disease organisms were likely to be present” (477-478).
This passage is significant because it shows the contrast in the Price sisters. For example, Rachel’s reference to the inns as “the teeniest step above horrid,” reflects her pampered nature and general pessimistic view of Africa. Whereas Leah’s response on the inn’s cost shows her adaptation to African life, because she has probably been living in poverty so she doesn’t care what the quality of the lodgings are as long as it has a roof and is cheap. Adah’s response shows her personality since instead of joining in on the direct analysis of the lodgings, she looks beyond that and sees the diseases in the lodgings, which reflects her out-of-the-box thinking. It might also suggest that she is giving up her obsession with poetry and palindromes with an obsession for science. This passage is also significant because it shows that although they have grown up, most of the traits they had in childhood are still with them, either exactly the same or slightly evolved. Rachel had always had a pampered attitude, which still remains the same after growing up. Leah had always been very accepting of the Congo, and now she has married a Congolese man and is completely accustomed to the lifestyle. And Adah has always viewed things differently than the normal person, and her observations of diseases shows that this remains the same. These differences of personalities apparently have been growing larger over the years, and as a result, will probably result in the Price family’s complete detachment from one another.
“She pulled her hand out of mine so she could wipe her eyes and blow her nose. ‘I know that!’ She sounded mad. ‘The people in that village asked him to leave a hundred times, go someplace else, but he’d always sneak back. He said he wasn’t going to go away till he’d taken every child in the village down to the river and dunked them under. Which just scared everybody to death. So after the drowning incident they’d had enough, and everybody grabbed sticks and took out after him. They may have just meant to chase him away again. But I imagine Father was belligerent about it’” (486).
This passage is significant because it is the closure of the whole Congo event. The death of Nathan signifies the end of a mistake that had been costly to the Price family. Leah’s crying shows her love for her father, but when she told of his death, her anger showed that she knew what he was doing was wrong. Basically she loved her father but cursed his mistakes. Nathan’s death wasn’t a matter of what would happen, but when it would happen. Since Nathan is so stubborn in his beliefs, it could be inferred that the only way he would leave would be when he was forced out by the people he was trying to “save.” Also, by killing the children by baptizing them, he has hurt his mission more than helped it, since now the Congolese view Christianity as truly evil, which proves that doing something right the wrong way is just as bad as doing something wrong.
This passage is significant because it shows the contrast in the Price sisters. For example, Rachel’s reference to the inns as “the teeniest step above horrid,” reflects her pampered nature and general pessimistic view of Africa. Whereas Leah’s response on the inn’s cost shows her adaptation to African life, because she has probably been living in poverty so she doesn’t care what the quality of the lodgings are as long as it has a roof and is cheap. Adah’s response shows her personality since instead of joining in on the direct analysis of the lodgings, she looks beyond that and sees the diseases in the lodgings, which reflects her out-of-the-box thinking. It might also suggest that she is giving up her obsession with poetry and palindromes with an obsession for science. This passage is also significant because it shows that although they have grown up, most of the traits they had in childhood are still with them, either exactly the same or slightly evolved. Rachel had always had a pampered attitude, which still remains the same after growing up. Leah had always been very accepting of the Congo, and now she has married a Congolese man and is completely accustomed to the lifestyle. And Adah has always viewed things differently than the normal person, and her observations of diseases shows that this remains the same. These differences of personalities apparently have been growing larger over the years, and as a result, will probably result in the Price family’s complete detachment from one another.
“She pulled her hand out of mine so she could wipe her eyes and blow her nose. ‘I know that!’ She sounded mad. ‘The people in that village asked him to leave a hundred times, go someplace else, but he’d always sneak back. He said he wasn’t going to go away till he’d taken every child in the village down to the river and dunked them under. Which just scared everybody to death. So after the drowning incident they’d had enough, and everybody grabbed sticks and took out after him. They may have just meant to chase him away again. But I imagine Father was belligerent about it’” (486).
This passage is significant because it is the closure of the whole Congo event. The death of Nathan signifies the end of a mistake that had been costly to the Price family. Leah’s crying shows her love for her father, but when she told of his death, her anger showed that she knew what he was doing was wrong. Basically she loved her father but cursed his mistakes. Nathan’s death wasn’t a matter of what would happen, but when it would happen. Since Nathan is so stubborn in his beliefs, it could be inferred that the only way he would leave would be when he was forced out by the people he was trying to “save.” Also, by killing the children by baptizing them, he has hurt his mission more than helped it, since now the Congolese view Christianity as truly evil, which proves that doing something right the wrong way is just as bad as doing something wrong.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Freepost #4
In a book, it had an interesting scenario, which was that if you had the power to kill anyone you wanted mentally, so that there were no consequences, would you use it? I asked my friends this question and reflected upon their answers for my free post.
Many people would probably say yes to this question, rationalizing that there are always people that deserve to be killed, such as terrorists and murderers. In theory, this seems like a very good thing, you can better the world by ridding it of evil, but if you began punishing those that are evil, where would it end? Once you’ve killed every murderer, would you start killing people who steal? And even though you say now that you could just stop, isn’t it possible that, like a drug addict, you couldn’t live without controlling other people’s destinies. This entire scenario is similar to a Japanese manga called “Death Note.” In the story, the main character, who was a brilliant, morally decent person, obtains a notebook that allows him to kill anyone he chooses. He decided that with it, he would rid the world of evil. He eventually became power crazy, and in the end, his former-self was lost forever. So to me this scenario not only brought up the idea of killing evil people, but also brought up the idea that obtaining a power like this would change you forever.
When I brought up this question to my friends, practically all of them said they would use this ability. They probably believe that they have a strong enough sense of righteousness that they could never abuse these powers, but there are countless cases of people winning lotteries and changing drastically, having obtained wealth and with it the power to buy anything. If we can change so drastically over a physical thing like money, imagine what the power to kill can do to you?
If I were given this power, even knowing the consequences, I couldn’t safely say that I wouldn’t use them. In the Japanese manga, “Death Note,” in a short scene where the main character loses his memory, he reasons that there is no way that he would have used the notebook since he believes that he has strong morals. It is because of this that I cannot assume that I wouldn’t use the powers. My ignorance towards the subject allows me to be able to say that I wouldn’t use the powers, but when I rationalize the motives, I can’t say for sure that I won’t be a victim to the allure of such powers.
I found it interesting that this scenario brought up such different ideas in my friends’ and my own mind. To them, they were just contemplating the killing of people, whereas I contemplated the change to my personality that it would bring, since I had been introduced to the idea from before hand. I guess my friends’ contemplation are from the fear of going against their morals, whereas I, having read a story where these morals were so easily ignored, focus on the effects that these powers will have on me, already knowing that ignoring these morals are insignificant compared to the devastating effects these powers could have on your mind. So in the end, I believe that while the idea of eliminating evil seems noble, will become distorted if actually practiced. Therefore, I am glad that such powers will never exist in the real world.
Many people would probably say yes to this question, rationalizing that there are always people that deserve to be killed, such as terrorists and murderers. In theory, this seems like a very good thing, you can better the world by ridding it of evil, but if you began punishing those that are evil, where would it end? Once you’ve killed every murderer, would you start killing people who steal? And even though you say now that you could just stop, isn’t it possible that, like a drug addict, you couldn’t live without controlling other people’s destinies. This entire scenario is similar to a Japanese manga called “Death Note.” In the story, the main character, who was a brilliant, morally decent person, obtains a notebook that allows him to kill anyone he chooses. He decided that with it, he would rid the world of evil. He eventually became power crazy, and in the end, his former-self was lost forever. So to me this scenario not only brought up the idea of killing evil people, but also brought up the idea that obtaining a power like this would change you forever.
When I brought up this question to my friends, practically all of them said they would use this ability. They probably believe that they have a strong enough sense of righteousness that they could never abuse these powers, but there are countless cases of people winning lotteries and changing drastically, having obtained wealth and with it the power to buy anything. If we can change so drastically over a physical thing like money, imagine what the power to kill can do to you?
If I were given this power, even knowing the consequences, I couldn’t safely say that I wouldn’t use them. In the Japanese manga, “Death Note,” in a short scene where the main character loses his memory, he reasons that there is no way that he would have used the notebook since he believes that he has strong morals. It is because of this that I cannot assume that I wouldn’t use the powers. My ignorance towards the subject allows me to be able to say that I wouldn’t use the powers, but when I rationalize the motives, I can’t say for sure that I won’t be a victim to the allure of such powers.
I found it interesting that this scenario brought up such different ideas in my friends’ and my own mind. To them, they were just contemplating the killing of people, whereas I contemplated the change to my personality that it would bring, since I had been introduced to the idea from before hand. I guess my friends’ contemplation are from the fear of going against their morals, whereas I, having read a story where these morals were so easily ignored, focus on the effects that these powers will have on me, already knowing that ignoring these morals are insignificant compared to the devastating effects these powers could have on your mind. So in the end, I believe that while the idea of eliminating evil seems noble, will become distorted if actually practiced. Therefore, I am glad that such powers will never exist in the real world.
Freepost #3
While I was reading a book about scenarios and questions, I came across an interesting scenario and decided I would reflect upon the responses for the scenario for my free post.
If you could world hunger by killing a person, would you do it? I found this scenario interesting because it was related to the article we read in the beginning of the year entitled, “The Gift,” which was about a man who donated most of his estate to many charities. He sacrificed a lot to help others, and this scenario requires an even greater sacrifice to save others. I posed this scenario to a few of my friends and even a teacher. The majority of the boys that answered were quick to say that they would gladly sacrifice the one person to save many others, whereas the girls were reluctant to sacrifice anyone, but in the end decided to sacrifice the one person. In other words, the boys instantly weighed the total outcomes, whereas the girls tried to empathize with both parties before making a decision. The teacher also chose to sacrifice the person, but he explained his thought-process to us, which ended up being more profound than our thought-process’. He told us that he had not only weighed the two parties, but had accounted for who the person that was being sacrificed. As he put it, “I wouldn’t want to go home and find one of my parents dead and have to explain it to the other.” This made me think about how this would have changed the answers of my friends. Would the guys who didn’t even try to empathize with the unlucky person who would have to die be able to do the same to their mother? And would the girls who were so reluctant to sacrifice a stranger be able to sacrifice their father? Are our personalities so selfish that we couldn’t sacrifice our loved ones for the loved ones of many other families? In “The Gift,” the man had said that he didn’t know if he could sacrifice two strangers so that one of his kids could live. Which is the more morally, sacrificing many for a loved one or sacrificing a loved one for many?
When I answered this question, I was just trying to create opposition to make it more interesting. I decided to say that I wouldn’t sacrifice the person (this is assuming the person is a stranger), under the pretense that saving many people would actually be detrimental to the human race. Our population is increasing with the deaths of many due to starvation, which will eventually cause over population in the world, which would hurt everyone. If those that should have died from starvation end up living and contributing to the population increase, then in our lifetime we could expect drastic increases in population densities across the globe. This increase of population would also greatly affect our resources, such as plastics, metals, and fuel. When I proposed this, I instantly thought of all the charitable people in the world that would hate me for just thinking this, but I questioned whether they saw the future of mankind or only the present. Eventually, all of my controversial ideas accumulated to two questions; by helping others that are less fortunate, are we helping the human race as well as being morally decent? And is there a difference between helping the human race and being morally decent? The workings of the world are too complex to comprehend, and maybe the helping others and resources don’t even have a correlation. But if it were, the entire view on what is good would be completely different and our ideas on life would change drastically, either for the better or for the worse.
If you could world hunger by killing a person, would you do it? I found this scenario interesting because it was related to the article we read in the beginning of the year entitled, “The Gift,” which was about a man who donated most of his estate to many charities. He sacrificed a lot to help others, and this scenario requires an even greater sacrifice to save others. I posed this scenario to a few of my friends and even a teacher. The majority of the boys that answered were quick to say that they would gladly sacrifice the one person to save many others, whereas the girls were reluctant to sacrifice anyone, but in the end decided to sacrifice the one person. In other words, the boys instantly weighed the total outcomes, whereas the girls tried to empathize with both parties before making a decision. The teacher also chose to sacrifice the person, but he explained his thought-process to us, which ended up being more profound than our thought-process’. He told us that he had not only weighed the two parties, but had accounted for who the person that was being sacrificed. As he put it, “I wouldn’t want to go home and find one of my parents dead and have to explain it to the other.” This made me think about how this would have changed the answers of my friends. Would the guys who didn’t even try to empathize with the unlucky person who would have to die be able to do the same to their mother? And would the girls who were so reluctant to sacrifice a stranger be able to sacrifice their father? Are our personalities so selfish that we couldn’t sacrifice our loved ones for the loved ones of many other families? In “The Gift,” the man had said that he didn’t know if he could sacrifice two strangers so that one of his kids could live. Which is the more morally, sacrificing many for a loved one or sacrificing a loved one for many?
When I answered this question, I was just trying to create opposition to make it more interesting. I decided to say that I wouldn’t sacrifice the person (this is assuming the person is a stranger), under the pretense that saving many people would actually be detrimental to the human race. Our population is increasing with the deaths of many due to starvation, which will eventually cause over population in the world, which would hurt everyone. If those that should have died from starvation end up living and contributing to the population increase, then in our lifetime we could expect drastic increases in population densities across the globe. This increase of population would also greatly affect our resources, such as plastics, metals, and fuel. When I proposed this, I instantly thought of all the charitable people in the world that would hate me for just thinking this, but I questioned whether they saw the future of mankind or only the present. Eventually, all of my controversial ideas accumulated to two questions; by helping others that are less fortunate, are we helping the human race as well as being morally decent? And is there a difference between helping the human race and being morally decent? The workings of the world are too complex to comprehend, and maybe the helping others and resources don’t even have a correlation. But if it were, the entire view on what is good would be completely different and our ideas on life would change drastically, either for the better or for the worse.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Lit Circle #3 Reflection
In class, we discussed Book 4: Bel and the Serpent in The Poisonwood Bible.
The first thing we discussed was Orleanna’s part at the beginning of the book. In the past books, Orleanna had focused on her own troubles and sadness, but in this book, which contained the greatest factor in her sadness (Ruth May’s Death), she focused more on the politics in the Congo, such as the assassination of Lumumba. After that, since the title of this book was, “Bel and the Serpent,” we talked about the story it was named for in the bible. The original story featured a man named, Daniel, who proved to Babylonians that they were worshiping false idols by sprinkling ashes on the ground of the temple to prove that their idol, Bel, wasn’t alive and that the priests were making it appear as if he was alive by eating the gifts for Bel. We then compared this to The Poisonwood Bible, and drew the obvious connection that Tata Kuvundu was like the priests in the story, since he was making it appear as if the gods were angry at the villagers by putting snakes in weird places, since they hadn’t listened to him when he told them to not let Leah participate in a hunt. However, we also discussed the possibility that Nathan was a false idol himself, since he demanded that people listen to his teachings since he considered him the voice of God in the Congo, and it was questionable if he was really doing it to teach them the religion, or to just be worshiped in God’s place. Also, we discussed the significance of the serpent mentioned in the name of the story, and concluded that it could either refer to the sneaky, evil intentions of Tata Kuvundu, or the cunning trap Leah set to catch the culprit of the mysterious snake appearances in the village. We then finished up our discussion about this story by mentioning the purpose of the story being brought up in the book, which was an attempt from Nathan to slander Tata Kuvundu by calling him a fake, which in the long run, gave Leah the idea that caused Ruth May’s death. We then proceeded on and began discussing the reactions of the Price family towards Ruth May’s death. We first talked about Rachel’s reaction. After Ruth May’s death, Rachel says, “I’d never planned on being someone different” (367). This showed that Rachel believed that when she returned home from the Congo, she could go on living, pretending that it never happened. But when Ruth May died, she realized that they could never be the same. This thinking may have also been the reason why she was so reluctant to adapt to the Congo lifestyle. On top of that, she also seemed worried about how her mother would react. This could have either meant that she was worried more about if she was going to be in trouble than the death of her sister, or that she was finally showing true compassion for someone other than herself. We then discussed Leah’s reaction. She appeared very guilty for having shaken Ruth May while she was trying to figure out what was wrong with her. But she mainly was remembering things about Ruth May. These are both very normal responses to the death of a loved one. Adah’s reaction towards Ruth May’s death greatly reflected her personality. She said that even though she hadn’t seen the birth of Ruth May, she had now since she believed it was the same as her death but in reverse, like a palindrome. She also created a palindrome poem to protect herself, since creating palindromes is one of the only powers she has. Nathan’s reaction wasn’t really out of sadness, and he seemed more concerned that she wasn’t baptized than the fact that she was dead. He even used her death and the ensuing rain as means to baptize the children that came to Ruth May’s funeral. Finally, we discussed Orleanna’s reaction, which was very interesting. She didn’t seem to surprised by Ruth May’s death, as if she was expecting it all along. We then discussed who was to blame for Ruth May’s death. Tata Kuvundu appeared to be the one to blame, since he brought the snake that killed Ruth May, however, Leah could also be blamed for deciding to bring Ruth May along to help Nelson, and Nathan could be blamed since he brought them to the Congo in the first place and introduced the idea of the ashes from telling the story of Bel and the Serpent out of spite towards Tata Kuvundu. Also, we discussed the differences of bantu and muntu. After discussing it, we inferred that bantu referred to the bodies of humans, whereas muntu referred to their spirits, which is why it refers to both living and dead humans.
Overall, this book was very important, since it revealed the personalities of all of the Price family and held a lot of very significant events in very few pages. I found the interpretations of the reactions of the different members of the Price family after Ruth May’s death to be very interesting, especially Adah’s palindrome, which held her only power to protect herself. Despite having a good discussion, I am still curious to know Nathan’s true feelings towards Ruth May’s death, since you never get to read what he is thinking and can only judge his emotions through his actions, which although cold, may be masking his sadness.
The first thing we discussed was Orleanna’s part at the beginning of the book. In the past books, Orleanna had focused on her own troubles and sadness, but in this book, which contained the greatest factor in her sadness (Ruth May’s Death), she focused more on the politics in the Congo, such as the assassination of Lumumba. After that, since the title of this book was, “Bel and the Serpent,” we talked about the story it was named for in the bible. The original story featured a man named, Daniel, who proved to Babylonians that they were worshiping false idols by sprinkling ashes on the ground of the temple to prove that their idol, Bel, wasn’t alive and that the priests were making it appear as if he was alive by eating the gifts for Bel. We then compared this to The Poisonwood Bible, and drew the obvious connection that Tata Kuvundu was like the priests in the story, since he was making it appear as if the gods were angry at the villagers by putting snakes in weird places, since they hadn’t listened to him when he told them to not let Leah participate in a hunt. However, we also discussed the possibility that Nathan was a false idol himself, since he demanded that people listen to his teachings since he considered him the voice of God in the Congo, and it was questionable if he was really doing it to teach them the religion, or to just be worshiped in God’s place. Also, we discussed the significance of the serpent mentioned in the name of the story, and concluded that it could either refer to the sneaky, evil intentions of Tata Kuvundu, or the cunning trap Leah set to catch the culprit of the mysterious snake appearances in the village. We then finished up our discussion about this story by mentioning the purpose of the story being brought up in the book, which was an attempt from Nathan to slander Tata Kuvundu by calling him a fake, which in the long run, gave Leah the idea that caused Ruth May’s death. We then proceeded on and began discussing the reactions of the Price family towards Ruth May’s death. We first talked about Rachel’s reaction. After Ruth May’s death, Rachel says, “I’d never planned on being someone different” (367). This showed that Rachel believed that when she returned home from the Congo, she could go on living, pretending that it never happened. But when Ruth May died, she realized that they could never be the same. This thinking may have also been the reason why she was so reluctant to adapt to the Congo lifestyle. On top of that, she also seemed worried about how her mother would react. This could have either meant that she was worried more about if she was going to be in trouble than the death of her sister, or that she was finally showing true compassion for someone other than herself. We then discussed Leah’s reaction. She appeared very guilty for having shaken Ruth May while she was trying to figure out what was wrong with her. But she mainly was remembering things about Ruth May. These are both very normal responses to the death of a loved one. Adah’s reaction towards Ruth May’s death greatly reflected her personality. She said that even though she hadn’t seen the birth of Ruth May, she had now since she believed it was the same as her death but in reverse, like a palindrome. She also created a palindrome poem to protect herself, since creating palindromes is one of the only powers she has. Nathan’s reaction wasn’t really out of sadness, and he seemed more concerned that she wasn’t baptized than the fact that she was dead. He even used her death and the ensuing rain as means to baptize the children that came to Ruth May’s funeral. Finally, we discussed Orleanna’s reaction, which was very interesting. She didn’t seem to surprised by Ruth May’s death, as if she was expecting it all along. We then discussed who was to blame for Ruth May’s death. Tata Kuvundu appeared to be the one to blame, since he brought the snake that killed Ruth May, however, Leah could also be blamed for deciding to bring Ruth May along to help Nelson, and Nathan could be blamed since he brought them to the Congo in the first place and introduced the idea of the ashes from telling the story of Bel and the Serpent out of spite towards Tata Kuvundu. Also, we discussed the differences of bantu and muntu. After discussing it, we inferred that bantu referred to the bodies of humans, whereas muntu referred to their spirits, which is why it refers to both living and dead humans.
Overall, this book was very important, since it revealed the personalities of all of the Price family and held a lot of very significant events in very few pages. I found the interpretations of the reactions of the different members of the Price family after Ruth May’s death to be very interesting, especially Adah’s palindrome, which held her only power to protect herself. Despite having a good discussion, I am still curious to know Nathan’s true feelings towards Ruth May’s death, since you never get to read what he is thinking and can only judge his emotions through his actions, which although cold, may be masking his sadness.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Mosquito Coast and The Poisonwood Bible comparison
After watching a movie called, "The Mosquito Coast," we had to think up of similarities and differences between that and The Poisonwood Bible. Both were about a family that moved from home, because of the father's decision, to help an underdeveloped village, so there were many similarities. However, there were also many very distinct differences between the two of them.
One similarity between The Mosquito Coast and The Poisonwood Bible is that both fathers took their families away from their homes to an underdeveloped community and tried to better that community like how they saw fit. Another similarity is that both fathers were stubborn and unyielding so that they could achieve their goals, despite the pleas of their families to leave, and as a result both families endured a heavy loss; the Price Family lost their youngest daughter, Ruth May, and the Fox family lost their father. Another similarity, is the “verse battle” that occurred in both stories. Nathan Price engaged in a verse battle with a radical reverend that had preached in the village before he had, where they quoted verses from the bible and interpreted them, while Allie Fox and his rival, a preacher who took many of his villagers away from him, quoted verses from the bible to continue an argument. Another similarity is that both families had a very important local person that helped them out. For the Price family, it was Anatole, a schoolteacher who gives them gifts and helps them with the politics of the community, and for the Fox family, it was Hatty, a ferryman who brings important goods and helps the family any way he can. A very important similarity between these two stories is that both Nathan and Allie went to underdeveloped villages bringing with them something intended to help the village, which ended up destroying the village. For Nathan, it was Christianity; he intended to use God’s word to lead the people to spiritual salvation, while for Allie it was in the form of an ice maker; he intended to provide many benefits for the village, like food storage and air conditioning. However, Christianity ended up tearing apart the village, since Nathan’s personality and vision agitated the entire village, and the ice machine ended up attracting bandits, which eventually led to the destruction of the village when it exploded. This connects to the poisonwood in The Poisonwood Bible; Bangala could mean precious or poisonwood: something good or something bad. All of these things could be either good or bad depending on how it is used.
There are also some differences between The Mosquito Coast and The Poisonwood Bible. First of all, Nathan appeared to be totally absorbed in his own plans and didn’t really show affection to any member of his family, whereas Allie was constantly expressing his love for his family, despite being extremely devoted to his plans. Another difference was each father’s relationship with his respective villages. Nathan went to the village expecting that everyone had to see it his way and didn’t really care about the well being of the villagers, and because of that, he became distant from the village, preventing him from connecting with them, whereas Allie worked with the villagers and was constantly trying to make them happy, and as a result the villagers accepted him and it was much easier for Allie to achieve his goal of building a giant ice machine.
One similarity between The Mosquito Coast and The Poisonwood Bible is that both fathers took their families away from their homes to an underdeveloped community and tried to better that community like how they saw fit. Another similarity is that both fathers were stubborn and unyielding so that they could achieve their goals, despite the pleas of their families to leave, and as a result both families endured a heavy loss; the Price Family lost their youngest daughter, Ruth May, and the Fox family lost their father. Another similarity, is the “verse battle” that occurred in both stories. Nathan Price engaged in a verse battle with a radical reverend that had preached in the village before he had, where they quoted verses from the bible and interpreted them, while Allie Fox and his rival, a preacher who took many of his villagers away from him, quoted verses from the bible to continue an argument. Another similarity is that both families had a very important local person that helped them out. For the Price family, it was Anatole, a schoolteacher who gives them gifts and helps them with the politics of the community, and for the Fox family, it was Hatty, a ferryman who brings important goods and helps the family any way he can. A very important similarity between these two stories is that both Nathan and Allie went to underdeveloped villages bringing with them something intended to help the village, which ended up destroying the village. For Nathan, it was Christianity; he intended to use God’s word to lead the people to spiritual salvation, while for Allie it was in the form of an ice maker; he intended to provide many benefits for the village, like food storage and air conditioning. However, Christianity ended up tearing apart the village, since Nathan’s personality and vision agitated the entire village, and the ice machine ended up attracting bandits, which eventually led to the destruction of the village when it exploded. This connects to the poisonwood in The Poisonwood Bible; Bangala could mean precious or poisonwood: something good or something bad. All of these things could be either good or bad depending on how it is used.
There are also some differences between The Mosquito Coast and The Poisonwood Bible. First of all, Nathan appeared to be totally absorbed in his own plans and didn’t really show affection to any member of his family, whereas Allie was constantly expressing his love for his family, despite being extremely devoted to his plans. Another difference was each father’s relationship with his respective villages. Nathan went to the village expecting that everyone had to see it his way and didn’t really care about the well being of the villagers, and because of that, he became distant from the village, preventing him from connecting with them, whereas Allie worked with the villagers and was constantly trying to make them happy, and as a result the villagers accepted him and it was much easier for Allie to achieve his goal of building a giant ice machine.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Lit Circle #3 Lexicographer
Kikongo Lexicon
A, baki!: You thief!
A bu: Well then, fine, ok
A bu, kwe?: Where, then?
A bu mpya: Who’s next?
Anatole baana bansisila au a-aana!: Anatole the orphan without descendants!—Bitterest insult that could be borne by a Congolese man
A yi bandu: If you do not mind
*Bakala mputu: Help me
Bantu: People
*Beelezi: Foreigners, government
Beto nki tutasala: What are we doing?
Beto tutakwe kusala: We will begin
Dikonko: Edible locusts and crickets
Kakakaka: Go!
*Kibaazu: Evil spirits
Kuleka?: Do you expect to sleep?
Ku nianga, ngeye uyele kutala: You thatched your roof and now you must not run out of your house if it rains
*Mankulu: Ancestors
Midiki: Milk
Muntu: A living, dead, or unborn person
Mwana: Your children
Nguka: Edible caterpillars
Nkento: A woman
Nommo: The force of a name to call oneself
Nsamba: New palm wine
Pagnes: Colorful women’s clothing
*: Not sure about definition
Difficult Words, Phrases, Proverbs, and Short Passages:
1) “The sting of a fly, the Congolese say, can launch the end of the world” (317).
This quote basically says that a small event can change everything. This makes sense since a wrong word can end a relationship and a small mistake like leaving the stove on can destroy a home. For the Price family, the sting was staying in Congo, and the end of the world was the death of Ruth May. They could never have guessed that something so bad could happen from that.
2) “They say you thatched your roof and now you must not run out of your house if it rains” (331-332).
This was the translation Anatole gave to Nathan when the village decided to vote to make Jesus the God of Kikongo. This is a proverb from Kikongo that was said to Nathan. It basically says that if you use an idea, like democracy, you always have to use it, which goes along the lines of not being hypocritical.
3) “And Nelson jumped right in to agree with Anatole, saying we should be glad for every arrow that shoots straight, even if it comes from a girl” (336).
This occurred when Anatole was trying to convince the village to let Leah hunt with the men. This shows that the entire village looks down upon women and even Nelson, who is a friend to Leah, seems to think that girls are inferior from him saying, “…even if it comes from a girl” (336). This also shows that Leah is becoming her own spirit, since she decided on her own that she wanted to hunt and also suggests that her newfound confidence will cause problems in Kikongo.
4) “Using the body as a mask, muntu watches and waits without fear, because muntu itself cannot die” (343).
This quote shows an interesting belief in Kikongo, which is that people are the same, dead or alive. Muntu can almost be considered a spirit in the Christian sense, meaning that when you die, you live on in the afterlife. This also foretells the death of Ruth May by interesting the aspect of life after death.
5) “Those who have known this kind of hunger cannot entirely love, ever again, those who have not” (345).
This explains the feelings of the Congolese towards the foreigners. Foreigners are much wealthier than the Congolese and never go hungry, but the Congolese constantly suffer from famine. The pain that comes from famine breeds hate towards those who do not know the pain, which causes fighting to break out, like the events that are happening in the Northern Congo during the time the book takes place.
6) “On the day of the hunt I came to know in the slick of my bones this one thing: all animals kill to survive, and we are animals” (347).
This is an interesting statement because it sheds light on the brutal truth of life, that everything comes with a price. Living is no different from getting a TV; we must spend something to live and get a TV. While a TV requires payment in money, living requires payment in the lives of others. This relates to the question of how can we live a morally decent life.
7) “Lambs to the slaughter. We were, or the animals were, I don’t even know who I feel sorry for the most” (350).
Rachel said this when she was reflecting on the massive hunt of the village. This quote is kind of confusing, but from my understanding it is very interesting. In Rachel’s eyes, although the animals’ bodies were destroyed, the people’s spirits were destroyed. In other words, when they were ruthlessly killing all of the animals, their morality was dying with the animals.
8) “And so it came to pass that the normal, happy event of dividing food after a hunt became a war of insults and rage and starving bellies” (354).
This shows that even though the villagers usually are very generous and kind towards one another, hunger can change everything. This relates to the violence in North Congo at that time, where even though the people there are normally very nice people, the hunger they suffer from cause them to become violent in order to obtain food to stop their hunger and that they are not just targeting white people only out of anger.
9) “Only a man, one man and no other, who brought the snake in a basket or carried it stunned or charmed like a gift in his own two hands” (362).
This occurred when the Price daughters and Nelson decided to set a trap to see if the snakes appearing in weird places were natural or the work of a man. This relates to the story of Bel in the beginning of the book, which told of how men were responsible for mysterious happenings.
10) “I was not present at Ruth May’s birth but I have seen it now, because I saw each step of it played out in reverse at the end of her life” (365).
This relates to Adah’s fascination with palindromes. According to her, life is one big palindrome, where life ends like how it beings. This explains the saying, “anything with a beginning has an end,” because everything needs to end the opposite of the way it started.
A, baki!: You thief!
A bu: Well then, fine, ok
A bu, kwe?: Where, then?
A bu mpya: Who’s next?
Anatole baana bansisila au a-aana!: Anatole the orphan without descendants!—Bitterest insult that could be borne by a Congolese man
A yi bandu: If you do not mind
*Bakala mputu: Help me
Bantu: People
*Beelezi: Foreigners, government
Beto nki tutasala: What are we doing?
Beto tutakwe kusala: We will begin
Dikonko: Edible locusts and crickets
Kakakaka: Go!
*Kibaazu: Evil spirits
Kuleka?: Do you expect to sleep?
Ku nianga, ngeye uyele kutala: You thatched your roof and now you must not run out of your house if it rains
*Mankulu: Ancestors
Midiki: Milk
Muntu: A living, dead, or unborn person
Mwana: Your children
Nguka: Edible caterpillars
Nkento: A woman
Nommo: The force of a name to call oneself
Nsamba: New palm wine
Pagnes: Colorful women’s clothing
*: Not sure about definition
Difficult Words, Phrases, Proverbs, and Short Passages:
1) “The sting of a fly, the Congolese say, can launch the end of the world” (317).
This quote basically says that a small event can change everything. This makes sense since a wrong word can end a relationship and a small mistake like leaving the stove on can destroy a home. For the Price family, the sting was staying in Congo, and the end of the world was the death of Ruth May. They could never have guessed that something so bad could happen from that.
2) “They say you thatched your roof and now you must not run out of your house if it rains” (331-332).
This was the translation Anatole gave to Nathan when the village decided to vote to make Jesus the God of Kikongo. This is a proverb from Kikongo that was said to Nathan. It basically says that if you use an idea, like democracy, you always have to use it, which goes along the lines of not being hypocritical.
3) “And Nelson jumped right in to agree with Anatole, saying we should be glad for every arrow that shoots straight, even if it comes from a girl” (336).
This occurred when Anatole was trying to convince the village to let Leah hunt with the men. This shows that the entire village looks down upon women and even Nelson, who is a friend to Leah, seems to think that girls are inferior from him saying, “…even if it comes from a girl” (336). This also shows that Leah is becoming her own spirit, since she decided on her own that she wanted to hunt and also suggests that her newfound confidence will cause problems in Kikongo.
4) “Using the body as a mask, muntu watches and waits without fear, because muntu itself cannot die” (343).
This quote shows an interesting belief in Kikongo, which is that people are the same, dead or alive. Muntu can almost be considered a spirit in the Christian sense, meaning that when you die, you live on in the afterlife. This also foretells the death of Ruth May by interesting the aspect of life after death.
5) “Those who have known this kind of hunger cannot entirely love, ever again, those who have not” (345).
This explains the feelings of the Congolese towards the foreigners. Foreigners are much wealthier than the Congolese and never go hungry, but the Congolese constantly suffer from famine. The pain that comes from famine breeds hate towards those who do not know the pain, which causes fighting to break out, like the events that are happening in the Northern Congo during the time the book takes place.
6) “On the day of the hunt I came to know in the slick of my bones this one thing: all animals kill to survive, and we are animals” (347).
This is an interesting statement because it sheds light on the brutal truth of life, that everything comes with a price. Living is no different from getting a TV; we must spend something to live and get a TV. While a TV requires payment in money, living requires payment in the lives of others. This relates to the question of how can we live a morally decent life.
7) “Lambs to the slaughter. We were, or the animals were, I don’t even know who I feel sorry for the most” (350).
Rachel said this when she was reflecting on the massive hunt of the village. This quote is kind of confusing, but from my understanding it is very interesting. In Rachel’s eyes, although the animals’ bodies were destroyed, the people’s spirits were destroyed. In other words, when they were ruthlessly killing all of the animals, their morality was dying with the animals.
8) “And so it came to pass that the normal, happy event of dividing food after a hunt became a war of insults and rage and starving bellies” (354).
This shows that even though the villagers usually are very generous and kind towards one another, hunger can change everything. This relates to the violence in North Congo at that time, where even though the people there are normally very nice people, the hunger they suffer from cause them to become violent in order to obtain food to stop their hunger and that they are not just targeting white people only out of anger.
9) “Only a man, one man and no other, who brought the snake in a basket or carried it stunned or charmed like a gift in his own two hands” (362).
This occurred when the Price daughters and Nelson decided to set a trap to see if the snakes appearing in weird places were natural or the work of a man. This relates to the story of Bel in the beginning of the book, which told of how men were responsible for mysterious happenings.
10) “I was not present at Ruth May’s birth but I have seen it now, because I saw each step of it played out in reverse at the end of her life” (365).
This relates to Adah’s fascination with palindromes. According to her, life is one big palindrome, where life ends like how it beings. This explains the saying, “anything with a beginning has an end,” because everything needs to end the opposite of the way it started.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Essential Question Response #9
I couldn't decide what I should write for this response, and as I pondered the idea behind an essential question, I realized that it was a way for us to see how we can better our own lives. So I decided to use this thought as my essential question, which is:
How can we better our lives?
The first step in bettering our lives is defining what exactly that is. When people think of having a "better" life, some people believe that this is found through love, others think it involves helping others, while others believe it is about finding morals to base your actions off of. Despite everyone having a different opinion on what they can do to better their life, every single one of these ideas are connected by a single similarity; they all make that person happy. Whether you derive joy from the burning passion for a lover, the bubbling euphoria of donating a toy to an orphan, or the satisfying thought of purpose that comes from the belief in a greater being, you are finding a way to be happy, so my definition for bettering our lives is finding a path in life that allows you to be happy and relish every second of it.
Now it is very easy to criticize my definition. You can say that our own happiness has nothing to do with bettering our lives. You can bring up dictators, such as Hitler, who massacred many innocent people just to satisfy their sick idea of joy. How can doing something so horrible be considered as bettering your life? Well as much I am against the thought of killing out of joy, the fact remains that those people are bettering their own lives, with little regard to others. They grew up under different circumstances from the norm, and as a result, have different ideas of happiness. This thought applies to the saviors throughout history as well, such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., who sacrificed a lot to help many people because it made them feel joy that their lives had a purpose. It is only the morals that they were raised with that allowed them to find joy in helping others. These circumstances are the reason we all have such different ideas of bettering our lives.
So as you live each day, searching for a way to better your life, just think of what would make you happy and pursue it until you die.
How can we better our lives?
The first step in bettering our lives is defining what exactly that is. When people think of having a "better" life, some people believe that this is found through love, others think it involves helping others, while others believe it is about finding morals to base your actions off of. Despite everyone having a different opinion on what they can do to better their life, every single one of these ideas are connected by a single similarity; they all make that person happy. Whether you derive joy from the burning passion for a lover, the bubbling euphoria of donating a toy to an orphan, or the satisfying thought of purpose that comes from the belief in a greater being, you are finding a way to be happy, so my definition for bettering our lives is finding a path in life that allows you to be happy and relish every second of it.
Now it is very easy to criticize my definition. You can say that our own happiness has nothing to do with bettering our lives. You can bring up dictators, such as Hitler, who massacred many innocent people just to satisfy their sick idea of joy. How can doing something so horrible be considered as bettering your life? Well as much I am against the thought of killing out of joy, the fact remains that those people are bettering their own lives, with little regard to others. They grew up under different circumstances from the norm, and as a result, have different ideas of happiness. This thought applies to the saviors throughout history as well, such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., who sacrificed a lot to help many people because it made them feel joy that their lives had a purpose. It is only the morals that they were raised with that allowed them to find joy in helping others. These circumstances are the reason we all have such different ideas of bettering our lives.
So as you live each day, searching for a way to better your life, just think of what would make you happy and pursue it until you die.
Essential Question Response #8
After I was reflecting over the troubles that had accumulated over the past few weeks, I began to question why these things were happening to me. This ultimately led me to begin questioning religion. One such question was what exactly does God do?
One belief is the Christian belief that God has a great plan for us all, and every single event is the result of him carrying out this plan, which would make every person that exists nothing more than a pawn on a chess board; we need to rely on the hand of god to move us, whether it be towards salvation or suffering. This idea that we are completely hopeless seems idiotic: if I can’t control my fate, then why could I go into the kitchen right now, pull out a knife and stab myself? If I were destined to live so I could cure a disease to contribute to this plan, then would the blade become dull as I picked up the knife or would God slap the knife away with an invisible hand? I admit that although I was raised with Christian beliefs, I don’t go to church often, if at all, so I can’t really be in the position to be able to question this belief. For instance, maybe it was God’s plan to for me to pick up the knife to prove him wrong, and maybe that causes a ripple effect that affects someone important to his plan. But if God really did have a great plan, then why would humans even exist? It would be pointless for God to create us just so he could play a game of chess with himself. Instead of controlling our fate, maybe God is just trying to guide us along a path using his teachings?
I am a firm believer that God doesn’t control our fate and rather probability and choice are the driving factors behind our life. Even our choice is not the will of God, but rather a set of chemical reactions occurring in our brain that dictate our actions based on past experiences. Maybe that is how he “controls” our lives; he uses his word as a hand to guide us. This is why I believe that God is just observing the world while it forever spins on an invisible axis, occasionally interrupting the normal flow of life with a messiah who gives voice to God’s word, like Jesus. That is why I carefully examine each choice in my life; I am trying to set up my own life like I think it should be. If God does exist, then I believe that he only affects our life if we choose to heed his word, and that no matter what you do, he gives you the freedom to choose.
One belief is the Christian belief that God has a great plan for us all, and every single event is the result of him carrying out this plan, which would make every person that exists nothing more than a pawn on a chess board; we need to rely on the hand of god to move us, whether it be towards salvation or suffering. This idea that we are completely hopeless seems idiotic: if I can’t control my fate, then why could I go into the kitchen right now, pull out a knife and stab myself? If I were destined to live so I could cure a disease to contribute to this plan, then would the blade become dull as I picked up the knife or would God slap the knife away with an invisible hand? I admit that although I was raised with Christian beliefs, I don’t go to church often, if at all, so I can’t really be in the position to be able to question this belief. For instance, maybe it was God’s plan to for me to pick up the knife to prove him wrong, and maybe that causes a ripple effect that affects someone important to his plan. But if God really did have a great plan, then why would humans even exist? It would be pointless for God to create us just so he could play a game of chess with himself. Instead of controlling our fate, maybe God is just trying to guide us along a path using his teachings?
I am a firm believer that God doesn’t control our fate and rather probability and choice are the driving factors behind our life. Even our choice is not the will of God, but rather a set of chemical reactions occurring in our brain that dictate our actions based on past experiences. Maybe that is how he “controls” our lives; he uses his word as a hand to guide us. This is why I believe that God is just observing the world while it forever spins on an invisible axis, occasionally interrupting the normal flow of life with a messiah who gives voice to God’s word, like Jesus. That is why I carefully examine each choice in my life; I am trying to set up my own life like I think it should be. If God does exist, then I believe that he only affects our life if we choose to heed his word, and that no matter what you do, he gives you the freedom to choose.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Lit Circle #2 Reflection
During class, we discussed Book 3: The Judges, in "The Poisonwood Bible."
The first thing we discussed was the differences between Brother Fowles and Nathan Price. We talked it over, and concluded that the main difference between the two of them is Brother Fowles’ interest in Congo’s culture and his willingness to adapt his teachings to better suit their culture and he was able to get most of the village to accept his teachings, whereas Nathan Price is too stubborn to alter his teachings and as a result, is unable to get the Congolese people to accept his teachings. Their “verse battle” demonstrated these personalities. “‘Don’t be a fool, man!’ Father cried. ‘That verse refers to the children of Israel.’ ‘Maybe so. But the image of the olive tree is a nice one, don’t you think?’” (252). This quote shows that Nathan refuses to take the scripture out of context, whereas Brother Fowles enjoys taking parts of the scripture and interpreting it in different ways. We also talked about how Leah appears to be changing greatly. First of all, she is beginning to doubt her father, like when she says, “If it’s all up to him to decide our fate, shouldn’t protection be part of the bargain?” (243). At the beginning of the book, she blindly followed her father, but now she is beginning to see that he is not that great of a man, and as her dedication to her father lessens, a void in her heart grows larger. It appeared that she began to fall in love with Anatole to fill that void. We thought this because of when she said, “Anatole’s name anchored me to the earth, the water, the skin that held me in like a jar of water” (310-311). After that, we discussed the symbolism of the ants that attacked the village. We compared them to the Congolese people through Anatole’s quote. “When they are pushed down long enough they will rise up. If they bite you, they are trying to fix things in the only way they know” (308). This basically says that the Congolese people are not bad people, but they are hurting white people because they are trying to take care of themselves the only way the know of, which is violence. Also, the ants swept through the village, cleaning the village of its filth, just like the Congolese people, who are cleaning out their country of white people. We also discussed the relationships between the Price girls. Leah and Adah don’t have a really good relationship, mainly because of Adah’s disability. Leah tends to insult Adah, among other things. The reason behind this is probably that Leah actually feels really guilty for Adah’s condition, and insults her to cope with the guilt. Also, Rachel doesn’t really like any of her sisters because she is very self-centered. As a result, she tends to be jealous of Ruth May, since Orleanna gives her the most attention since she is the youngest.
We had a lot more time to discuss this lit circle, since we extended our discussion over two classes. This allowed us to go more in-depth with the symbolism of the ants and the relationships of the sisters. I found this lit circle to be helpful in analyzing the ants and Leah’s change over the book.
The first thing we discussed was the differences between Brother Fowles and Nathan Price. We talked it over, and concluded that the main difference between the two of them is Brother Fowles’ interest in Congo’s culture and his willingness to adapt his teachings to better suit their culture and he was able to get most of the village to accept his teachings, whereas Nathan Price is too stubborn to alter his teachings and as a result, is unable to get the Congolese people to accept his teachings. Their “verse battle” demonstrated these personalities. “‘Don’t be a fool, man!’ Father cried. ‘That verse refers to the children of Israel.’ ‘Maybe so. But the image of the olive tree is a nice one, don’t you think?’” (252). This quote shows that Nathan refuses to take the scripture out of context, whereas Brother Fowles enjoys taking parts of the scripture and interpreting it in different ways. We also talked about how Leah appears to be changing greatly. First of all, she is beginning to doubt her father, like when she says, “If it’s all up to him to decide our fate, shouldn’t protection be part of the bargain?” (243). At the beginning of the book, she blindly followed her father, but now she is beginning to see that he is not that great of a man, and as her dedication to her father lessens, a void in her heart grows larger. It appeared that she began to fall in love with Anatole to fill that void. We thought this because of when she said, “Anatole’s name anchored me to the earth, the water, the skin that held me in like a jar of water” (310-311). After that, we discussed the symbolism of the ants that attacked the village. We compared them to the Congolese people through Anatole’s quote. “When they are pushed down long enough they will rise up. If they bite you, they are trying to fix things in the only way they know” (308). This basically says that the Congolese people are not bad people, but they are hurting white people because they are trying to take care of themselves the only way the know of, which is violence. Also, the ants swept through the village, cleaning the village of its filth, just like the Congolese people, who are cleaning out their country of white people. We also discussed the relationships between the Price girls. Leah and Adah don’t have a really good relationship, mainly because of Adah’s disability. Leah tends to insult Adah, among other things. The reason behind this is probably that Leah actually feels really guilty for Adah’s condition, and insults her to cope with the guilt. Also, Rachel doesn’t really like any of her sisters because she is very self-centered. As a result, she tends to be jealous of Ruth May, since Orleanna gives her the most attention since she is the youngest.
We had a lot more time to discuss this lit circle, since we extended our discussion over two classes. This allowed us to go more in-depth with the symbolism of the ants and the relationships of the sisters. I found this lit circle to be helpful in analyzing the ants and Leah’s change over the book.
Congo History
We were assigned in class to find out more information about certain periods of time in Congo’s history, so we could better understand the video, “Invisible Children.”
1955-1966
Up until 1960, Belgium had control over Congo, but on January 27, 1960, Belgium announced that they would relinquish their control in six months, and on June 30, 1960, Congo was granted its independence and was renamed “Republic of Congo.” Before they gained their independence on May 31, 1960, Patrice Lumumba was confirmed to be Congo’s first elected prime minister, and Joseph Kasavubu was to be Congo’s first elected president. However, on July 11, 1960, Katanga, which was the richest province of Congo, succeeded under Moise Tshombe. Also, the second richest province of Congo, Kasai, succeeded as well. Lumumba appealed to the USSR to help them, but the United States, with UN forces, stopped all of the USSR’s aid. On December 1, 1960, Mobutu’s forces arrested Lumumba, and on January 17, 1961, Lumumba was transferred to a prison in Katanga, where he was executed. Afterwards, the UN and Congolese government were able to recapture the provinces of Katanga and Kasai. After a period of unrest and rebellion, in 1965, Mobutu seized the country and declared himself president.
2000-2007
On January 18, 2001, Laurent Kabila, the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was confirmed dead after he was shot by one of his bodyguards on January 16, 2001. His son, Joseph Kabila, became president after his death. On July 30, 2006, the first free elections, since the one in 1960, occurred, with Kabila winning the election and being inaugurated as president on December 6, 2006.
1955-1966
Up until 1960, Belgium had control over Congo, but on January 27, 1960, Belgium announced that they would relinquish their control in six months, and on June 30, 1960, Congo was granted its independence and was renamed “Republic of Congo.” Before they gained their independence on May 31, 1960, Patrice Lumumba was confirmed to be Congo’s first elected prime minister, and Joseph Kasavubu was to be Congo’s first elected president. However, on July 11, 1960, Katanga, which was the richest province of Congo, succeeded under Moise Tshombe. Also, the second richest province of Congo, Kasai, succeeded as well. Lumumba appealed to the USSR to help them, but the United States, with UN forces, stopped all of the USSR’s aid. On December 1, 1960, Mobutu’s forces arrested Lumumba, and on January 17, 1961, Lumumba was transferred to a prison in Katanga, where he was executed. Afterwards, the UN and Congolese government were able to recapture the provinces of Katanga and Kasai. After a period of unrest and rebellion, in 1965, Mobutu seized the country and declared himself president.
2000-2007
On January 18, 2001, Laurent Kabila, the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, was confirmed dead after he was shot by one of his bodyguards on January 16, 2001. His son, Joseph Kabila, became president after his death. On July 30, 2006, the first free elections, since the one in 1960, occurred, with Kabila winning the election and being inaugurated as president on December 6, 2006.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
PWB: Lit Circle #2, Historian
In class, we are periodically going to assume different roles to aid in discussions regarding The Poisonwood Bible. For the second lit circle, I am the historian, which means I have to come up with background information about some of the things presented in the book.
• The Bataan Death March occurred from April 9, 1942 and lasted several days afterward. The march was the result of the surrender of over 15,000 American and 60,000 Filipino troops at Bataan peninsula. Because of the large number of POW’s, many of the prisoners were forced to march around 60 miles in grueling conditions to get to a prison camp. 600-650 American and 5,000-10,000 Filipino prisoners died during the march to the prison camp.
• Sleeping sickness is a parasitic disease that causes minor symptoms, such as fever, aching joints, etc., but if untreated, can lead to neurological damage, such as irregular sleep patterns and confusion.
• Katanga declared its independence from Congo on July 1, 1960, under the leadership of Moise Tshombe. This resulted in turmoil between the two new nations, and after Congo tried to invade Katanga in 1961, the UN got involved and under pressure by Congo, forced Katanga to rejoin with Congo in 1963.
• Patrice Lumumba, after being overthrown from office and held under house arrest by UN soldiers, escaped and was eventually given to the Katangan government, who executed him on January 17, 1961.
• Driver ants (the ants that attacked the village in The Poisonwood Bible) are carnivorous and are able to strip chickens to their bones in a day or two. They are able to sting, but prefer to use their large, sharp mandibles to attack their prey.
• Malaria is a parasitic disease that multiplies within red blood cells. It infects about 300-500 million people every year and kills 1-3 million of the people that were infected.
• The Bataan Death March occurred from April 9, 1942 and lasted several days afterward. The march was the result of the surrender of over 15,000 American and 60,000 Filipino troops at Bataan peninsula. Because of the large number of POW’s, many of the prisoners were forced to march around 60 miles in grueling conditions to get to a prison camp. 600-650 American and 5,000-10,000 Filipino prisoners died during the march to the prison camp.
• Sleeping sickness is a parasitic disease that causes minor symptoms, such as fever, aching joints, etc., but if untreated, can lead to neurological damage, such as irregular sleep patterns and confusion.
• Katanga declared its independence from Congo on July 1, 1960, under the leadership of Moise Tshombe. This resulted in turmoil between the two new nations, and after Congo tried to invade Katanga in 1961, the UN got involved and under pressure by Congo, forced Katanga to rejoin with Congo in 1963.
• Patrice Lumumba, after being overthrown from office and held under house arrest by UN soldiers, escaped and was eventually given to the Katangan government, who executed him on January 17, 1961.
• Driver ants (the ants that attacked the village in The Poisonwood Bible) are carnivorous and are able to strip chickens to their bones in a day or two. They are able to sting, but prefer to use their large, sharp mandibles to attack their prey.
• Malaria is a parasitic disease that multiplies within red blood cells. It infects about 300-500 million people every year and kills 1-3 million of the people that were infected.
Friday, March 2, 2007
Essential Question Response #7
So my essential question for this response is
Can determination allow you to accomplish anything?
I couldn't help but remember the football game between Boise State and Oklahoma. At the end of the game, Boise State was trailing Oklahoma by seven points. Boise State was on the fifty-yard line with only eighteen seconds left. This situation was extremely bad for Boise State and many teams would have been defeated mentally. But Boise State was determined not to lose and pulled off a spectacular lateral for the fifty-yard touchdown, which sent them into overtime. After their spectacular play, during overtime they were faced with the decision whether to kick for the extra point and go into double overtime, or to go for a conversion, risking it all to win. Their determination to win caused them to take a gamble for the win, and after another spectacular play they scored the conversion and won the game. Boise State was faced with many grim situations in that game, that would have broken many teams, but their determination to win pulled them through each one of those situations and allowed them to pull of a spectacular win.
Can determination allow you to accomplish anything?
I couldn't help but remember the football game between Boise State and Oklahoma. At the end of the game, Boise State was trailing Oklahoma by seven points. Boise State was on the fifty-yard line with only eighteen seconds left. This situation was extremely bad for Boise State and many teams would have been defeated mentally. But Boise State was determined not to lose and pulled off a spectacular lateral for the fifty-yard touchdown, which sent them into overtime. After their spectacular play, during overtime they were faced with the decision whether to kick for the extra point and go into double overtime, or to go for a conversion, risking it all to win. Their determination to win caused them to take a gamble for the win, and after another spectacular play they scored the conversion and won the game. Boise State was faced with many grim situations in that game, that would have broken many teams, but their determination to win pulled them through each one of those situations and allowed them to pull of a spectacular win.
Essential Question Response #6
For this essential question response, I couldn't think of anything to address my original essential question, which was "What is the responsibility of a human being?" So for this response, I'm picking a new essential question to respond to (at least for now). My new essential question is:
Can determination allow you to accomplish anything?
50 years ago, the idea of space travel was classified as a demented scientist's fantasy. No one at the time ever believed it even possible to travel outside of this world. However, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy said "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth." This challenge was unimaginably difficult; travel to the moon and back, something that had never been accomplished, and in less than a decade? But despite the obvious difficulties his challenge held, the nation joined together and on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong was sent to the moon. At the time, Kennedy's challenge seemed impossible. But because of his drive and determination, we accomplished his astronomical goal, proving that determination can allow some of the wildest dreams to come true.
Can determination allow you to accomplish anything?
50 years ago, the idea of space travel was classified as a demented scientist's fantasy. No one at the time ever believed it even possible to travel outside of this world. However, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy said "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth." This challenge was unimaginably difficult; travel to the moon and back, something that had never been accomplished, and in less than a decade? But despite the obvious difficulties his challenge held, the nation joined together and on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong was sent to the moon. At the time, Kennedy's challenge seemed impossible. But because of his drive and determination, we accomplished his astronomical goal, proving that determination can allow some of the wildest dreams to come true.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Lit Circle #1 Reflection
We split up into small groups and discussed book 2 in The Poisonwood Bible in class today.
The first thing we discussed was the connection between Ruth May and Green Mamba snakes, which are the deadliest snakes in Africa. We talked about how Ruth May is similar to these snakes because Green Mambas are very quiet and are hard to notice, and Ruth May is very quiet and unnoticeable as well, which allows her to see and hear things that people try to keep secret. She also mentions her desire to see one, which could foretell an encounter with one later on in the story. And since the snake is constantly being connected to poison and death, it is almost certain that if Ruth May ever encounters one, it will result in a vicious attack. The next thing we discussed was Leah. We believed that she had changed from book one to book two; she is becoming her own self and less like her father. For example, she is starting to adapt to Congo by making friends and learning about the culture, whereas Nathan refuses to assimilate anything from Congo. Also, she was punished by her father for being prideful, which shows that she is slowly gaining her own confidence instead of emulating Nathan. We also discussed Nathan's personality. We found him to be extremely prideful, which is ironic since he had punished Leah for this very sin. He constantly demonstrates his pride by his unfaltering stance on his teachings, believing that his way is the only right way and that it doesn't need to be changed or altered. Also, he provides a lot of evidence that shows that he believes he is better than his family, such as his disregard for their opinions about leaving Congo when the government was changed from the Belgiums to the Congolese. His lack of respect for his family led us to discuss his relationship with his wife, Orleanna. We figured out that Nathan doesn't treat Orleanna like an adult, since he doesn't hold her word in high regard. Also, he uses Orleanna as an outlet for his anger and frustration from his lack of success in Congo. Then we questioned his motive for trying to convert Congo to Christianity and we doubted that he wanted to help the Congolese through his religion and rather wanted to force his own opinions on people, allowing him to act like a god. At the end of the discussion, we talked about how Methuselah could be a metaphor for many things in the story. For example, Methuselah related to the Price family because he was handicapped by having a safe home and many conveniences, much like the Price family in America. And by Methuselah being killed when he was released, it foretells the trouble that the Price family will encounter in Congo.
For this being our first lit circle and having very little time, I believe we covered a lot of subjects and went in depth with most of them to the point that we were able to formulate connections that run deep within the story. I believe that it is helpful to have a fresh perspective on things so that new ideas can be formulated instead of just coming up with generic ideas. An example of this was when Methuselah was connected to many points in the story, most of which I hadn't noticed. Overall, I found this lit circle to be extremely helpful, since I can now move on to the next book in the story with fresh ideas I gathered from my classmates.
The first thing we discussed was the connection between Ruth May and Green Mamba snakes, which are the deadliest snakes in Africa. We talked about how Ruth May is similar to these snakes because Green Mambas are very quiet and are hard to notice, and Ruth May is very quiet and unnoticeable as well, which allows her to see and hear things that people try to keep secret. She also mentions her desire to see one, which could foretell an encounter with one later on in the story. And since the snake is constantly being connected to poison and death, it is almost certain that if Ruth May ever encounters one, it will result in a vicious attack. The next thing we discussed was Leah. We believed that she had changed from book one to book two; she is becoming her own self and less like her father. For example, she is starting to adapt to Congo by making friends and learning about the culture, whereas Nathan refuses to assimilate anything from Congo. Also, she was punished by her father for being prideful, which shows that she is slowly gaining her own confidence instead of emulating Nathan. We also discussed Nathan's personality. We found him to be extremely prideful, which is ironic since he had punished Leah for this very sin. He constantly demonstrates his pride by his unfaltering stance on his teachings, believing that his way is the only right way and that it doesn't need to be changed or altered. Also, he provides a lot of evidence that shows that he believes he is better than his family, such as his disregard for their opinions about leaving Congo when the government was changed from the Belgiums to the Congolese. His lack of respect for his family led us to discuss his relationship with his wife, Orleanna. We figured out that Nathan doesn't treat Orleanna like an adult, since he doesn't hold her word in high regard. Also, he uses Orleanna as an outlet for his anger and frustration from his lack of success in Congo. Then we questioned his motive for trying to convert Congo to Christianity and we doubted that he wanted to help the Congolese through his religion and rather wanted to force his own opinions on people, allowing him to act like a god. At the end of the discussion, we talked about how Methuselah could be a metaphor for many things in the story. For example, Methuselah related to the Price family because he was handicapped by having a safe home and many conveniences, much like the Price family in America. And by Methuselah being killed when he was released, it foretells the trouble that the Price family will encounter in Congo.
For this being our first lit circle and having very little time, I believe we covered a lot of subjects and went in depth with most of them to the point that we were able to formulate connections that run deep within the story. I believe that it is helpful to have a fresh perspective on things so that new ideas can be formulated instead of just coming up with generic ideas. An example of this was when Methuselah was connected to many points in the story, most of which I hadn't noticed. Overall, I found this lit circle to be extremely helpful, since I can now move on to the next book in the story with fresh ideas I gathered from my classmates.
Monday, February 26, 2007
PWB: Lit Circle #1, Moderator
In class, we are periodically going to assume different roles to aid in discussions regarding The Poisonwood Bible. For the first lit circle, I am the moderator, which means that I have to come up with questions for our discussion.
1) Ruth May seems to be fascinated by Green Mamba snakes. Is their any significance behind that?
2) After becoming flustered by Anatole's argument about the problems with his teachings, Nathan breaks Orleanna's favorite serving plate out of rage. Is Nathan's anger going to play a significant role later on in the story?
3) When Leah is allowed to keep a baby owl, Nathan punishes her for the sin of pride. Why does Nathan punish Leah for the sin of pride when he is the one who has the most pride?
4) Does the owl Leah found have any significance to the relations of villagers and the price family or future events?
5) Nathan demonstrates a complete disregard for his family's safety by refusing to leave Congo even though there will be civil unrest from the changing government. Will Nathan's attitude hurt his family and will he ever change his ways?
6) WIll the change in government affect Nathan's plans?
1) Ruth May seems to be fascinated by Green Mamba snakes. Is their any significance behind that?
2) After becoming flustered by Anatole's argument about the problems with his teachings, Nathan breaks Orleanna's favorite serving plate out of rage. Is Nathan's anger going to play a significant role later on in the story?
3) When Leah is allowed to keep a baby owl, Nathan punishes her for the sin of pride. Why does Nathan punish Leah for the sin of pride when he is the one who has the most pride?
4) Does the owl Leah found have any significance to the relations of villagers and the price family or future events?
5) Nathan demonstrates a complete disregard for his family's safety by refusing to leave Congo even though there will be civil unrest from the changing government. Will Nathan's attitude hurt his family and will he ever change his ways?
6) WIll the change in government affect Nathan's plans?
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Freepost #2
This is the trailer for the movie Saw. I love the Saw movies since I find the "traps" in them extremely interesting and the thought process of the serial killer, Jigsaw, very different from the average hollywood serial killer. Basically, Jigsaw's thinking is that some people are very ungrateful to be alive, so he takes people who don't appreciate their lives and puts them through traps that test their will to live. Now even though the movies are exremely gory and not suitable for all audiences, I find that the message, although distorted, is very important. We are living our lives not appreciating the opportunities that we have, and the only way that we actually see how lucky we are is when we come face to face with death. The thought of dying shouldn't force us to appreciate our lives and instead we should go through everyday enjoying every single breath.
Freepost #1
So for our class, we have to post writings that could be about anything. So I came up with this:
In the past decade, numerous school shootings have taken place. In each case, estranged kids come to school, wielding anything from pistols to assault rifles, and have killed their fellow classmates. Now of course the parents of these kids don't want to take the blame for allowing their kids to be so emotionally isolated and distraught that they would just break down and go on a killing spree, so they immediately try to pass on the blame. And when they do that, the easiest target is video games. Now I find this really annoying. How do these parents, who didn't notice that their kids were emotionally isolated, get the nerve to blame the actions of their children on a form of entertainment? I have been playing video games practically my entire life, and as a result, I know a lot about them. Video games come with ESRB ratings, which are similar to the rating for movies. A group of people goes through each game and will rate the game based on its content. And if a game is excessively violent, it will be rated M, which stands for mature. This means that the only way a high school kid can get their hands on a game like that is if they have almost graduated, or if their parents buy it for them. Now this system basically is designed to prevent impressionable youngsters from being influenced by this violence, so if a kid gets his hands on the game, it is because the parent bought the game for the kid, which completely defeats the purpose of the rating system. So I do admit, that video games probably desensitized the kids to violence, so that they didn't think that killing their classmates was that bad, but if a parent exercises just a little responsibility, there should be no way that video games should influence these kids. Games such as Grand Theft Auto are rated M, and because of the content of these games, it is really easy to say that the videos games had caused these kids to shoot their classmates. But there should be no way that a kid will ever play Grand Theft Auto, unless their parents buy the game for their kid. So you cannot blame video games without first blaming the person who bought it. It’s like buying a gun; you shouldn’t let your kids ever touch it because they might not now how to handle it, but having a gun can help you, since it has the ability to guard yourself from potential attackers.
Video games are entertainment, and most people view it as a way to relieve stress, allowing them to play outside the limits of the real world. I constantly enjoy playing video games to work out the stress I accumulated over the day in a safe manner. So in my opinion, if video games are used correctly, they can be therapeutic. From now on, instead of parents pointing the finger away from them, how about they just admit that they didn't exercise the proper amount of responsibility they should have.
In the past decade, numerous school shootings have taken place. In each case, estranged kids come to school, wielding anything from pistols to assault rifles, and have killed their fellow classmates. Now of course the parents of these kids don't want to take the blame for allowing their kids to be so emotionally isolated and distraught that they would just break down and go on a killing spree, so they immediately try to pass on the blame. And when they do that, the easiest target is video games. Now I find this really annoying. How do these parents, who didn't notice that their kids were emotionally isolated, get the nerve to blame the actions of their children on a form of entertainment? I have been playing video games practically my entire life, and as a result, I know a lot about them. Video games come with ESRB ratings, which are similar to the rating for movies. A group of people goes through each game and will rate the game based on its content. And if a game is excessively violent, it will be rated M, which stands for mature. This means that the only way a high school kid can get their hands on a game like that is if they have almost graduated, or if their parents buy it for them. Now this system basically is designed to prevent impressionable youngsters from being influenced by this violence, so if a kid gets his hands on the game, it is because the parent bought the game for the kid, which completely defeats the purpose of the rating system. So I do admit, that video games probably desensitized the kids to violence, so that they didn't think that killing their classmates was that bad, but if a parent exercises just a little responsibility, there should be no way that video games should influence these kids. Games such as Grand Theft Auto are rated M, and because of the content of these games, it is really easy to say that the videos games had caused these kids to shoot their classmates. But there should be no way that a kid will ever play Grand Theft Auto, unless their parents buy the game for their kid. So you cannot blame video games without first blaming the person who bought it. It’s like buying a gun; you shouldn’t let your kids ever touch it because they might not now how to handle it, but having a gun can help you, since it has the ability to guard yourself from potential attackers.
Video games are entertainment, and most people view it as a way to relieve stress, allowing them to play outside the limits of the real world. I constantly enjoy playing video games to work out the stress I accumulated over the day in a safe manner. So in my opinion, if video games are used correctly, they can be therapeutic. From now on, instead of parents pointing the finger away from them, how about they just admit that they didn't exercise the proper amount of responsibility they should have.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
PWB: POV Shift (Rachel)
We had to pick one of the characters in The Poisonwood Bible and describe our campus using the point of view of our selected character based off a quote we selected. This is what I wrote:
"Already I was heavy-hearted in my sould for the flush commodes and machine-washed clothes and other simple things in life I have took for granite" (23).
The clean, green grass was trimmed on either side of the winding path that took me through this place. The sun was high in the sky. I could feel my fantasmic, fair skin slowly burning under its unforgiving rays. I took shelter under a giant tree, only to have it shower me with its awful, filthy leaves. The leaves entangeld in my beautiful blonde hair and I desperately tried to weed out each invading speck. There were a few kids talking and laughing a few feet away. They seemed to not even care that one of the girls was wearing a purple blouse with a weird pair of shorts. I was shocked to smithereens. A fire was beating inside of me as I desperately tried to control my urge to yell at her for being so incredible dumb. Despite the dirtyness and untidyness of the surroundings, the building surrounding this place were amazing. They were built from brick and stone and were two-stories high. I rushed towards a magnificient, white building to my right. I couldn't wait to leaf that campus.
"Already I was heavy-hearted in my sould for the flush commodes and machine-washed clothes and other simple things in life I have took for granite" (23).
The clean, green grass was trimmed on either side of the winding path that took me through this place. The sun was high in the sky. I could feel my fantasmic, fair skin slowly burning under its unforgiving rays. I took shelter under a giant tree, only to have it shower me with its awful, filthy leaves. The leaves entangeld in my beautiful blonde hair and I desperately tried to weed out each invading speck. There were a few kids talking and laughing a few feet away. They seemed to not even care that one of the girls was wearing a purple blouse with a weird pair of shorts. I was shocked to smithereens. A fire was beating inside of me as I desperately tried to control my urge to yell at her for being so incredible dumb. Despite the dirtyness and untidyness of the surroundings, the building surrounding this place were amazing. They were built from brick and stone and were two-stories high. I rushed towards a magnificient, white building to my right. I couldn't wait to leaf that campus.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Essential Question Response #5
Is maintaining hygiene a responsibility of human beings?
At one point, everyone has had their parents tell them to brush their teeth and take a bath. The reason behind doing these things is to maintain our overall hygiene. The question arises whether maintaining hygiene is a responsibility of human beings. The first reason behind maintaining hygiene is to maintain our health. If we don't maintain our hygiene, we become dirty, opening us up to infections and diseases. These afflictions would prevent us from performing at our best, so we wouldn't be able to contribute to our community. Also, it makes it harder for diseases to spread amongst people, minimizing the devastating effects they could have on the population. This reason makes it appear that maintaining hygiene is a responsibility of human beings. The second reason behind maintaining hygiene is to improve our appearance. Now this has many perks, such as being more attractive, which allows for more reproduction. It also improves our relations with one another, since we are all extremely superficial. Appearance does have a purpose, but it is not that important. Even though it only has one reason why it should be a responsibility of human beings, the reason is important enough that I believe that maintaining hygiene is a responsibility of human beings.
At one point, everyone has had their parents tell them to brush their teeth and take a bath. The reason behind doing these things is to maintain our overall hygiene. The question arises whether maintaining hygiene is a responsibility of human beings. The first reason behind maintaining hygiene is to maintain our health. If we don't maintain our hygiene, we become dirty, opening us up to infections and diseases. These afflictions would prevent us from performing at our best, so we wouldn't be able to contribute to our community. Also, it makes it harder for diseases to spread amongst people, minimizing the devastating effects they could have on the population. This reason makes it appear that maintaining hygiene is a responsibility of human beings. The second reason behind maintaining hygiene is to improve our appearance. Now this has many perks, such as being more attractive, which allows for more reproduction. It also improves our relations with one another, since we are all extremely superficial. Appearance does have a purpose, but it is not that important. Even though it only has one reason why it should be a responsibility of human beings, the reason is important enough that I believe that maintaining hygiene is a responsibility of human beings.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
PWB: Significant Quotes (p35-68)
Leah:
"It was to be our first African miracle: an infinite chain of benevolence rising from these small, crackling seed packets, flowing outward across Congo like ripples from a rock dropped in a pond" (36).
Leah thought this when her father was starting to make a garden near their house, where he planned to grow food for his family and the village. This quote is significant because it relates to what the Price family is going to do in Africa; they will change things with good intentions and cause a ripple that will extend throughout all of Africa, whether it is for the better or for the worst.
"What does she mean, make hills?" (40).
Leah said this when Mama Tataba tried to instruct Leah's father about how he should be planting his seeds. When Leah's father didn't listen to her, she left in frustration. This is significant because it shows that because the Price family and the natives have trouble understanding each other and accepting each other's ideas, it will create tension and will probably cause the two parties to become more distant from one another.
Rachel:
"They seem to think we are Santa Clause, the way the children come around begging us for food and things every single day—and us as poor as church mice!" (47).
Rachel thought this when her father tried to host a picnic. Rachel is disgusted by their begging, because she thinks that it is rude. This is significant because it shows how the villagers are easily bribed, which could be how the Price family will teach their religion to the villagers. Also, this shows the difference in the point of view of the Price family and the villagers; the villagers believe that begging is normal, whereas the Price family thinks that begging is rude.
"When he gets his mind set on something you'd just as well prepare to see it through" (49).
Rachel thought this during the picnic when she saw her father thinking about something. She hates that her father brought them here, but you can tell she is scared of his resolve. This is significance because his resolve will force the family to endure the hardships that come with trying to teach the village their religion. So it sets up the story so that they will accomplish their mission or die trying.
Ruth May:
“They are living in darkness. Broken in body and soul, and don’t even see how they could be healed” (53).
Nathan Price said this when he was talking about the villagers’ disabilities. This shows how the Price family values appearance whereas the villagers are indifferent to appearance. This is significant because it shows the difference in opinions of the two parties and it hints that Nathan will possibly try to force the Price’s idea of properness on the villagers.
“Even something precious can get shabby in the course of things. Considering what they’re up against here, that might not be such a bad attitude for them to take” (54).
Orleanna said this when she was arguing with Nathan about the villagers’ disabilities. By trying to rationalize their ignorance towards their bodies, she is showing empathy towards them. This is significant because it shows how the family could realize that they shouldn’t disturb the village’s traditions by forcing their beliefs on them, because they have their own reasons for their beliefs.
Adah:
“‘Sending a girl to college is like pouring water in your shoes,’ he still loves to say as often as possible. ‘It’s hard to say which is worse, seeing it run out and waste the water, or seeing it hold in and wreck the shoes’” (56).
These were Nathan’s thoughts when he found out that Leah and Adah were gifted. This shows how he doesn’t hold a woman’s opinion very high, which means that it is very unlikely that his family has an affect on his decisions in Africa. This hints that either Nathan changes his thoughts, or he will completely decide his family’s fate, whether it will be for the better or worse.
“Nevertheless, Our Father had been influenced by Africa. He was out there pushing his garden up into rectangular, flood-proof embankments, exactly the length and width of burial mounds” (63).
Adah thought this while she was observing her father fix his garden after it had flooded. This is significant because Nathan didn’t listen to Mama Tataba and because he didn’t try to accept her knowledge, his garden was destroyed. This shows that although the Price family went to Congo to teach their religion, they have as much to learn from the natives as they can teach them.
Leah:
“‘If there’s anything to be learned from this,’ he said, ‘it’s about the stink and taint of original sin’” (67).
Nathan said this when he learned that someone had said “damn” in front of their parrot, so that the parrot copied them and started to say it. This is significant because Nathan is going to try to teach the villagers his religion, but by doing so, it could permanently damage their lifestyle. Also, it is interesting because Ruth May is very impressionable, and Nathan’s opinions, both good and bad, are being imposed on her and his opinions will have an everlasting effect on her.
“Even back when we were young I remember running to throw my arms around Mother’s knees when he regaled her with words and worse, for curtains unclosed or slips showing—the sins of womanhood” (68).
Leah recalled this when Nathan was punishing her and her sisters since they had taken the blame for their mother’s mistake. This is significant because it shows the power of fear that Nathan has over the family. This shows that Nathan’s word is unquestioned in the family, so they will stay in Africa for as long as Nathan wants.
"It was to be our first African miracle: an infinite chain of benevolence rising from these small, crackling seed packets, flowing outward across Congo like ripples from a rock dropped in a pond" (36).
Leah thought this when her father was starting to make a garden near their house, where he planned to grow food for his family and the village. This quote is significant because it relates to what the Price family is going to do in Africa; they will change things with good intentions and cause a ripple that will extend throughout all of Africa, whether it is for the better or for the worst.
"What does she mean, make hills?" (40).
Leah said this when Mama Tataba tried to instruct Leah's father about how he should be planting his seeds. When Leah's father didn't listen to her, she left in frustration. This is significant because it shows that because the Price family and the natives have trouble understanding each other and accepting each other's ideas, it will create tension and will probably cause the two parties to become more distant from one another.
Rachel:
"They seem to think we are Santa Clause, the way the children come around begging us for food and things every single day—and us as poor as church mice!" (47).
Rachel thought this when her father tried to host a picnic. Rachel is disgusted by their begging, because she thinks that it is rude. This is significant because it shows how the villagers are easily bribed, which could be how the Price family will teach their religion to the villagers. Also, this shows the difference in the point of view of the Price family and the villagers; the villagers believe that begging is normal, whereas the Price family thinks that begging is rude.
"When he gets his mind set on something you'd just as well prepare to see it through" (49).
Rachel thought this during the picnic when she saw her father thinking about something. She hates that her father brought them here, but you can tell she is scared of his resolve. This is significance because his resolve will force the family to endure the hardships that come with trying to teach the village their religion. So it sets up the story so that they will accomplish their mission or die trying.
Ruth May:
“They are living in darkness. Broken in body and soul, and don’t even see how they could be healed” (53).
Nathan Price said this when he was talking about the villagers’ disabilities. This shows how the Price family values appearance whereas the villagers are indifferent to appearance. This is significant because it shows the difference in opinions of the two parties and it hints that Nathan will possibly try to force the Price’s idea of properness on the villagers.
“Even something precious can get shabby in the course of things. Considering what they’re up against here, that might not be such a bad attitude for them to take” (54).
Orleanna said this when she was arguing with Nathan about the villagers’ disabilities. By trying to rationalize their ignorance towards their bodies, she is showing empathy towards them. This is significant because it shows how the family could realize that they shouldn’t disturb the village’s traditions by forcing their beliefs on them, because they have their own reasons for their beliefs.
Adah:
“‘Sending a girl to college is like pouring water in your shoes,’ he still loves to say as often as possible. ‘It’s hard to say which is worse, seeing it run out and waste the water, or seeing it hold in and wreck the shoes’” (56).
These were Nathan’s thoughts when he found out that Leah and Adah were gifted. This shows how he doesn’t hold a woman’s opinion very high, which means that it is very unlikely that his family has an affect on his decisions in Africa. This hints that either Nathan changes his thoughts, or he will completely decide his family’s fate, whether it will be for the better or worse.
“Nevertheless, Our Father had been influenced by Africa. He was out there pushing his garden up into rectangular, flood-proof embankments, exactly the length and width of burial mounds” (63).
Adah thought this while she was observing her father fix his garden after it had flooded. This is significant because Nathan didn’t listen to Mama Tataba and because he didn’t try to accept her knowledge, his garden was destroyed. This shows that although the Price family went to Congo to teach their religion, they have as much to learn from the natives as they can teach them.
Leah:
“‘If there’s anything to be learned from this,’ he said, ‘it’s about the stink and taint of original sin’” (67).
Nathan said this when he learned that someone had said “damn” in front of their parrot, so that the parrot copied them and started to say it. This is significant because Nathan is going to try to teach the villagers his religion, but by doing so, it could permanently damage their lifestyle. Also, it is interesting because Ruth May is very impressionable, and Nathan’s opinions, both good and bad, are being imposed on her and his opinions will have an everlasting effect on her.
“Even back when we were young I remember running to throw my arms around Mother’s knees when he regaled her with words and worse, for curtains unclosed or slips showing—the sins of womanhood” (68).
Leah recalled this when Nathan was punishing her and her sisters since they had taken the blame for their mother’s mistake. This is significant because it shows the power of fear that Nathan has over the family. This shows that Nathan’s word is unquestioned in the family, so they will stay in Africa for as long as Nathan wants.
PWB: Character Reflection
Leah Price:
Leah is the most normal character out of all four of the Price girls, meaning she doesn't have any oustanding quirks or opinions that make her truly memorable. However, she is pretty observant, like when she says, "But that was our burden, because there was so much we needed to bring here" (19). As a result of this, I believe that her role will be to give readers the observations of someone "normal" so that their observations and opinions don't distract you too much from the events that are happening. Leah, being normal, can affect the story in so many ways that it is hard to tell if she will play a major role in the future.
Ruth May Price:
Ruth May is the youngest out of all the four Price girls, and her personality shows her age. She is very naive and gullible, which is because her age, like when Rex Minton was talking to her about Africa and said, "He said, I can talk native, listen here: Ugga bugga bugga lugga" (21). Because of this, her observations will be completely unopinionated, since she doesn't really have her own opinions to begin with. However, her observations will probably suffer from miscomprehensions, which might add humor to the events. So overall, I think her role is to provide pure observations, while adding humor through her misunderstandings of events that will occur. Because she lacks her own personality right now, I assume that she will slowly begin to develop her own personality.
Rachel Price:
Rachel is the oldest out of the Price girls. She comes off as being extremely stuck up and high maintenance, like in the beginning of the chapter where it said, "I could just feel the grit in my hair, which is so extremely fiar it is prone to get stained" (22-23). This quote not only shows that she is high maintenance, but that she is also deeply cares about her appearance and goes so far as to brag about it. She also hates Africa and wants to return home. As a result of her personality, she is extremely opinionated, almost an opposite to Ruth May. I believe her role will be the pessimist; her observations will all have a negative spin to them, since she doesn't like Africa to begin with. She also might cause trouble for the family since she is so high maintenance, but because of her personality now, it leaves room for her to mature from this experience.
Adah Price:
Adah is by far the most interesting of all the Price girls. Her personality is similar to that of a poet's; she is constantly using metaphors and similes to describe her own observations. She is also very observant, so she sees things that not everyone else can see. For example, she said, "But the way I see it through my Adah eyes it is a flat plank clipped into pieces, rectangles and trapezoids, by the skinny black-line shadows of tall palm trunks" (30). Because of her ability to see obscure details and her poetic personality, I believe Adah will probably serve as a fine tooth comb, which digs up the things that have been missed by the other girls. I can't see her doing much with the story, since at this point she can't truly express her thoughts so that she could affect the story.
Leah is the most normal character out of all four of the Price girls, meaning she doesn't have any oustanding quirks or opinions that make her truly memorable. However, she is pretty observant, like when she says, "But that was our burden, because there was so much we needed to bring here" (19). As a result of this, I believe that her role will be to give readers the observations of someone "normal" so that their observations and opinions don't distract you too much from the events that are happening. Leah, being normal, can affect the story in so many ways that it is hard to tell if she will play a major role in the future.
Ruth May Price:
Ruth May is the youngest out of all the four Price girls, and her personality shows her age. She is very naive and gullible, which is because her age, like when Rex Minton was talking to her about Africa and said, "He said, I can talk native, listen here: Ugga bugga bugga lugga" (21). Because of this, her observations will be completely unopinionated, since she doesn't really have her own opinions to begin with. However, her observations will probably suffer from miscomprehensions, which might add humor to the events. So overall, I think her role is to provide pure observations, while adding humor through her misunderstandings of events that will occur. Because she lacks her own personality right now, I assume that she will slowly begin to develop her own personality.
Rachel Price:
Rachel is the oldest out of the Price girls. She comes off as being extremely stuck up and high maintenance, like in the beginning of the chapter where it said, "I could just feel the grit in my hair, which is so extremely fiar it is prone to get stained" (22-23). This quote not only shows that she is high maintenance, but that she is also deeply cares about her appearance and goes so far as to brag about it. She also hates Africa and wants to return home. As a result of her personality, she is extremely opinionated, almost an opposite to Ruth May. I believe her role will be the pessimist; her observations will all have a negative spin to them, since she doesn't like Africa to begin with. She also might cause trouble for the family since she is so high maintenance, but because of her personality now, it leaves room for her to mature from this experience.
Adah Price:
Adah is by far the most interesting of all the Price girls. Her personality is similar to that of a poet's; she is constantly using metaphors and similes to describe her own observations. She is also very observant, so she sees things that not everyone else can see. For example, she said, "But the way I see it through my Adah eyes it is a flat plank clipped into pieces, rectangles and trapezoids, by the skinny black-line shadows of tall palm trunks" (30). Because of her ability to see obscure details and her poetic personality, I believe Adah will probably serve as a fine tooth comb, which digs up the things that have been missed by the other girls. I can't see her doing much with the story, since at this point she can't truly express her thoughts so that she could affect the story.
Genesis 1:28
We are currently reading "The Poisonwood Bible" by Barbara Kingsolver. On the first page of book one, a quote from the genesis section of the bible was written, which appeared to relate to book one. The quote was:
"And God said unto them,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
This passage is basically God's instructions to man on how they should conduct themselves after being given life on the earth. So when the passage says that they should be "fruitful" and "multiply," it means that they should increase the population so that humans can expand across the earth. Then the passage says that humans need to "replenish the earth" and "subdue it," which basically charges humans with the responsiblity of maintaining the earth and using the resources it gives us, while also making sure that all the animals and plants can grow. So basically, it says since God chose us to have dominion over the earth, we should use the earth to increase our population as well as using that gift to insure that nature is maintained.
This passage implies that people should improve themselves but also maintain nature. In other words, we should make advancements in technology, but not at the expense of nature, since we are technically the rulers of the earth. It is kind of like the Chinese empire, where if the ruler used his resources for the good of both himself and his servants, the empire was strong, but if he only thought of himself and didn't take care of his servants, it caused the empire to crumble. If we want to maintain the earth, we need to use our resources both for ourselves and to replenish the earth so that we may continue to use its resources.
Based off of this passage, I believe that the following chapter will be about the Price family moving into Africa, where they will try to make the best of their surroundings. They will also encounter a lot of animals and plants, with which they will face the dilema of using those resources or preserving them.
"And God said unto them,
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,
and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
This passage is basically God's instructions to man on how they should conduct themselves after being given life on the earth. So when the passage says that they should be "fruitful" and "multiply," it means that they should increase the population so that humans can expand across the earth. Then the passage says that humans need to "replenish the earth" and "subdue it," which basically charges humans with the responsiblity of maintaining the earth and using the resources it gives us, while also making sure that all the animals and plants can grow. So basically, it says since God chose us to have dominion over the earth, we should use the earth to increase our population as well as using that gift to insure that nature is maintained.
This passage implies that people should improve themselves but also maintain nature. In other words, we should make advancements in technology, but not at the expense of nature, since we are technically the rulers of the earth. It is kind of like the Chinese empire, where if the ruler used his resources for the good of both himself and his servants, the empire was strong, but if he only thought of himself and didn't take care of his servants, it caused the empire to crumble. If we want to maintain the earth, we need to use our resources both for ourselves and to replenish the earth so that we may continue to use its resources.
Based off of this passage, I believe that the following chapter will be about the Price family moving into Africa, where they will try to make the best of their surroundings. They will also encounter a lot of animals and plants, with which they will face the dilema of using those resources or preserving them.
Essential Question Response #4
Is being respectful a responsibility of human beings?
Being respectful to fellow humans is sometimes very difficult, especially since we all have very different points of view. Also, humans naturally tend to defend their own beliefs, assuming that they are right and disregarding other points of view. This is what causes conflict and war. We live in a world that does have some basis of respect, and as a product of this, we have a world that is somewhat peaceful, with only a few wars every once in a while. If there was no form of respect in this world, conflict and wars would be as normal as brushing your teeth in the morning. There would be no form of peace and as a result, humans would be stuck in a suspended era of war, where no advances to better the human race can occur. On the other hand, if we were able to respect the beliefs and ideas of one another, we could stop the senseless fighting that comes being ignorant towards foreign beliefs. With respect, we could live separate lives, while maintaining harmony among ourselves. So basically, respect allows empathy, which allows us to work together harmoniously and allow our race to stop fighting amongst ourselves and focus on improving the human race through science, economy, and culture. Because of the positive possibilities that respect could have for all human beings, I believe that being respectful is a responsibility of human beings.
Being respectful to fellow humans is sometimes very difficult, especially since we all have very different points of view. Also, humans naturally tend to defend their own beliefs, assuming that they are right and disregarding other points of view. This is what causes conflict and war. We live in a world that does have some basis of respect, and as a product of this, we have a world that is somewhat peaceful, with only a few wars every once in a while. If there was no form of respect in this world, conflict and wars would be as normal as brushing your teeth in the morning. There would be no form of peace and as a result, humans would be stuck in a suspended era of war, where no advances to better the human race can occur. On the other hand, if we were able to respect the beliefs and ideas of one another, we could stop the senseless fighting that comes being ignorant towards foreign beliefs. With respect, we could live separate lives, while maintaining harmony among ourselves. So basically, respect allows empathy, which allows us to work together harmoniously and allow our race to stop fighting amongst ourselves and focus on improving the human race through science, economy, and culture. Because of the positive possibilities that respect could have for all human beings, I believe that being respectful is a responsibility of human beings.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Interview
After reading a series of writings, such as “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” and “The Gift,” regarding donating to help poverty, we were assigned to create an interview to address some questions we had regarding some parts of the writings.
A: Hello L. We’re here to talk about your opinions on some of the writings that we’ve read regarding poverty and donating. So L, after reading “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” and “The Gift,” you can see that Singer and Kravinsky both believe that humans are obligated to donate. My question to you is why should we donate? Does it better the human race?
L: Well, I believe that donating does better the human race, because it is one step further towards achieving peace. I guess it’s kind of like an atom donating an electron to another atom so they can both achieve a full octet. In the end, they are both happy because now they are stable together.
A: Hmm, I see. So basically what you are saying is that by donating we are allowing each individual in the human race to become stable so that we can all live in harmony, right?
L: Exactly.
A: Ok, but as it says in the two writings: if we donate, we should donate anything that doesn’t provide us with essential things. What do you think determines how much we should give?
L: I think that donating everything except the essentials is very noble, but what determines how much we should give is our own individual beliefs. So if you want to give up everything, then you should do so, but if you don’t want to donate anything, you are not obligated to do so.
A: That’s interesting. So you think that each individual should determine what he or she gives. But doesn’t that mean that the total donations won’t even come close to what they could be, and aren’t the donations what really count in the end, not someone’s feelings?
L: Well, I believe that everyone should have a choice to do what he or she wants. And even if their choice isn’t good, they are still completely entitled to their decision.
A: So what you are saying is that you believe people should develop morals in order to donate and not donate because they feel obligated? So I take it that you would completely agree if everyone just pursued their own happiness and disregarded the poor?
L: Yes, even though we would be sacrificing living people for our happiness, I do believe that our freedom to choose is more important that donating.
A: So anyways, changing the subject, do you feel that donating time is as important as donating money?
L: Yes, I believe that they are equally important. For example, if you donated a million dollars, but no one took the time to invest the money to help people, than it was a wasted donation. On the other hand, if you had a million people donating their time to help people, but had no money or resources, they couldn’t get anything done. So you need a balance between these two kinds of donations in order for donating to be truly effective.
A: That seems pretty logical. There two of those things that can’t happen without each other. So after reading “The Gift,” do you think that Kravinsky is, in your opinion, morally ethical?
L: Well, I believe that being morally ethical is being comfortable with what you do. Therefore, I say yes, Kravinsky was morally ethical because he did help others, but I also say no, because he helped others out of his own addiction and not for his own beliefs.
A: I have to say, your ideas are very interesting ones and are quite thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time to let me interview you.
L: My pleasure.
A: Hello L. We’re here to talk about your opinions on some of the writings that we’ve read regarding poverty and donating. So L, after reading “The Singer Solution to World Poverty” and “The Gift,” you can see that Singer and Kravinsky both believe that humans are obligated to donate. My question to you is why should we donate? Does it better the human race?
L: Well, I believe that donating does better the human race, because it is one step further towards achieving peace. I guess it’s kind of like an atom donating an electron to another atom so they can both achieve a full octet. In the end, they are both happy because now they are stable together.
A: Hmm, I see. So basically what you are saying is that by donating we are allowing each individual in the human race to become stable so that we can all live in harmony, right?
L: Exactly.
A: Ok, but as it says in the two writings: if we donate, we should donate anything that doesn’t provide us with essential things. What do you think determines how much we should give?
L: I think that donating everything except the essentials is very noble, but what determines how much we should give is our own individual beliefs. So if you want to give up everything, then you should do so, but if you don’t want to donate anything, you are not obligated to do so.
A: That’s interesting. So you think that each individual should determine what he or she gives. But doesn’t that mean that the total donations won’t even come close to what they could be, and aren’t the donations what really count in the end, not someone’s feelings?
L: Well, I believe that everyone should have a choice to do what he or she wants. And even if their choice isn’t good, they are still completely entitled to their decision.
A: So what you are saying is that you believe people should develop morals in order to donate and not donate because they feel obligated? So I take it that you would completely agree if everyone just pursued their own happiness and disregarded the poor?
L: Yes, even though we would be sacrificing living people for our happiness, I do believe that our freedom to choose is more important that donating.
A: So anyways, changing the subject, do you feel that donating time is as important as donating money?
L: Yes, I believe that they are equally important. For example, if you donated a million dollars, but no one took the time to invest the money to help people, than it was a wasted donation. On the other hand, if you had a million people donating their time to help people, but had no money or resources, they couldn’t get anything done. So you need a balance between these two kinds of donations in order for donating to be truly effective.
A: That seems pretty logical. There two of those things that can’t happen without each other. So after reading “The Gift,” do you think that Kravinsky is, in your opinion, morally ethical?
L: Well, I believe that being morally ethical is being comfortable with what you do. Therefore, I say yes, Kravinsky was morally ethical because he did help others, but I also say no, because he helped others out of his own addiction and not for his own beliefs.
A: I have to say, your ideas are very interesting ones and are quite thought provoking. Thanks for taking the time to let me interview you.
L: My pleasure.
Cycle 16 Paper
For this cycle, we had to address a question regarding morals and values. The question was:
Are
morals and values so different from country to country, person to
person, that there can be no common values? Do you think there should
be some universal common values? If so, what do you think they should
be?
I believe that each individual is unique in this world,
which is great because it allows for our world to be completely diverse
and exciting. However, it’s this very blessing that causes me to
believe that common values cannot exist among all people. Even
generalizing it to countries seems unlikely to me. You can pick a
subject that seems to have one normal stance, like how nobody should
commit murder, and find that as you travel across the world, you will
get multiple stances on the subject. Even in this country, our values
differ. We are generally raised to believe that we should respect one
another, but meanwhile in this very same country, someNeo -Nazis are
raising their children to believe that Jews are bad and should be
erased from this world. Also, it is common belief that one's own family
should have a higher priority over anybody else. However, in the
writing, "The Gift," Salinger said, "I don't know where I'd set it, but
I would not let many children die so my kids could live" (60). How can
we expect to have any common values between different countries, if
there is so much dissent in our own country? People, in general, have a
natural tendency to fight for what they believe in, and since there are
so many different beliefs, an endless war is created. An example of
this is religion. For as long as religion has existed, different
religions have fought over which religion’s teachings are more correct.
These wars have been caused by small details like whether one man was a
messiah or not, but have resulted in the deaths of countless millions.
It is because of these ridiculous quarrels that I do believe that there
should be universal common goals, even though it is very unrealistic. I
believe that our differences will prevent us from ever uniting as one
race, but if we were to settle upon something so trivial as respect
towards each other, we could stop global strife, which takes the lives
of millions each day. With this one common value, every human being can
live as an individual, but yet still live in complete harmony with one
another. This way of living doesn't call for self-sacrifice, like in
"The Singer Solution to World Poverty," where it says, "Therefore, for
a household bringing in 50,000 a year, donations to help the world's
poor should be as close as possible to $20,000" (4). Instead of being
required to fix the world, like it suggests in the writing through
donating to the poor, all you really need to do is fix yourself. If you
think about it, you can see that religious wars are caused only because
one religious groupdoesn ’t believe that another religious group’s
values are correct, and as a result, tries to force their own beliefs
and values on that religious group. If that same group could respect
the other group, than the two groups could live harmoniously even
though they would live by separate beliefs. Because of this, I believe
that in order to achieve a world that lives in peace, but still
maintain the individuality that makes it special, we should hold
respect as a common value.
Are
morals and values so different from country to country, person to
person, that there can be no common values? Do you think there should
be some universal common values? If so, what do you think they should
be?
I believe that each individual is unique in this world,
which is great because it allows for our world to be completely diverse
and exciting. However, it’s this very blessing that causes me to
believe that common values cannot exist among all people. Even
generalizing it to countries seems unlikely to me. You can pick a
subject that seems to have one normal stance, like how nobody should
commit murder, and find that as you travel across the world, you will
get multiple stances on the subject. Even in this country, our values
differ. We are generally raised to believe that we should respect one
another, but meanwhile in this very same country, someNeo -Nazis are
raising their children to believe that Jews are bad and should be
erased from this world. Also, it is common belief that one's own family
should have a higher priority over anybody else. However, in the
writing, "The Gift," Salinger said, "I don't know where I'd set it, but
I would not let many children die so my kids could live" (60). How can
we expect to have any common values between different countries, if
there is so much dissent in our own country? People, in general, have a
natural tendency to fight for what they believe in, and since there are
so many different beliefs, an endless war is created. An example of
this is religion. For as long as religion has existed, different
religions have fought over which religion’s teachings are more correct.
These wars have been caused by small details like whether one man was a
messiah or not, but have resulted in the deaths of countless millions.
It is because of these ridiculous quarrels that I do believe that there
should be universal common goals, even though it is very unrealistic. I
believe that our differences will prevent us from ever uniting as one
race, but if we were to settle upon something so trivial as respect
towards each other, we could stop global strife, which takes the lives
of millions each day. With this one common value, every human being can
live as an individual, but yet still live in complete harmony with one
another. This way of living doesn't call for self-sacrifice, like in
"The Singer Solution to World Poverty," where it says, "Therefore, for
a household bringing in 50,000 a year, donations to help the world's
poor should be as close as possible to $20,000" (4). Instead of being
required to fix the world, like it suggests in the writing through
donating to the poor, all you really need to do is fix yourself. If you
think about it, you can see that religious wars are caused only because
one religious groupdoesn ’t believe that another religious group’s
values are correct, and as a result, tries to force their own beliefs
and values on that religious group. If that same group could respect
the other group, than the two groups could live harmoniously even
though they would live by separate beliefs. Because of this, I believe
that in order to achieve a world that lives in peace, but still
maintain the individuality that makes it special, we should hold
respect as a common value.
Monday, February 5, 2007
Q-Piece
So our class had to pick a quintessential object (something we couldn't live without), then talk about it. This is what I came up with:
There are many objects in my life that I need in order to function, and picking only one of them seems impossible. But if I had to pick one of them, I would have to say that my wrestling headgear is my quintessential object. As a wrestler, I need to wear headgear that covers my ears into all of my matches as a safety precaution, so without headgear, you cannot wrestle. So ever since I first bought it, I have essentially worn my headgear for every match I was ever in. At first glance, it seems like a standard, beaten-up headgear that is no different from any other wrestling headgear on the market, but it has so much more significance than that. It has protected my ears from countless vicious elbows and knees and has been there when I achieved fantastic victories and suffered from heartbreaking losses. My headgear also isn’t something that is so easily found and I've only seen one other person use it. Its straps wrap perfectly around my head, and although I have tried multiple types of headgear, my headgear is the only one that I have ever felt truly comfortable in. I guess you could call it my soul mate in headgear. To me, my headgear is like a basketball player’s lucky pair of shoes, or a tennis player’s favorite racquet; I seem to wrestle a lot better with my headgear. In essence, my headgear pushes me to greater heights than I could reach with any other headgear. Whether or not this performance boost is mental, the connection I have with my headgear will propel me through wrestling for as long as its stitches hold against time.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Essential Question Response #3
"Then, if we value the life of a child more than going to fancy restaurants, the next time we dine out we will know that we could have done something better with our money."
This is a quote from Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty."
Singer's writing basically said that human beings were responsible for donating money to the poor. Now in terms of values, this is a very noble stance; we have been raised to believe that rich should give to the poor from stories such as Robin Hood. But is this really a responsibility? Someone might argue, "By giving to others less fortunate than yourself, you are bettering the human race." Now what I want to know is why do they believe that? I agree that in terms of individuals, donating helps keep people alive so that they may have the opportunity to find a way to better human race. But how can you say that feeding a poor Chinese farmer is a responsibility of the human race? Just to be clear, I definitely agree that it is our responsibility to better the human race, but on a large scale, how are we doing this by helping people in poverty. In a world where our medicine has allowed us to cheat numerous population controllers, such as diseases, maybe this is one of the only ways we can do so. All species have some sort of limiting factor that prevents them from expanding. Why do we deserve to be different? We can't escape the fact that as populations increase, resources decrease. So in the end, I believe that although donating to charity is noble in terms of individuals, when you look at the big picture, it isn't a responsibility of human beings.
This is a quote from Peter Singer's "The Singer Solution to World Poverty."
Singer's writing basically said that human beings were responsible for donating money to the poor. Now in terms of values, this is a very noble stance; we have been raised to believe that rich should give to the poor from stories such as Robin Hood. But is this really a responsibility? Someone might argue, "By giving to others less fortunate than yourself, you are bettering the human race." Now what I want to know is why do they believe that? I agree that in terms of individuals, donating helps keep people alive so that they may have the opportunity to find a way to better human race. But how can you say that feeding a poor Chinese farmer is a responsibility of the human race? Just to be clear, I definitely agree that it is our responsibility to better the human race, but on a large scale, how are we doing this by helping people in poverty. In a world where our medicine has allowed us to cheat numerous population controllers, such as diseases, maybe this is one of the only ways we can do so. All species have some sort of limiting factor that prevents them from expanding. Why do we deserve to be different? We can't escape the fact that as populations increase, resources decrease. So in the end, I believe that although donating to charity is noble in terms of individuals, when you look at the big picture, it isn't a responsibility of human beings.
Essential Question Response #2
Do human beings have a responsibility to better the Human race?
I definitely believe that humans have a responsibility to better the human race. All individuals of a species have a responsibility to better their species. Organisms are constantly doing this through evolution and natural selection; the most elite of the organisms pass their genes forward, creating an even stronger generation than before. My idea of bettering the human race is a little different than just evolution. I believe that we can better the human race not by passing our genes forward, but rather our knowledge. In a time of reason, a true equilibrium could be reached. A time where everyone is equal at birth and can create either a life of greatness or sorrow depending on their own decisions. We will never be invincible (that is just stupid), but we can allow ourselves to be able to sustain our race in perfect balance with the world and each other.
I definitely believe that humans have a responsibility to better the human race. All individuals of a species have a responsibility to better their species. Organisms are constantly doing this through evolution and natural selection; the most elite of the organisms pass their genes forward, creating an even stronger generation than before. My idea of bettering the human race is a little different than just evolution. I believe that we can better the human race not by passing our genes forward, but rather our knowledge. In a time of reason, a true equilibrium could be reached. A time where everyone is equal at birth and can create either a life of greatness or sorrow depending on their own decisions. We will never be invincible (that is just stupid), but we can allow ourselves to be able to sustain our race in perfect balance with the world and each other.
Essential Question Response #1
Is recycling a responsibility of human beings?
Humans have done (and are still doing) the most damage to the ecosystem out of all other life on this planet. Because of this, it would seem that we are obligated to at least attempt to reduce our destructiveness, so that we can use this planet for a long time. Recycling helps us do that by allowing us to consume less materials by reusing the same materials instead of constantly harvesting new materials. However, no other form of life has ever recycled or slowed their consumption of resources and life has continued, even afer countless natural changes have occurred (like the ice age). So what if the damage is just a normal progression of the world? In fact, smaller cases of such things happen everyday. A species of predator might consume more prey than are being reproduced, but then the predators don't have enough food for every member of the species so some die and as a result the prey population goes back up. The predator-prey cycle is never ending, and maybe it is only natural that humans be a part of a cycle like that as well. Despite this contradiction, I believe that humans have dug a hole deeper than any other species before, and it could very well end in a larger consequence than just a reduction of the human race, but could even extend to every species on the planet. It's because of this, that I believe it's a responsibility of human beings to try to right the wrongs we have committed and to recycle, so that we could fill in a little of that grave we are digging.
Humans have done (and are still doing) the most damage to the ecosystem out of all other life on this planet. Because of this, it would seem that we are obligated to at least attempt to reduce our destructiveness, so that we can use this planet for a long time. Recycling helps us do that by allowing us to consume less materials by reusing the same materials instead of constantly harvesting new materials. However, no other form of life has ever recycled or slowed their consumption of resources and life has continued, even afer countless natural changes have occurred (like the ice age). So what if the damage is just a normal progression of the world? In fact, smaller cases of such things happen everyday. A species of predator might consume more prey than are being reproduced, but then the predators don't have enough food for every member of the species so some die and as a result the prey population goes back up. The predator-prey cycle is never ending, and maybe it is only natural that humans be a part of a cycle like that as well. Despite this contradiction, I believe that humans have dug a hole deeper than any other species before, and it could very well end in a larger consequence than just a reduction of the human race, but could even extend to every species on the planet. It's because of this, that I believe it's a responsibility of human beings to try to right the wrongs we have committed and to recycle, so that we could fill in a little of that grave we are digging.
Hey
My name is Andrew. I am asian, so you know that my parents make my life a living hell if I get a B in AP(insert the hardest subject you can think of here). Of course, I somehow manage to still slack off so I don't go crazy and become one of those people that spend their entire day in class or studying for a test a week in advance. I like to think of myself as decently average (leaning a little more towards the weirder side). I like sports, have multiple hobbies (some of which are more like obsessions), and enjoy just chilling with my friends. This is the first blog I've ever done and I think it is kind of a pain in the butt. So why am I making a blog? The purpose of this blog, other than getting me an A in english this semester, is to provide my insight on various topics or just to speak what's on my mind. (NOTICE: When I write, I sometimes like to take a very critical, emotionless stance. Do not be offended by my writing). One of the topics that I will constantly be responding to is my essential question. Essential questions are questions you come up with that have deep significance and are hard to answer. My responses are more to try to build up to an answer, rather than come to a conlcusion right off the bat. I may not be able to do it, but the aim behind the essential question is to be able to answer it by the end of the semester. My essential question is:
What is the responsiblity of a human being?
Hopefully I'll be able to come up with some sort of answer from such a broad subject.
Well, that's my intro. I can't think of anything more to say without explaining my entire lifestory.
What is the responsiblity of a human being?
Hopefully I'll be able to come up with some sort of answer from such a broad subject.
Well, that's my intro. I can't think of anything more to say without explaining my entire lifestory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)