“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.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)