“Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell is the most significant story that we have read so far. It sends a clear message to its readers. The message being that pear pressure is a powerful mechanism. Orwell was a British officer in Burma, Asia. Because of his background, he was not recognized by the Burmans in a positive light. He was ridiculed by the Burmans and yet, when the elephant escaped and wondered aimlessly destroying almost everything in his view, it was Orwell who they turned to for help.
As Orwell started his journey in search of the elephant, the Burmans that he encountered along the way had different accounts about the elephant’s whereabouts. In the story, Orwell writes, “… A story always sounds clear enough at a distance, but the nearer you get to a scene of events, the vaguer it becomes. Some of the people said that the elephant had gone in one direction. Some said that he had gone in another and some professed to not even have heard of an elephant.” As I read this paragraph, I noticed the great correlation it has to rumors. A rumor always begins with one story and as it makes its way from a person’s ears to the person’s mouth, it changes. By the time the rumor reaches the last person, the information becomes completely altered.
What intrigued me most about this story is the point in time when Orwell finally locates the elephant. He was faced with a decision of whether to kill the elephant or let it live. Orwell did not want to kill the elephant for the reasons being that it was doing no more harm and will only attack if one came close. However, because there was a large crowd lurking about and encouraging him to kill the elephant, Orwell felt that he had no choice but to bring an end to the elephant’s life so he would not be perceived as a fool. I was very surprised to discover that Orwell cared so much about what the Burmans thought of him. For one, he was hated by the Burmans. Secondly, he held a superior position, so why was he so concerned of how he was perceived by the Burmans?
This circumstance just goes to show how influential peer pressure can be. It takes a great affect on a person’s decision making process regardless if the person is a high powered official or just a regular human being.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Homecoming, with Turtle
Many people from all parts of the world migrate to America in search of a better life. Junot Diaz was one of those people. Junot and his family moved from the Dominican Republic when he was only six years old. I can only imagine how difficult it must be; having to pack your essential belongings and relocating to an unfamiliar area, leaving everything else behind. When Diaz and his family settled in America, the challenge had only just begun. Junot left his friends behind and was given no choice but to make new ones. Diaz was accustomed to speaking Spanish in the Dominican Republic, but now he had to learn the English language. To make it all worse, Junot had family troubles. He was burdened emotionally and financially due to his father’s abandonment and his brother’s battle against Leukemia.
After years spent in America, Diaz returned to the Dominican Republic in an attempt to reconnect with his roots. Diaz was disheartened to discover that he was unfamiliar with his native land. His ability to speak Spanish was poor and he was not able to knowledgably use public transportation to travel from one location to another. Also, there was no one available to guide him through his trip since all of his relatives came to the United States at that time. In the reading, Diaz says “ Traveling the third-world is challenging enough…..a boyfriend who is worried that he no longer “fits in” at “home” that every little incident and interaction is sifted for rejection”. I can definitely recognize the great disappointment he must have felt; the sense of belonging he so badly wanted and yet, could not attain.
I commend Diaz for using his past experiences in his writing. I like how he made his essay “Homecoming, with Turtle” not too lengthy and not too short. It was long enough to provide his readers the information needed to be able to comprehend his story and short enough to prevent them from becoming weary and losing interest. I also liked how he uses Spanish dialect in “Homecoming, with the Turtle”. To help his non-Spanish speaking readers understand the story, Diaz translated the Spanish vocabulary at the bottom of each page. His use of both formal and informal writing brought more practicality to his essay and gave me a greater connection to the story.
After years spent in America, Diaz returned to the Dominican Republic in an attempt to reconnect with his roots. Diaz was disheartened to discover that he was unfamiliar with his native land. His ability to speak Spanish was poor and he was not able to knowledgably use public transportation to travel from one location to another. Also, there was no one available to guide him through his trip since all of his relatives came to the United States at that time. In the reading, Diaz says “ Traveling the third-world is challenging enough…..a boyfriend who is worried that he no longer “fits in” at “home” that every little incident and interaction is sifted for rejection”. I can definitely recognize the great disappointment he must have felt; the sense of belonging he so badly wanted and yet, could not attain.
I commend Diaz for using his past experiences in his writing. I like how he made his essay “Homecoming, with Turtle” not too lengthy and not too short. It was long enough to provide his readers the information needed to be able to comprehend his story and short enough to prevent them from becoming weary and losing interest. I also liked how he uses Spanish dialect in “Homecoming, with the Turtle”. To help his non-Spanish speaking readers understand the story, Diaz translated the Spanish vocabulary at the bottom of each page. His use of both formal and informal writing brought more practicality to his essay and gave me a greater connection to the story.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Unspeakable Conversations
Unspeakable Conversations by Harriet Johnson brought much debate not only amongst Johnson and Peter Singer but in my mind as well. The debate concerned infanticide. Singer believed that infanticide is a great solution to children born with a disability while on the other hand; Johnson felt that infanticide was completely cruel and immoral. To say the least, I am torn between these two points of views.
For one, Singer’s reasons to why infanticide should be legalized were quite comprehensible. It is evident that a disabled child will have much more difficulty throughout his life than a child who is born without a disability. It will be much more challenging for the disabled to receive an education and have the ability to work. Even simple tasks such as using the bathroom, eating, and walking becomes a challenge and sometimes, impossible to the disabled. They become very dependent on others to be able to function throughout their daily lives. For instance, Johnson relied on her assistant, Carmen, to help her do the morning stretch, comb and braid her hair, and switch on the motor to her wheelchair. There were even instances when Johnson needed Singer’s assistance. During the meal in Princeton, Johnson’s right elbow slipped away from its comfortable position and Johnson required Singer to return the elbow back to its original location. This enabled Johnson to reach her fork and continue with her meal. Because of such instances, Singer felt that the best way to save these disabled children from a lifetime of agony is to have them legally killed during infancy.
Jonson’s counterargument was that killing an infant just because he or she has a disability is an utterly prejudice act. I can definitely see Johnson’s perspective. Who are we to decide who and who cannot live? Why should we have the right to take a person’s life just because he or she is not up to par with society’s idea of what a regular human being should be? It is not up to us to decide. Above all else, a disabled person can still live a regular, happy life. Of course, it will be more challenging, but it can be done. For example, Johnson was born with a disability, but yet, was able to live a normal life, receive an education, and become a lawyer. She even tried to make a difference by becoming a disability rights activist and educating the public about the disabled. Her disability served her as an inconvenience but it certainly did not obstruct her will to succeed.
This delicate issue of infanticide can be understood from both Singer and Johnson’s point of view. Consequently, it will forever be a continuous battle between human rights and factual reasoning.
For one, Singer’s reasons to why infanticide should be legalized were quite comprehensible. It is evident that a disabled child will have much more difficulty throughout his life than a child who is born without a disability. It will be much more challenging for the disabled to receive an education and have the ability to work. Even simple tasks such as using the bathroom, eating, and walking becomes a challenge and sometimes, impossible to the disabled. They become very dependent on others to be able to function throughout their daily lives. For instance, Johnson relied on her assistant, Carmen, to help her do the morning stretch, comb and braid her hair, and switch on the motor to her wheelchair. There were even instances when Johnson needed Singer’s assistance. During the meal in Princeton, Johnson’s right elbow slipped away from its comfortable position and Johnson required Singer to return the elbow back to its original location. This enabled Johnson to reach her fork and continue with her meal. Because of such instances, Singer felt that the best way to save these disabled children from a lifetime of agony is to have them legally killed during infancy.
Jonson’s counterargument was that killing an infant just because he or she has a disability is an utterly prejudice act. I can definitely see Johnson’s perspective. Who are we to decide who and who cannot live? Why should we have the right to take a person’s life just because he or she is not up to par with society’s idea of what a regular human being should be? It is not up to us to decide. Above all else, a disabled person can still live a regular, happy life. Of course, it will be more challenging, but it can be done. For example, Johnson was born with a disability, but yet, was able to live a normal life, receive an education, and become a lawyer. She even tried to make a difference by becoming a disability rights activist and educating the public about the disabled. Her disability served her as an inconvenience but it certainly did not obstruct her will to succeed.
This delicate issue of infanticide can be understood from both Singer and Johnson’s point of view. Consequently, it will forever be a continuous battle between human rights and factual reasoning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)