a. The self burning of Mohamad Bouazizi and "the burning monk" were similar in that both took to radical proportions to let themselves be heard. Both stood strongly for what they believed in, so strongly that they were willing to die. They set themselves alight in the public's plain view, a strong act of defiance and courage. The self burning of each man differed in that both burning took place at different times and in different countries. Both men went to such measures for a different reason. But both men were unafraid.
b. It is both strikingly sad but at the same time awe inspiring learning about the two men who lit themselves alight. It makes me reflect on myself. I've felt so desperate in my lifetime! It was like a hole which one could feel like a heavy rock lying on my heart. We think our emotions are so strong. That it is the end of the world! But never would we go so far as to burn our selves. Both Thích Quảng Đức and Mohamad Bouazizi were strong and courageous. It makes wonder..... How far I'd go for what I believe in? Would take such desperate measures? I can't answer that question with full certainty. To burn ones self is simply....horrifying! Sick! Deranged! .....beautiful?....
c. David Halberstam wrote,"I was to see that sight again, but once was enough. Flames were coming from a human being; his body was slowly withering and shriveling up, his head blackening and charring. In the air was the smell of burning human flesh; human beings burn surprisingly quickly. Behind me I could hear the sobbing of the Vietnamese who were now gathering. I was too shocked to cry, too confused to take notes or ask questions, too bewildered to even think... As he burned he never moved a muscle, never uttered a sound, his outward composure in sharp contrast to the wailing people around him."
d. How far would you go for what you believe in?
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
OPTION #1: Literary Analysis of Social Darwinism
a. Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism was the application of Charles Darwin's scientific theories of evolution and natural selection to contemporary social development. In nature, only the fittest survived—so too in the marketplace. This form of justification was enthusiastically adopted by many American businessmen as scientific proof of their superiority.
Learn more about this controversial issue here
http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm
b. The Political Economist and the Tramp
by. Philips Thompson, 1878
Walking along a country road,
While yet the morning air was damp,
As unreflecting, on I strode,
I marked approach the frequent tramp.
The haggard, ragged careworn man
Accosted me with plaintive tone,
"I must have food-" he straight began;
"Vile miscreant," I cried, "begone!
Tis contrary to every rule
That I my fellows should assist;
I'm of the scientific school,
Political economist.
Dost thou know, deluded one,
What Adam Smith has clearly proved,
That 'tis self-interest alone
by which the wheels of life are moved?
This competition is the law
By which we either live or die;
I've no demand thy labor for,
Why, then, should I thy wants supply?
And Herbert Spencer's active brain
Shows how the social struggle ends;
The weak die out the strong remain;
'Tis this that nature's plan intends.
Now really 'tis absurd of you
To think I'd interfere at all;
Just grasp the scientific view,
The weakest must go to the wall."
Read the poem here:
http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/dbq/11021.html
c. The topic of Social Darwinism easily relates to this meaningful poem written by Philips Thompson. The poem states...
As unreflecting, on I strode,
I marked approach the frequent tramp.
The haggard, ragged careworn man
Accosted me with plaintive tone,
"I must have food-" he straight began;
"Vile miscreant," I cried, "begone!
Tis contrary to every rule
That I my fellows should assist;
I'm of the scientific school,
Political economist.
From this stanza you can tell that Thompson is being sarcastic. You can easily grasp where he stands on the issue of Social Darwinism. He does not agree with it and though his tone is questioning it rings dark and serious. From the first stanza I can feel his passion coursing through his words. I can see that he thinks of the political economist or those who support Social Darwinism as emotionless with no feelings towards others. No compassion.
That 'tis self-interest alone
by which the wheels of life are moved?
This competition is the law
By which we either live or die;
I've no demand thy labor for,
Why, then, should I thy wants supply?
He believes that Social Darwinism is run through self interest and he questions whether Social Darwinism makes the rules. There are no laws or reason just self interest and competition. Competition to survive and conquer. This stanza is very thought provoking and leads you into questioning your own beliefs. The difference between right and wrong, power and cruelty.
Shows how the social struggle ends;
The weak die out the strong remain;
'Tis this that nature's plan intends.
Now really 'tis absurd of you
To think I'd interfere at all;
Just grasp the scientific view,
The weakest must go to the wall."
He once again questions the ending of it all? How strong are your values? Shall the weak die while the strong remain? Is it what nature wants? Where do you stand? Of course from the point of view of a political economist the strong will conquer. Think about it scientifically. It always was “survival of the fittest”! What Thompson is getting at is of this very question question “ Do you have a heart? Or is the world simply heartless?” He leaves his poem open in order to let the reader have a say and make a decision. Through his poem he seems to be partially addressing nature. Is the world a place run under no motives except greed and power? Or is there something finer, something much more beautiful inside us all?
Social Darwinism was the application of Charles Darwin's scientific theories of evolution and natural selection to contemporary social development. In nature, only the fittest survived—so too in the marketplace. This form of justification was enthusiastically adopted by many American businessmen as scientific proof of their superiority.
Learn more about this controversial issue here
http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm
b. The Political Economist and the Tramp
by. Philips Thompson, 1878
Walking along a country road,
While yet the morning air was damp,
As unreflecting, on I strode,
I marked approach the frequent tramp.
The haggard, ragged careworn man
Accosted me with plaintive tone,
"I must have food-" he straight began;
"Vile miscreant," I cried, "begone!
Tis contrary to every rule
That I my fellows should assist;
I'm of the scientific school,
Political economist.
Dost thou know, deluded one,
What Adam Smith has clearly proved,
That 'tis self-interest alone
by which the wheels of life are moved?
This competition is the law
By which we either live or die;
I've no demand thy labor for,
Why, then, should I thy wants supply?
And Herbert Spencer's active brain
Shows how the social struggle ends;
The weak die out the strong remain;
'Tis this that nature's plan intends.
Now really 'tis absurd of you
To think I'd interfere at all;
Just grasp the scientific view,
The weakest must go to the wall."
Read the poem here:
http://caho-test.cc.columbia.edu/dbq/11021.html
c. The topic of Social Darwinism easily relates to this meaningful poem written by Philips Thompson. The poem states...
As unreflecting, on I strode,
I marked approach the frequent tramp.
The haggard, ragged careworn man
Accosted me with plaintive tone,
"I must have food-" he straight began;
"Vile miscreant," I cried, "begone!
Tis contrary to every rule
That I my fellows should assist;
I'm of the scientific school,
Political economist.
From this stanza you can tell that Thompson is being sarcastic. You can easily grasp where he stands on the issue of Social Darwinism. He does not agree with it and though his tone is questioning it rings dark and serious. From the first stanza I can feel his passion coursing through his words. I can see that he thinks of the political economist or those who support Social Darwinism as emotionless with no feelings towards others. No compassion.
That 'tis self-interest alone
by which the wheels of life are moved?
This competition is the law
By which we either live or die;
I've no demand thy labor for,
Why, then, should I thy wants supply?
He believes that Social Darwinism is run through self interest and he questions whether Social Darwinism makes the rules. There are no laws or reason just self interest and competition. Competition to survive and conquer. This stanza is very thought provoking and leads you into questioning your own beliefs. The difference between right and wrong, power and cruelty.
Shows how the social struggle ends;
The weak die out the strong remain;
'Tis this that nature's plan intends.
Now really 'tis absurd of you
To think I'd interfere at all;
Just grasp the scientific view,
The weakest must go to the wall."
He once again questions the ending of it all? How strong are your values? Shall the weak die while the strong remain? Is it what nature wants? Where do you stand? Of course from the point of view of a political economist the strong will conquer. Think about it scientifically. It always was “survival of the fittest”! What Thompson is getting at is of this very question question “ Do you have a heart? Or is the world simply heartless?” He leaves his poem open in order to let the reader have a say and make a decision. Through his poem he seems to be partially addressing nature. Is the world a place run under no motives except greed and power? Or is there something finer, something much more beautiful inside us all?
Thursday, February 17, 2011
1.Determine what Kipling means by "the White Man's Burden."
What Kipling means by the “White Man’s Burden” is the weak or the less strong. The “White Man’s Burden” are those who are thought to be of lesser value or less advanced . I believe he is referring to other civilizations of lower status. It is the “White Man’s Burden” that they exist.
2. Does Kipling justify imperialism? How so?
Kipling does justify imperialism. His poem states
Take up the White Man's burden-
The savage wars of peace-
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden- Ye dare not stoop to less- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness. By all ye will or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden! Have done with childish days- The lightly-proffered laurel, The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers.
Both stanzas seem to justify imperialism as the right thing to do as it is weighed in both your character and your religion. I think he is making the connection of “only the strong survive”; natural selection. With out imperialism the world is bid famine and sickness.
3. Why might such a justification might be so appealing?
Such a justification might be so appealing in the fact that we feel it right. We feel it is right to improve the world and rid it of lesser quality. We feel that it in our power to make change. It is simply natural that and everyone has that side to them that begs to dominate over another; to fulfill ones needs. Everyone wants the sense of control because with out control one has the sense of fear, the unknown, unease. Like carrying a large burden.
What Kipling means by the “White Man’s Burden” is the weak or the less strong. The “White Man’s Burden” are those who are thought to be of lesser value or less advanced . I believe he is referring to other civilizations of lower status. It is the “White Man’s Burden” that they exist.
2. Does Kipling justify imperialism? How so?
Kipling does justify imperialism. His poem states
Take up the White Man's burden-
The savage wars of peace-
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden- Ye dare not stoop to less- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke your weariness. By all ye will or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent sullen peoples Shall weigh your God and you.
Take up the White Man's burden! Have done with childish days- The lightly-proffered laurel, The easy ungrudged praise: Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years, Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers.
Both stanzas seem to justify imperialism as the right thing to do as it is weighed in both your character and your religion. I think he is making the connection of “only the strong survive”; natural selection. With out imperialism the world is bid famine and sickness.
3. Why might such a justification might be so appealing?
Such a justification might be so appealing in the fact that we feel it right. We feel it is right to improve the world and rid it of lesser quality. We feel that it in our power to make change. It is simply natural that and everyone has that side to them that begs to dominate over another; to fulfill ones needs. Everyone wants the sense of control because with out control one has the sense of fear, the unknown, unease. Like carrying a large burden.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)