Humanities Seminars Page ~ 'If you ever get in a place where you can't ask questions, get out of there A.S.A.P.!'
Hello there, and welcome to my Humanities Seminars Page! In case you don't know, seminars are when we get into groups of around 10, sit in a circle, and disscuss whatever we have been studying. This could be an article, a book, or some topic we have been studying. Enjoy!
Carly
"Roots of War" Seminar Reflection
Hello there, and welcome to my Humanities Seminars Page! In case you don't know, seminars are when we get into groups of around 10, sit in a circle, and disscuss whatever we have been studying. This could be an article, a book, or some topic we have been studying. Enjoy!
Carly
"Roots of War" Seminar Reflection
1. What sentence or passage in this piece do you have the strongest reaction to?
The passage I had the strongest reaction to would be the second paragraph from the top of the first page. It reads, “But war is too complex and collective an activity to be accounted for by any warlike instinct lurking within the individual psyche. Battles, in which the violence occurs, are only weapons, the organization of supply lines, etc. There is no plausible instinct, for example, that could impel a man to leave home, cut his hair short, and drill for hours in tight formation.” AS I was reading, all of a sudden, many different protests and questions seemed to well up in my throat. Yes, war is complex and collective, but was it always like that? “The author claims that archeological evidence of war is from 12,000 years ago, and let me tell you, they did not have guns, tanks, or artillery shells. What they did have were, at the most, swords and bows and arrows. As I reexamine my studies of Gates of Fire from last year, I can see how very complex war thousands of years ago could be. But I think back to the first war, yes, the very first. Obviously whoever was designing it wouldn’t have the strict rules we have now of war. The author wrote, ‘there is no plausible instinct, for example, that could impel a man to leave home, cut his hair short, and drill for hours in tight formation.’ Well, obviously not. However, I bet the earliest, first wars, did not require men to cut their hair short and did not do drills for hours in formation. They probably hardly knew what they were doing. Like most things complex, I think war would have to take time, more time than the author is suggesting, to evolve into what it is today. Obviously, it is not part of evolution to cut his hair and drill in tight formation for hours and hours. But as war shapes, changes, and becomes more complex, the idea of war and all things that we have come to relate to war change too.2. Why, in the 2nd to last paragraph, does she say of some traditional anti-war strategies that ‘…they will make little contribution to the abolition of war”? Why does she think these strategies won’t work?
The author thinks that anti-war strategies, such as trying to put an end to violent speech and imagery and critiquing masculinist culture won’t work because we’re not thinking of it as something external to ourselves. The author wrote, ‘It would be far better to think of war as something external to ourselves, something which has to be uprooted, everywhere, down to the last weapon and bellicose pageant.’ I think she means that we have to think of war as something that does not have to do with us. It has to be something we can control, unlike sudden vocal outburst that ‘slips out’ when something is unfair. War that we can control would be the physical instruments of war-weapons. If the weapons are gone, we cannot go to war except with our fists and teeth, which, as far as I’m concerned, are not weapons of mass destruction. Saying good-by to weapons is the first strategy, and I think that in the author’s point of view, that’s the only way to start to end war.3. Is it possible to end war by fighting war? Why/why not?
That is a very good question. It is certainly possible for someone to start a war in a valiant attempt to end all wars, but that’s just kind of going back on what it’s fighting for… It’s kind of like our military troops in Iraq, some of whom are protecting children and whatnot. (I read an article about it in Guideposts.) The military troops are technically at war in Iraq, yet they are trying to help undo the destruction of war and war itself. I do not think that by fighting a war you can end war... You can’t be like, “Okay, we won, no more war,” because the other guys would be like, “Huh? You’re fighting a war to end war…dude, that doesn’t even make sense. You’re stupid.” Or, you’d get the flip-side: “Yeah, we won’t the war! Now we can go fight more wars because the guys trying to end war lost in the war we were fighting to end war…what? Well, whatever, let’s go fight some more somewhere else.” Dumb, right? As the saying goes, you can’t fight fire with fire. You can’t fight hate with hate. Therefore, you can’t fight war with war.4. How does this article relate to “Germany and the Next War?”
How does this article relate to “Germany and the Next War?” Gee, a better question would be, ‘how does this article NOT relation to “Germany and the Next War?”’ I could write a few paragraphs for that question. But still. This article, ‘The Roots of War,’ relates to ‘Germany and the Next War’ because they trick you. At the beginning of ‘Germany and the Next War’, the author butters us up, saying how he NOWS war is nasty, he KNOWS of all the devastating consequences it has. But then he turns the ’but’ loose, and you think, “Hang on. Wasn’t he just acknowledging how terrible war is? What’s he doing now?” That was similar to my thoughts of ‘The Roots of War.’ Frankly, I find it very difficult to find out which side the author is one- war or no war? For most of the article, she is convincing us that war is not part of evolution, it is not natural. Okay. Then, she starts talking about how it’s not really our fault that we are addicted to war because once war was started, it just keeps on going, the idea cannot be stopped, and how to end war which is not with war, in their opinion. So I’m thinking, “Okay. Not our fault. No war. You want no war?” All of a sudden, she pops and idea- to end war, just take away every single thing war-related, everywhere. And that makes me question that idea. It reminded me of Brave New World. They just took away the ideas they didn’t want, and plugged everyone into the ideas they did want. Would taking away all ideas of war be…brainwashing? All in all, it was rather hard for me to see which side each author was on, and that is how their article was related.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Emotions-and-Abuse
http://hubpages.com/hub/Emotions-and-Abuse
"Deogratias" Seminar Reflection
What was the most interesting idea from the Deogratias Seminar? Explain why you think it is so interesting, and how it helped you better understand the book. How do you think your group’s seminar went? Explain why, with specific examples.
The idea I thought was the most interesting was one that we didn’t really talk about much during the seminar, but that I learned through the way my peers talked about Deogratias’s actions and the events of the book. Before this seminar, I really had no idea what happened to Venetia and her daughters, Benina and Apollinaria. It sounded to me like Deogratias had something to do with Venetia ’s murder, but the optimistic part of my brain said, ‘No way! Deogratias is on her side!’ At the same time, the pessimistic and realist parts of my brain said, ‘Nah, something’s fishy here. There isn’t a clear picture, but it sounds like Deogratias is to blame.’ I wasn’t sure which part to listen to. Also, I was totally bewildered by the ending Benina and Apollinaria had. The two poor girls wandered into the village, begging for food. The caption, which is Deogratias speaking, said, “…They wanted to die....I loved them….” I thought that, since he loved them, he would have saved them. But something kept nagging me. If he saved them, why wouldn’t it have said so? There was just a kind of tone in that last sentence that was not good. I couldn’t put my finger on it. And then Julius laughs about how Deogratias had sex with Benina. It sounded like he knew it had happened, like he knew it was going to happen…like he had forced Deogratias to do it. That is the first time we see Julius, (in chronological order, not the order of the book.) He also said something about leaving Benina for them, but then keeping Apollinaria for himself…which, now that I think about it, helps me realize and understand their deaths better. I suppose the reason why I didn’t want to believe it was because Deogratias seemed so innocent before. And he backed out at the Turquoise Zone, and he helped hide Benina. Why would he turn on them? Did something happen that was implicit? Did I miss something? Because I still do not understand why he would do something like that…after all he did, it seems, for them. I asked the group about Deogratias’s relationship with Benina, if it was forced or what. The answer I got was that he had loved Apollinaria, but she didn’t love him, so he settled on her sister… I truthfully cannot remember if whoever answered my question, (Tara ?) said if Deogratias was forced to sleep with Benina or not. So what I learned helped me understand the book a little more, like what happened to Venetia, Benina, and Apollinaria, but at the same time, got me even more confused, bewildered, and disgusted at Deogratias, his actions, and his reasoning. It reminds me of a quote that goes something like this, “People want the truth, but the truth hurts.” Indeed, it does.
Overall, I think our seminar went pretty well. We really got into why Deogratias turns into a dog, and what dogs were thought of then in Rwanda Venetia and her daughters?”, because Boone really thought it was the guy on the radio who started all the killing because he influenced them, but everyone else thought it was Deogratias or the leader of the killing mob, Julius. It was interesting to see both sides. Different perspectives really add a richness and flavor to these discussions. Like hot fudge sauce and mini peanut butter cups to vanilla ice cream, you know? (I just realized that I can see how blaming different people, either the person who actually did the killing, or the person who set the stage for it, like we were discussing in class- CONNECTION!)
"Slaughterhouse Five" Seminar Reflection
1. Reaction: Identify a comment made by someone else during the seminar. React to his/her statement. This could be a statement you thought was interesting, that you strongly agree or disagree with, that made you question, that you are still thinking about…
Tucker talked about how there’s a theory called Determinism, which states that everyone is simply complex arrangements of atoms and molecules acting according to the laws of physics. The idea is that all molecules act a certain way according to the laws of physics; therefore, human free will is an illusion. If you know position and velocity of the molecules at one point in time, you will know them in any point in time. That’s why, in that theory, humans don’t really have the ability to choose. I thought that was a very interesting, scientific perspective; however, my view is more from a religious stand point. I agree that, yes, when you get down to it, we are bodies of water and atoms and molecules. However, I believe that humans are much more complex than that. I believe that God has given us free will, and it’s our decision to be good people or not. The concept of your future being determined by one thing that you do reminded me of a movie, I forget what it’s called, but it’s about a woman who misses the subway. But then the movie keeps flip-flopping between what happens when she misses it (she doesn’t realize her boyfriend is cheating on her,) and when she catches it (she catches him, moves out, and gets a new haircut.) It’s very interesting to think about. It also reminded me of a certain ad I’ve seen on TV before, maybe for a credit card or a phone or something. Anyways, this guy sees a girl on the train, their eyes lock, and –beep- he switches the train he’s going on, and they eventually get married, etc. I do think that depending on your actions, it can change your life. For example, if my parents hadn’t met again at a running race, I might’ve not been born. Or, if they didn’t decide to move to Durango
2. Changes in Thinking: Explain how the seminar influenced or changed your thinking about this topic or text. How is your thinking now different than it was before the seminar?
The seminar made me totally realize that Billy was just having illusions. After I finished the book, I was utterly confused on what to make of it. Actually, I still am. But the thing that was cleared up for me was that Billy Pilgrim did not actually go to the planet of Tralfamadore. It was his mind that took him there. That’s what I think. Before the seminar, that idea never even occurred to me. On the topic of free will, just thinking about it has made my mind marvel. It makes me also want to be the kindest, most selfless person I can be, because I think it will open up new opportunities and awareness for me. If I volunteer, I might find this is a field I want to persevere, it will make me more thankful for my own situation, and I might meet other people who have perspectives and values similar to my own.
3. Connections: Make a connection between the issues discussed in this seminar and another topic or idea (news story, novel, experience, event, your choices, movie, song, article, class…)
I already touched on this a little, what with the discussion on the choices my parents made, that ad about making a decision that will change you life, (such as getting on a train,) and the movie that flip-flops between what happened in a woman’s life when she misses the subway and when she catches it. Another thing I just thought of is donating blood. According to the facts Colleen wrote on the board, one unit of blood can save up to three lives. Every three seconds, a person is in need of blood. Just think about that. When you donate blood, you are saving people’s lives. You saving the life of a person who might not have gotten the blood they needed if not for you. (Yes, a little dramatic, but still.) Talk about a decision that could change somebody’s life!
4. Self-Evaluation: From the categories below, which one do you believe you were the strongest in and why? Which one would you like to improve on for the next seminar, and how do you plan to do that?
I would say that ‘communication’ would be my strongest point. I am not 100% on what is meant by it, but I will do my best. I feel that I communicated the ideas I had when I had them, and that I brought a different perspective to the group. An example I remember of this is when Tucker shared the theory of how we’re all just particles and have no control over our futures, and then Kelsey shared that she thinks that we don’t have free will, either, but we want to believe it. Then I shared, with a totally different perspective that livened up the conversation a bit, and made people think about which side they believe. I also communicated (and I’m not sure if this is what you meant by ‘communication’,) but I communicated several times that Liz should speak because she didn’t speak as much and had a harder time getting in her input. I would like to improve on personal or outside connections, because, although I had many when I was reflecting upon the seminar, I didn’t really think of any during. So I will try to work on relating things people are saying by thinking about it more carefully, weighing it in my mind before coming to my own conclusion, and then perhaps talking about it in the seminar. Then, my peers might realize they’ve had the same connection, and that will help us all understand the concepts we are discussing better and will add in general to the seminar.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhwAC0ObSNwEQRjkis5Pu1vrh2E-M6zsZy739foMy64_9d5ufG5JyWRxrTFCoXE63vBWCGaFVJBqjb8BNk7sLwvmOndQwN5AQ2ifX_W5sofE4EHhcTkzx9qjzuH4LyzRyvmVmBZhww4fU/s1600/Kurt%252BVonnegut.jpg&imgrefurl=http://msfrankworldlit.blogspot.com/2011/04/slaughterhouse-five.html
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhwAC0ObSNwEQRjkis5Pu1vrh2E-M6zsZy739foMy64_9d5ufG5JyWRxrTFCoXE63vBWCGaFVJBqjb8BNk7sLwvmOndQwN5AQ2ifX_W5sofE4EHhcTkzx9qjzuH4LyzRyvmVmBZhww4fU/s1600/Kurt%252BVonnegut.jpg&imgrefurl=http://msfrankworldlit.blogspot.com/2011/04/slaughterhouse-five.html
"Jihad vs. McWorld" Seminar Reflection
I believe the topic started with this quote from ‘Jihad vs. McWorld’: ‘Commercial pilots, computer programmers…etc. etc. etc. … professors, athletes- these compose a new breed of men and women for whom religion, culture, and nationality can seem only marginal elements in a working identity.’ Bryan, clearing up what this means, explained how he and I discussed this earlier and came to the conclusion that our jobs, both right now and definitely in McWorld, are more important than anything else. If you meet someone, the first thing you might ask them is, “what do you do?” not, “are you Jewish?” or, “where are your ancestors from?” In fact, it’s sometimes considered intrusive if you question people about their religion. From there, we discussed how different jobs can give you a different ‘name’ or how it can decide where you are socially compared to others. (McDonald’s worker= low, lawyer= high. The higher, the better, in our modern day and time.) We figured out that if you really enjoy what you do, then it doesn’t matter what your paycheck is- unless you can’t pay the bills, and that’s where the paycheck becomes the main point of doing a job. Ian talked about how his uncle chose to quit his job, a job he hated, though he might’ve been able to earn a paycheck with seven digits, because his want to do something he loved to do overrode his desire for money. Luckily for him, he had the previous well-paying job that can support him in this. I also heard of a couple who sometimes go to my church, where they did some job and got paid a ton, but then retired and decided to go on mission trips everywhere. Sounds pretty cool, huh? Somebody once said, as Nathan also pointed out, “Love what you do, and you’ll never have to work another day of your life.” Something like that. I would have to say that I heartily agree with our group’s conclusion that if you enjoy your job, it is worth more than a good sum of cash in the bank. I mean, if you enjoy your work, it could add years to your life rather than take some away. I just imagine slightly overweight balding men sweating in a cubicle from 9-to-5, (sing it, Dolly!) fussing over long reports and whatnot, and packing up 10 minutes before their workday is even over, and just pretending to be doing something so that when the seconds hand goes to the 12, and the hour hand is perfectly on the five, they can hightail it outta there lookin’ as if they were being chased by a worker from United Blood Services, (“Sir, you still haven’t called us back to confirm your appointment! Sir?”), and you hate needles. (Stereotypical, yes, I know… but that’s what I imagine. The Office.) Just think of the stress and loathing that goes on in that cubicle, in that body wearing the white button-down with the nauseating tie and yellow sweat stains around the armpits. It’s gotta wear ya down. But if you find happiness or contentment in what you do, then it makes your body have a lot less stress, and there won’t be that nagging dread in the pit of your stomach knowing you have to go back tomorrow. It puts everything in a whole different perspective. Feel that weight like a 200-pound-man sitting on your chest just come right off? During this seminar, I realized that even if I didn’t get my dream job as a teacher, or a writer/gardener/artist, I can still be content with what I do if I give it my best and just have a good attitude. (Which would probably not work for all jobs, but a good amount.) I believe it’s all about your attitude. A question I still have about this is, what happens if you don’t have enough money to pay the bills? I guess you would have to find another career, huh? Geez, what an unfortunate thing that would be, to have a wonderful job, but to then have to quit because you can’t pay. Another question that popped up in my mind was, what do most people choose? If you interviewed 1,000 people in a city or town and asked them if they would rather be making not very much, but loving it, or making a lot, but loathing it. I wonder what they would say. I also wonder if their responses would have anything to do with age, gender, race, the job(s) they currently have, what class they are in now, and what class they grew up in. I wonder, for instance, if men are more likely to choose something that will get them more money, even if they don’t like it. I am not biased against men, I am merely drawing off what that person in the video we watched last week about the loans said, how women were more apt to save up their money they earned, while men liked to spend it on less worth-while things, but have them quicker. I wonder… Is there anybody who would enjoy the job of being a surgeon? Yes. Is there anybody who would enjoy the job of being someone who unclogs sewage? … Hard to say. The good news is that there are many different people out there who enjoy different things, and many types of jobs out there which can fit different people. (I suppose, though, it depends on how much violence is around you so that you are still able to reach your goal of attaining that profession. Violence, that is, by the definition of that one guy, I can’t remember his name.)
"Being Peace" Seminar Reflection
By Thich Nhat Hanh
These mindfulness trainings are about Buddhism. I am a Christian. These two different religions, ideologies, faiths, whichever you want to call them, have nothing to do with each other, yet practice many of the same things. According to Being Peace, the some of the practices all Buddhists and lay persons commit to include living simply, not over-accumulating wealth, being generous and giving to others, being aware of where you buy things so as not to support exploitation, stealing, and social injustices, looking at those whom you believe are making you angry through eyes of compassion, being aware of yourself, meditating, taking no actions to give pain or struggle or overuse a human being, animal, plant, or mineral, and maintaining a life of peace, kindness, awareness, and compassion. Likewise, the practices of Christians include living simply, being generous and giving to others, tithing, going on mission trips and volunteering to help others, looking at those whom are upsetting you through the eyes of compassion, putting away some time for you to remember God and to give to Him the things that are pulling you down, praying, being kind to others, and doing your best to maintain a life of peace, kindness, and compassion. You probably noticed many things are the same. The main difference, I think, is that there is not as much awareness for how every action you take, from eating a burger, to buying a pair of new shoes has some significance. Although Christians are attentive to giving, often times, I think, we forget about how many of our other actions have significance. In the experiences I have had, we focus more on people getting food, clothing, water, and other essential things, rather than plants, animals, minerals, and the small significance of our purchases. However, I think these are important things to remember and I do my best to keep them in mind. This summer, three or four of my girl cousins will be coming here to Durango, and I have an aunt and uncle who live in California who will hopefully be coming out, too. My uncle is a Buddhist, and he told us he would show us how to meditate. I thought it would be cool if I would read out all the different mindfulness trainings and then we could sign that we would obey them for the week they will be here. It strikes me funny that we are all Christian girls who were raised in the Catholic Church and go every Sunday, yet I think it is important to be open-minded about these things, and to sometimes try things differently than we usually do. My point is that it is good to have your own version of your beliefs. I am looking forward to the week in which we practice Buddhism. Just the mindset. As we talked about last week when we were beginning Being Peace, for some people, Buddhism is a religion, for others, it is an ideology, a practice, a mindset. Why not have the mindset of, or similar to, Buddhism? It is very closely related to that of Christianity, and I do not see any wrong or harm it brings.
The Buddhist practices we have been reading and discussing could help bring peace, I know it. Peace between countries, peace between fellow co-workers in an office. I think every practice, except perhaps the last one and the part about vegetarianism, would be important to keep in mind. I imagine at UN meetings, everyone meditates for 20 minutes, then someone reads what each practice is about, and everyone agrees to keep them in mind. Afterwards, they all eat together. Perhaps at office meetings, too, and anywhere a decision is being made. I imagine what a difference it would make. What if we introduced it to schools, where starting in second grade, students come in and meditate for the first fifteen minutes of class and for fifteen more minutes after lunch. The mindfulness trainings would be recited each morning after the meditation, along with the Pledge of Allegiance. I imagine the students would be more able to concentrate on work, and there would be less fighting and arguing about who is right and wrong, then in second grade, and on out through middle school, high school, and even in people’s lives. It could be something they take with them forever. Honestly, I do not see any problem in that. It would teach the children to be kind, compassionate, understanding, patient, tolerant, and aware. Seeing how I still know the Pledge of Allegiance from 5th grade, I think they would have no trouble at all remembering the 13 Mindfulness Trainings. When you start with children, I think peace is much closer than we think it is. The only downside to this is that we would have to wait for that first generation to age, and until then, we are stuck with these (mostly male) leaders. Hey, they’re doing the best they can for what they know and have learned in their lives. But I know we can do better and can bring peace in a way that would make it last.
"Omelas" Seminar Reflection
By Ursula Leguin
By Ursula Leguin
Reactions: Write a paragraph about what other people said in seminar and your reaction to their comments/ questions
Isn’t it true, when you think about it, that we base our happiness off of past memories or experiences, and perhaps the experiences and memories of others? Hannah Williams pointed this out when she said, “We base our happiness off of past memories or experiences. If you think, ‘oh, I remember last year, I felt so bad and sad and now I feel better, so I must be happy.’” Another person voiced: “The child in the closet plays such a large part in the lives of the people in the village because they have some sorrow to base their happiness off of.” The two quotes have basically the same meaning, just in different contexts- that of our lives, and that of the lives of those in the village of Omelas. I would have to say that they are perfectly right. I hadn’t thought about it the way Hannah said, taking what was going on in Omelas and putting it into our own lives. After pondering for a while, I came to the conclusion that without some sort of struggle or hardship, how are we to know what happiness is? I hear about it with cancer survivors- they get through the immensely hard thing of having surgery and chemotherapy, and once they are cancer-free, they live their lives with joy. It’s after you’ve had your health or safety or family member taken away from you that you begin to truly appreciate what you had, and you wish you would have appreciated it more, known how lucky you were to have it. Then when and if you get those things back, you appreciate it so much, and are so relieved and lucky. You can’t help smiling. It is the hard times that chisel and shape our character, and it is the hard times that we learn the most about ourselves. If we do not have to go through a struggle of some sort, how do we know who we are? And how does that shape who we are? A person who’s never been challenged, who’s never had to persevere through something? What does that make you? Someone who doesn’t really understand life? Someone who thinks that life is easy and can be sailed through and drunk like a warm, tasteless broth? What kind of life is that? These are the questions I have come upon.
Connections: Identify and explain a connection to one of the following…
In ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,’ the author writes, “The trouble is that we have a bad habit of considering happiness as something rather stupid. Only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting.” How true. Generally, we view ‘happiness’ as an ideology you only see in fairy tales. Yet even in the Declaration of Independence does it say United States citizens have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Why do we view happiness as something that is for children, something that is unnecessary and unreal? When I was a little girl, I prized the Disney princesses. It never occurred to me that ‘happily ever after’ is only in movies and books. It just fit that Belle, Ariel, Cinderella, and all the rest of them lived happily with their princes in their castles forever. I assumed their smiles would be plastered on their faces like Barbie dolls’, all day, every day. Why not? I mean, they are princesses, aren’t they? It was probably fourth grade when the Disney princesses became dumb, childish, ‘uncool’, for babies, which meant that their ‘happily ever afters’ became childish, as well. Their singing, ball gowns, Barbie-like demeanor, and ‘happily ever afters’ was laughed at, and anyone who admitted to still liking them was teased. It was then that we children began to comprehend how there isn’t a ‘happily ever after’ for everyone. And so we began our ridicule of happiness.
Nobody has a perfect life, we know that. And if someone did, why, they’d die of boredom, which would bring us back to nobody having a perfect life. Nevertheless, our lives often seem to be a never-ending pursuit of happiness. The amusing thing of our culture is that we are so hypocritical. We have countless books and movies devoted to becoming happy: The Pursuit of Happyness, The Happiness Experiment, The Art of Happiness by Dalai Lama… the list goes on. So why do we scoff at happiness, yet would do anything to attain it? Why, that’s why consumerism has the market it does, isn’t it? Because we buy things to make ourselves happy? The author of ‘The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas,’ Ursula Le Guin, mocks how we think happiness is boring and silly. But she’s right. If you think about it, there are no movies or books that do not have some sort of conflict or struggle- that’s the whole point of them: to see how the character handles and gets through the struggle. It would be if there weren’t some sort of conflict. Even in the Disney princess movies- Cinderella has to cook and clean for her stepfamily; Arielle wants to be a human. Nobody would want to read a book about someone’s perfect life, first, because there wouldn’t be anything to connect to, and second, it would probably be a bit depressing to compare their life to yours. (A book never written: My Perfect Life by S. Nooty. It has the lowest ratings EVER!)
But there isn’t just one form of happiness, is there? We have happiness when we eat ice cream, we have happiness when we visit with friends, we have happiness when we greet loved ones home from Iraq. Maybe we are missing the point here. Maybe there are different kinds of happiness, we are just looking at the wrong type. After some research, I decided to go with Dr. Martin E.P. Seligman. He placed happiness into three different categories: pleasant life, engaged life, and meaningful life. ‘A pleasant life consists of having as much pleasure as you can, as many positive emotions, and learning some of the dozen or so techniques that actually work for increasing the duration and intensity of your pleasures. There are shortcuts to the pleasures. You can go shopping; you can watch television; you can take drugs. These things do not lead to true happiness... An engaged life is being one with the music, being totally wrapped up in the people you love or what you’re hearing. There are no shortcuts to the engaged life. The engaged life can only be had by first knowing what your highest strengths are, your signature strengths, and re-crafting your life to use them at work, in love, in leisure, in parenting, and in friendship... A meaningful life consists of again knowing what your highest strengths and talents are and using them in the service of something you believe is bigger than you are.’ So perhaps it is just the ‘pleasant life’ kind of happiness we think is stupid, because it’s the most stereotypical, insincere form of happiness - it’s the easiest kind of happiness to achieve, yet is meaningless. Perhaps we are really scorning the things in life that we get the easiest and the quickest. Perhaps we are really scorning the things in life that don’t really matter, yet we make out to matter. Perhaps we are scorning the lies our culture is feeding us. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.
Detailed Response, 2 paragraphs: choose one of the major questions from the seminar to write about. Quote text, set up quotes correctly
Question: Is this story a metaphor for our own society? Does our society have its own (metaphorical) child in a closet? What is it?
Everyone has something to compare our lives to: our memories and our experiences. That is how we deem whether we are happy or sad, and all the greys in between the two. We have had bad and good experiences, and we have witnessed others in their lives, which could be pretty nice, or miserable. We look at those experiences and memories and think subconsciously, ‘let’s see, where am I between my worst time and my best time, the worst I’ve seen and the best I’ve seen?’ Depending on where you are right now compared to where you have been, you will gauge if you are happy or sad. So can a society have something to base happiness or sadness, doing well or doing poorly off of? I believe it can. “The young spectators… who view the child… feel outrage. [The child is] perhaps the true source of splendor of their lives. It is their knowledge of [the child’s] existence that makes possible the nobility of their architecture, the poignancy of their music, the profundity of their science… The know that if the wretched one were not there sniveling in the dark, the flute-layer could make no joyful music.” It’s just like for a single person- it compares it around to other experiences and what is witnessed around it. I think the story of Omelas could be a metaphor for our own society, but my opinion is that is not Ursula Le Guin’s whole meaning and goal of the story, for us to recognize the metaphor in our own society. However, that does not mean our society does not have its own metaphorical ‘child in a closet’. Our ‘child in the closet’, I believe, would have to be other countries, specifically, their economy, and whether they are a poor country or a rich country. You see, the more poor countries there are, the better America can feel about itself, because we have this, and we have that, but you don’t, we are better off; therefore, we must feel pretty good about ourselves. On the other hand, if more countries started inventing cool gadgets and making more money and having cooler stuff than we do, well, we might get kinda mad about that, now wouldn’t we. (America is a very competitive country, you see.)So our ‘happiness’ goes down. Another example that is less harsh could be basing what we have and who we are now off of previous American experiences, like the Great Depression or the Dust Bowl. Compared to those hard times, you could say we have it good now.
But if you really want to get down to the real (metaphorical) child in a closet, it would have to be the workers in the sweatshops and diamond mines we have set up in other countries. They are the ones who are miserable and are treated unfairly, while we get all the profits of their work, as well as the objects in which their work is to sew or mine. It is like the poor child in the broom closet in the basement in Omelas- ‘it’ suffers, while hundreds or thousands of others profit. It is inhumane and horrible. But like most of the people of Omelas, who stay and are happy because of the child’s misery, we buy into the brands that operate sweatshops, and we are ‘happy’ with the things we get out of it. IT says in the story, “They know if the wrentched one wre not there sniveling in the dark, the other one, the flute-player, could make no joyful music as the young riders line up in their beauty for the race in the sunlight of the first morning of summer.” Yet unlike the people of Omelas, who all see first-hand the misery and pain the child is going through, our eyes are often stopped from wandering, our mouths from questioning, our ears from hearing their cries.
Q & A: write 3 questions, choose 1 to try to answer. Use internet research, discussion, etc. to formulate your answer
1. Why don’t the people who walk away from Omelas take the child with them? (I am going to presume that the people are walking away because they don’t want to have any part in the child’s misery- we came to that conclusion during the seminar.) So if they don’t want to be happy because of the child’s sorrow, why wouldn’t they take the child with them and give ‘it’ a better life, if they care so much to leave ‘the city of happiness’?
2. I still do not understand where the people go. In the text it says that they go towards the mountains. I am wondering, ‘why the mountains?’ Is it a place to die, a secret community of goodness? I do not understand.
3. What caused the author, Ursula Le Guin, to write about Omelas, the city of happiness, and to discuss in the short story how people today view happiness as something that is stupid?
4. If I was born and raised in Omelas, after seeing the child, would I stay in Omelas, or would I leave?
Where do ‘the ones who walk away from Omelas’ go? In our seminar group, Izzy suggested that perhaps they die and go to heaven. It seems plausible because wrote, ‘They do not come back. The place they go towards is a place even less imaginable to most of us than the city of happiness…It is possible it does not exist. But they seem to know where they are going.’ I decided to do some research of my own, and on a site, one person thought they committed suicide. The ‘anonymous’ person wrote: “What first came into my mind was that they committed suicide. It would make sense. It’s impossible to imagine what afterlife is. You cannot describe it and it’s even possible that it does not exist at all. But people who commit suicide seem to have a feeling that they somehow know what afterlife is.” I found this an interesting comment. It could indeed be suicide. The people who walk out of Omelas go towards the mountains, through the fields, through other towns… perhaps they are going towards the mountains, which will be their final resting place. They would be in a place of peace, away from the emotions it could draw by doing it in Omelas. Later, another person, ‘Abby,’ commented, “They are leaving to find THEMSELVES! The child in her story represents our hidden problems, weaknesses and even possibly other horrible things that we do not like to think about or acknowledge about ourselves. IT is called the shadow in Jungian philosophy. Are they right for walking away from Omelas? Yes they are, something in them has completely and forever been changed. Therefore those that leave will deal with their problems and not ignore it and pretend it isn’t there.” I found this another possible answer. I picture the comic ‘Ziggy,’ which often has the main character, Ziggy, I assume, climbing a high mountain where there’s an old man with a long beard in a robe sitting at the top. You assume the man is the all-knowledgeable one who knows the answers to all questions, who knows what the meaning of life is, who can give you some wise advice, etc., yet he usually pops out some wisecrack remark that makes Ziggy have an exclamation point above his head. That is what I picture when I think about those who leave Omelas walking towards the mountains. But where do they go after they find themselves? Well, that is another discussion entirely…
"Dulce et Decorum Est" Seminar Reflection
I think it was Leah or Daniel (or both,) who pointed out that it depends on what you are fighting for for it to be considered sweet and right. She said that if you are defending your family, it would be worth it, because you are keeping them safe. On the other hand, if you are fighting over oil or something that your country just wants because it’s greedy, that is a really terrible thing to give your life fighting for. It’s not right, and certainly not sweet. It is an awful thing to have to live with yourself, knowing that you were responsible for taking someone’s life. I would have to agree with this, except that, overall, I would like for there to be no war, no killing, no hurting one another, even for something that is worth it, (in many a person’s opinion,) like freedom. I would like for there to be peaceful negotiations, for people to act with compassion and kindness and thoughtfulness in all actions towards others. Of course, this is likely never to happen, but it is a goal, it is a way, it is a hope to have, unlikely as it may seem.
Raking through the poem and pointing out the parts that I was confused about, such as, his hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin, was very helpful to me. I researched the meaning of it, and now have a better overall understanding of the poem. I learned that it is better to find out what something you are confused about means and then understand the poem fully than to kind of flub through the poem and not really understand it- what’s the point of taking the time to read it and think about it if you don’t comprehend it? Plus, you could be missing an important part in the poem- if you totally understand the poem, then you can fully appreciate it- it would do more for you, and perhaps you could grasp the overall meaning and ideas and transform it into something you can connect to.
There are ways, I suppose, for a person to believe it can be sweet and right to die for your country. To those who believe in severe patriotism, as we studied at the beginning of the school year, it could be possible. However, those who believe so strongly that it is sweet, as well as right to die for your country may also be slightly mad, like a person who goes around telling people the army should just blow up everything. In my personal opinion, there is no way- ever- that war could be sweet. There is, however, only one way war can be considered right, and there must be two things that come into play if it were to be considered so: The first is that the war must be absolutely necessary- there must be no other possible ways of solving the conflict, and if there are, they must be whole-heartedly attempted and failed if war is going to happen. Second, the war must be to somehow save a number people from violence, death, and destruction. Only then, by trading lives for the lives of many more, could war be found righteous. As it was portrayed in the poem Dulce et Decorum est, war is not something to be taken lightly or to waste upon matters other than lives of people. Think, to be against the gas- Gas! Gas! Quick boys! –An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime... No, for anyone to suffer such a death as to be drowned by gas, or blown up by a bomb, it must be worth something. And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs. To put your life on the line, to be caught in such violence from an unknown enemy who knows the consequences, but knows neither the true reason of why he’s fighting and killing, nor the people he’s killing behind the title of ‘enemy’… what is it worth? What is the reason? That’s why Dulce et Decorum est pro patria mori- It is sweet and right to die for your country- is called the old Lie: there is no reason. There is no reason in war. To believe it is ‘right’ is one thing; to believe it is ‘sweet’ in another- so what’s the difference? Right, according to Webster’s New World Dictionary, could be defined as virtuous or just. Sweet, on the other hand, could be defined as gratifying. It seems to me that something that is virtuous or just would be defined so for more of a population than just one person- like being honest or fair is. But it is more of a personal opinion if something is gratifying. For example, some people could find going to an amusement park gratifying, while others would state that spending time with family is gratifying. So war must be universally acknowledged to be right for it to be right; for war to be sweet, it must be an opinion that some, or really just about any number of people hold, but is not readily accepted by everyone as something that just is. It will be considered sweet by the people who consider it so, but it that wouldn’t mean that it is to everyone.
