Blog Assignment #6

            The Cove, released in 2009 and directed by Louie Psihoyos, is a compelling documentary about the slaughter of dolphins in Taiji, Japan.  Often, when we think of a documentary, we generally think of a film that is dull, something we are forced to watch for educational purposes.  While The Cove is highly informative, it is certainly not boring.  It tells the tale of a team of activists who are trying to capture footage of the dolphin massacre occurring in a cove in Taiji.  The task would be simple enough if it was not for the fact that the Japanese working the cove will do anything, even murder, to keep their secret from leaking to the public.  From the beginning to the end, the film captivates our attention.  Two scenes in particular are very gripping, one which brings the most tension to the film and the other the climax.

            The most exciting scene in the film is when the team finally puts their plan into action.  They must set up hidden cameras underwater and in the cliffs surrounding the cove.  Upon leaving the hotel, the pressure already begins to build as a car starts to follow them.  They manage to evade the car, but as they are putting the cameras in place, they spot a patrol heading their way.  Not knowing what would happen if they were to be caught, they struggle to flee.  Watching this, our hearts begins to race along with the activists’.  Will they escape?  What will happen if they do not?  The Japanese at the cove murdered before, will they dare to do it again?  All of these questions linger in our minds as we watch on the edge of our seats.  The team does manage to escape, but just barely.  As the car speeds away from the cove, a sigh of relief is released.

            All of this has been building up to the climax of the film, the scene in which the footage caught by the hidden cameras is revealed.  All speculation is finally put to an end as the underwater camera captures the water turn from a sea-green to a blood-red.  Along with the activists, we watch as a group of dolphins is senselessly and cruelly put to death with the harsh jabs of harpoons.  Now we know the truth, but are we satisfied with this moment?  In a way, we are, but at the same time we are not.  While there is a sense of accomplishment because we finally know what really happens in the cove, we are horrified by the reality.  The footage we had been longing to see the entire film, we almost wish we had never witnessed.  There is a strange sense of fulfillment to the climax, a satisfaction we almost feel guilty of due to the violent nature of it.

            The Cove brings us on the activists’ journey with them.  We feel their fear, their anticipation, and their pain at the sight of the dolphins’ suffering.  The peak of the action and tension in the film holds us with baited breath, which we can tentatively release when the mission has been successfully accomplished.  Then we gasp in horror as the long awaited footage is shown.  We have waited the entire film to see this, so in that we are satisfied.  However, considering the carnage is still going on today, how can we truly be contented? 

Blog Assignment #5

            Koyaanisqatsi (1983), directed by Godfrey Reggio, is a very unique motion picture experience.  With only one spoken word in the entire movie, it is practically a silent film.  Because of this, the viewers are forced to step out of their usual movie-watching comfort zones.  Dialogue is a main driving force in the plot of most movies, so a movie without words, such as Koyaanisqatsi, is subject to much more personal interpretation and must therefore be watched more closely.

            Movies driven by narrative are generally easy to follow because what is happening is being described as well as shown, so movies lacking the explanation narrative brings must be watched more attentively.  To fully understand Koyaanisqatsi, the viewers must keep their eyes on the screen at all times.  If they do not, they could miss key images that explain the film’s point.  Because of this, the film may seem unappealing to some.  Dialogue makes a movie a significantly simpler source of entertainment.  Without it, viewers must think on their own instead of relying on dialogue to explain the plot, argument, or theme.

            Because Koyaanisqatsi forces viewers to think on their own, it can be interpreted in many ways.  My personal interpretation of the movie was that it showed how technology is taking over nature.  Personally, I think the movie showed technology in a negative light because it was significantly less beautiful than the images of nature.  The man-made structures looked gloomy and oppressive, while the canyons, oceans, and clouds looked freeing and magnificent.  Of course, the movie could be seen as the complete opposite.  Some could say that the movie is celebrating technological advancement because it allows humans to live much more efficiently.  Many scenes do show the effectiveness of artificial machines and structures, such as scenes portraying factories and highways.  The use of sped-up images exaggerates this efficiency even more.  However, I believe this very exaggeration is what swings the argument in the other direction.  It shows that technology has, in a sense, stopped humans from enjoying life to the fullest because we are rushing through it.

            Koyaanisqatsi is a different approach to movies that many people will not appreciate simply because it is not what they are used to.  It has the potential to confuse viewers who do not realize that this movie must be watched differently from narratives.  By paying careful attention to the visuals, one can form his or her own opinion on the movie’s story.  People who remember the silent movie era or still enjoy watching silent films will certainly appreciate this movie and understand exactly how it must be viewed.  If one keeps an open mind and watches closely, Koyaanisqatsi can prove to be an enriching and entertaining experience.

Essay #3

“Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”: Who Said Anything About the Right to Die?

            Since 1990, the “assisted suicide” controversy has sparked many debates in the United States.  Under usual circumstances, assisted suicide is when a physician helps a terminally ill patient commit suicide when that patient has decided that he or she wants to end his or her life before the illness does.  Of course, the issue is much more complex than that.  While advocates for the “right to die” would like people to believe that patients who die under assisted suicide are all people with zero chance of surviving their illness and wish to die because of physical agony, that is not always the case.  Many who request assistance in their death actually have a good chance of recovering, or do not even have a terminal illness at all.  Individuals with disabilities often request the prescription of lethal drugs, wanting to end their social rather than physical suffering.  There are many people on the side of assisted suicide, although the majority of Americans still oppose it.  Only two states to date have legalized this act, Oregon and Washington (“Assisted Suicide”).  Other states have attempted to pass bills similar to those in Washington and Oregon, although none have been successful thus far (Susan W. Enouen).  However, just because only two states have passed bills allowing the essential murder of patients does not mean more will not follow in the future.  Now, while in some cases assisted suicide does seem like a humane and compassionate choice, the issue is largely a negative one that could end the lives of people well before they lived to their full potential, as well as potentially cause healthcare providers to invest less time and money into their patients.

            By far the most serious problem with assisted suicide is the fact that many patients could very well continue to lead happy lives.  Those with physical or mental disabilities are often viewed by society as pitiful beings unable to live fulfilling lives.  This is a serious misconception that has no doubt driven many with disabilities to end their lives.  According to disability theorists, people with disabilities who show dissatisfaction with their lives attribute their unhappiness to problems that the majority of healthy people struggle with, such as bad relationships and financial trouble (Adrienne Asch).  Society does not realize this, however, and when the majority believes something to be true, they can be highly influential.  A prime example of social delusion’s influence on an assisted suicide is the case of a man who had impaired mobility for 40 years and who then developed breathing problems that required him to use a ventilator.  The ventilator made speech seemingly impossible for him.  Because of this, he decided that he would prefer to live no longer.  His family, physicians, and the hospital ethics committee agreed that this was the correct route to take (Asch).  It seems justifiable to say that the fact that his family and doctors did not in any way help the man to overcome his newfound disability furthered his want to end his life.  Their immediate support of his decision to die certainly only made his decision that much more concrete.  After all, if the very people who should want him to live, and who should try to make living as easy and gratifying as possible, suddenly  do not want this, why would he not want to die?

            Patients with disabilities are not the only ones who, if properly supported, would not have to consider suicide; even terribly ill patients could recover.  When a critically ill patient properly requests assisted suicide according to state law in Oregon or Washington, he or she will receive a prescription for lethal drugs by a physician.  There is little to no opposition from the professional.  Only four to five percent of patients between 2003 and 2005 had undergone psychoanalysis to determine whether or not the true reason for their decision was medical or simply one of treatable depression (Enouen).  State law in Oregon requires the patient to verbally request death twice, and these requests must be at least two weeks apart.  This is to ensure the avoidance of hasty decisions (Enouen).  Interestingly enough, many patients have received prescriptions from physicians who have known them for one week or less.  Obviously, this goes against the state’s law (Enouen).  If a 100 percent accurate administration of lethal drugs is to be guaranteed, the prescription should be made by the patient’s trusted doctor.  However, the doctors of most patients who request assisted suicide do not want anything to do with the act.  In fact, 90 percent of those in Oregon who wish to die under the Death With Dignity Act, must go through an assisted suicide advocacy group (Enouen).  Considering that these groups do not know the patients they deal with personally, how can they properly judge whether or not the patient is absolutely unable to recover from his or her condition?  Yes, medical records can be provided, but a personal physician is the one who can make the most accurate judgment.  Evidence of this appeared in one of the first assisted suicide cases.  Doctor Kevorkian, an original advocate for assisted suicide, aided in the death of Marjorie Wantz on October 21, 1991.  Wantz had claimed to be suffering from a highly painful pelvic disorder; however, autopsies never found any evidence of the disorder (Richard L. Worsnop).

            Not only does assisted suicide have the potential to kill non-terminally ill patients, it could also lead hospices and other healthcare providers to neglect patients.  Taking care of a severely ill person requires much time and money, but the majority of the public would agree that these expenses are worth it.  After all, a human life is at stake.  However, money driven health services such as hospices could potentially see the benefit of ending a patient’s life instead of providing them with care.  The American Medical Association noted this issue, saying that assisted suicide is “inconsistent with the physician’s professional role” (qtd. in Mark Taylor).  According to the AMA, if a patient requests death, his or her needs have clearly not been satisfied by his or her health care provider (Taylor).  Basically, if a physician or nurse took enough time and care to ensure the patient was comfortable physically and emotionally, assisted suicide would no longer be the “compassionate” choice.

            While most evidence makes assisted suicide seem like a mistake, there is one circumstance in which it might actually be the most humane choice.  If the patient is old, nearing the final stages of terminal cancer, and in severe, uncontrollable physical pain, and he or she absolutely does not want to live any longer, then a quiet, induced death could be the best answer.  For instance, at the age of 79, Percy Bridgman was all of those things.  He did not live in a state in which assisted suicide was legal, so he had to do it himself.  His method was to shoot himself in the head.  Knowing the trauma his family would have to go through in finding his gory remains, he had no doubt been highly desperate (Thomas A. Bowden).  In a case such as this, a less dramatic, agreed upon death assisted by his physician would have been easier and less painful for everyone involved.  The issue with this, though, is that only a small percentage of patients who request suicide assistance do so because they are in pain.  The three most common reasons for assisted suicide are losing autonomy, being unable to participate in enjoyable activities, and loss of dignity (Enouen).  All of these reasons are psychological rather than physical, which indicates that these are fears that could be eased by therapists or family members.  The fact that the majority of assisted suicide deaths were of people who could have turned their lives around is a sad one.

48 out of 50 states still oppose assisted suicide, but that could very well change in the future.  People need to hold to their beliefs that assisted suicide will cause more harm than good to humanity.  Those with disabilities or with illnesses that could recede should not be allowed by their physicians to commit suicide, even in states where it is legal.  The risk that many patients could simply have treatable depression in assisted suicide cases should keep professionals from even considering assisting in death.  The lives of human beings should not be thrown away like this.  Not only are these serious problems with the Death With Dignity Act, the bill has also caused organizations like The Final Exit Network to come into existence.  This organization helps with and even promotes suicide in physically healthy as well as ill people, and it actually charges for its “services”.  If a suicidal individual contacts this group, the group makes no attempt to convince them to not choose death, essentially adding to the individual’s reasons to die.  The group argues that those who commit suicide under their supervision do everything themselves, however undercover researchers have found that members of the organization will actually hold the victim down in case he or she decides to change his or her mind during the suicide process (Robbie Brown 1).  This seems a bit extreme, does it not?  If a person suddenly realizes that he or she wants to live, no one should stop him or her.  After all, everyone has the right to life.  The Final Exit Network is evidence that the assisted suicide controversy no longer only affects terminally ill patients, it affects everyone.

           

           

           

Works Cited

Asch, Adrienne. "The Wish to Die Is Based on Social as Well as Medical Issues." Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

"Assisted Suicide." Current Issues: Macmillian Social Science Library. Detroit: Gale, 2010. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

Bowden, Thomas A. "Individuals Should Have a Legal Right to Choose Death." Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

Brown, Robbie. "Arrests Draw New Attention to Assisted Suicide." The New York Times. The New York Times, 10 Mar. 2009. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

Enouen, Susan W. "Legalized Assisted Suicide May Lead to Legalized Euthanasia." Life Issues Connector (July 2007). Rpt. in Assisted Suicide. Ed. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

Taylor, Mark. "The Legality of Oregon's Physician-Assisted Suicide Law Is a Victory for Patients and Doctors." Suicide. Ed. Paul Connors. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2007. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 27 Oct. 2010.

Worsnop, Richard L. "Assisted Suicide Controversy." CQ Researcher5.17 (1995): 393-416. CQ   Researcher. Web. 27 Oct. 2010. 

Blog Assignment #4

            Apocalypse Now Redux, released in 2001 and directed by Francis Ford Coppola, is a movie set in the midst of the Vietnam War.  The movie clearly obtained its inspiration from the novella Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad.  Various scenes and themes throughout the movie mirror those from the book.  Of course, there are also many differences in the two works of art.  These parallels and distinctions simultaneously enrich the film.  One scene in particular is a prime example of how the movie, even though it was influenced by Heart of Darkness, is distinct.

            In Heart of Darkness as well as Apocalypse Now Redux, there is an exciting, emotional, and chaotic scene.  In the novella, the steamboat is sailing down the river when it is attacked by the natives on the shore.  The natives are shooting small arrows at the people on the boat, and those on the boat begin to shoot wildly into the bushes with guns in an attempt to stop the assault.  At first it seems like there are no casualties, but then Marlow looks down to see the helmsman is bleeding to death.  A spear had been thrust into him by one of the natives.

            The scene in Apocalypse Now Redux plays out nearly the same way.  Floating down the river, all seems peaceful until little, wooden arrows begin to fly from all sides.  The men on the boat scramble to their weapons and begin to fire at the Vietnamese.  In comparison to the guns, the arrows seem pitiful and harmless.  In fact, they are, and Willard realizes this.  He tries to tell the other men that the arrows will not harm them and that the Vietnamese are just trying to frighten them.  However, a spear then flies through the air, stabbing the man who had been steering the boat. 

            Now, these examples from the novella and the film seem nearly identical with just a few minute differences that pertain to setting; however, a large distinction makes itself known towards the end of the scene in the movie.  After the man in the film is speared, Willard kneels down next to him.  Surprisingly, the man takes Willard by the throat in an apparent attempt to murder him.  This is the opposite of what happens in the novella.  The helmsman in the novella looks at Marlow, his expression revealing a sense of kinship.  He never tries to harm Marlow in any way.

            The similarities as well as the differences in the novella and the film make both that much more interesting and unique.  Francis Ford Coppola certainly knew what he was doing when he did this particular scene.  The parallel to the novella shows the absurdity of the Vietnam War, while the harsh difference makes the film seem even more dark and gritty.   Apocalypse Now Redux is Heart of Darkness, but to a more horrifying degree.

Essay #2

“Conrad Was a Bloody Racist”: How Effective Is This Statement?

            Chinua Achebe’s article “An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad’s Heart of Darkness” was the first to identify the racism in Conrad’s novella.  He states that Westerners seem to use Africa to make themselves look better.  According to Achebe, Heart of Darkness portrays this mindset better than any other book that is or has ever been in print.  Achebe is convinced that Conrad was a “bloody racist” (Achebe 343).  A big question he poses is that whether or not Heart of Darkness should be thought of as a great work of art or read and taught in so many institutions.  He sums up his answer simply by saying, “No, it cannot” (Achebe 344).  Quoting specific passages from the novella, Achebe makes an adequate argument.  He also brings up potential counter-arguments before defacing them, which is a crucial element to any contention.  Now, while Achebe does at first seem to make an indisputable point by doing these things, when one delves deeper into the text, his flaws become quite apparent.

            To most readers, Achebe makes it clear that Conrad was a racist.  One thought-provoking statement Achebe makes is, “Conrad then zeros in . . . on a specific example, giving us one of his rare descriptions of an African who is not just limbs or rolling eyes” (Achebe 340).  Thinking about the novella, one realizes that it is true that Conrad rarely describes the natives as more than a flurry of movement or a pair of eyes.  Later on in the article, Achebe brings up one of his most convincing arguments.  He points out that Conrad, except in two instances, never allows the natives to speak.  The most they can do is make incomprehensible noise.  Yet, that is actually less offensive than when the natives do talk.  At first, Achebe says that the phrases the natives utter could be perceived as a generous grant of intelligence from Conrad.  However, Achebe continues to say that “in reality they constitute as some of his best assaults” (Achebe 341).  The language that Conrad uses when the Africans speak actually makes them seem even more dimwitted than when they do not speak at all (Achebe 341-42).  Not only does Achebe make these good points, he also brings up counter-arguments that he then challenges.  For example, he says that the views in the book could be seen solely as those of Marlow, but then goes on to say that Conrad is merely hiding behind the two narrators of the story.  By layering the narration, Conrad seems to detach himself from the opinions expressed in the novella.  This guise is pointless in Achebe’s mind because Conrad fails to provide a separate point of view that could be used to form a different opinion of Marlow and the other Europeans’ actions (Achebe 342).  Mentioning and then tearing down potential problems with his argument, Achebe reinforces it even more.

            Achebe brings attention to a serious issue; however, by seeming overly biased and by contradicting himself, many may ignore his essay.  From the very beginning, he is already making wild claims about Westerners as a whole.  He introduces his essay with two personal stories that he believes to be examples of racism.  The second of these stories is one of a high school student who sent Achebe a letter of praise on Achebe’s novel Things Fall Apart.  Within the letter, the student mentioned that he was excited to learn the different customs and beliefs of a particular tribe in Africa (Achebe 337).  This seems innocent enough, right?  Well, Achebe does not think so.  He says, “The young fellow from Yonkers . . . is obviously unaware that the life of his own tribesmen in Yonkers, New York, is full of customs and superstitions and, like everybody else in his culture, imagines that he needs a trip to Africa to encounter those things” (Achebe 337).  First of all, the customs in Yonkers are far different from those of an African tribe.  The student showing interest in learning about people different from himself is certainly not racist.  Also, the accusation that everyone in the student’s culture–most likely Achebe specifically means middle-class Caucasians–believes the same thing is a reckless claim to make.  No doubt Achebe has already lost a good audience because of this statement, and the essay has not even reached a full page yet.

            Achebe demonstrates further bias at the end of his article.  He cites an essay that investigates the problems children face when they speak a different language in school than they do at home.  From the article by the Education Editor of The Christian Science Monitor he pulls this particular sentence: “In London there is an enormous immigration of children who speak Indian or Nigerian dialects, or some other native language” (qtd. in Achebe 349).  Achebe is offended by the use of the word “dialects”, declaring that it demotes the debate “to the level of Africa and India” (Achebe 349).  Frankly, that is a bit too hasty of a statement.  Achebe automatically jumps to the assumption of racism, but would a writing style concern not be more appropriate here?  Perhaps the author simply did not want to use the word “language” twice in the same sentence.  Redundancy is something writers often attempt to avoid.  If Achebe wanted his argument to seem more scholarly and factually driven, he should have avoided making wild accusations towards the entire Western population.

             The downfall of any argument is contradiction, and Achebe does this a few times throughout his essay.  The first instance is when Achebe points out Conrad’s overuse of adjectives and lengthy sentence structure.  He specifically says, “When a writer while pretending to record scenes, incidents and their impact is in reality engaged in inducing hypnotic stupor in his readers through a bombardment of emotive words and other forms of trickery much more has to be at stake than stylistic felicity” (Achebe 338).  What Achebe means by this is that Conrad hides his racism behind heavily worded phrases.  The reader is less likely to notice underlying meanings when the sentences are so complex he or she can barely understand them on a surface level.  Quoting Achebe directly here is important because it shows an almost humorous contradiction.  That contradiction is that Achebe himself seems to use the same difficult writing style that Conrad uses.  One could potentially argue that Achebe did this to be ironic, thus strengthening his point further.  However, Achebe uses this literary style throughout the entire essay.  Achebe is not being sardonic, he is being a hypocrite.  This hypocrisy could cause many readers to disregard the case Achebe makes as a serious issue.

            The next serious inconsistency in Achebe’s article is when he asserts that Conrad dehumanizes the Africans (Achebe 344).  However, just five pages before he says this, he quotes a passage in which Conrad directly mentions the Africans humanity (Achebe 339).  Funny enough, when Achebe mentions this, he uses it to illustrate Conrad’s racism.  Does it make sense that he then turns it around by saying the dehumanization of the Africans is why Conrad is racist?  Which is it, the claim of humanity or the lack thereof?  Conrad cannot be doing both at the same time with the same intention; it does not correlate.  Perhaps Achebe did not realize that he made this error, but certainly others have recognized it.

            Finally, Achebe takes the time to writes a series of paragraphs that at first seem to be making a good point until he ends with a sentence that completely makes it inconsequential.  Achebe begins with a story from a historian who described artwork from a tribe that did not live far from where Marlow travelled.  Once he finishes citing the historian, he says, “The point of all this is to suggest that Conrad’s picture of the peoples of the Congo seems grossly inadequate even at the height of their subjugation to the ravages of King Leopold’s International Association for the Civilization of Central Africa” (Achebe 347).  This is all well and good, except for the fact that Achebe seemingly fails to realize that Marlow spent the majority of his time in already established European stations and on a boat.  Obviously Marlow would not have seen the great things the tribes did because he never visited the tribes.  That is not even the main issue here, though, even if it is a large hole in Achebe’s debate.  The real fault Achebe makes is by ending with the words, “Indeed travelers can be blind” (Achebe 347).  In saying this, Achebe himself gives Conrad the excuse to why he failed to note the contributions Africans make to society.  By mentioning this, Achebe actually makes Conrad seems less racist.  This undoubtedly does not help Achebe make his allegation.

            While Achebe makes a valuable point, he could have done a better job of arguing it.  If he wanted to convince others that Conrad was a racist, he should have tried to be less obvious of his bias towards racism and Westerners.  Racism is a serious issue and should not be ignored, so it was good that someone finally brought up the fact that Conrad did have racist tendencies in his writing.  However, maybe someone else should have been the first to say it.  By being so contradictory and by using so many convoluted sentences, he surely lost a large audience.  Even people who believe that Conrad was a racist could see the flaws in Achebe’s argument and be convinced by those problems that Achebe’s main point is actually wrong.  Achebe tried to shine light on Joseph Conrad’s heart of darkness, but he really just gave those who would disagree more grounds to do so.

Works Cited

Achebe, Chinua. "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness." Paul

            B. Armstrong. 336-49.

Armstrong, Paul B, ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 

            2005.

Blog Assignment #3

            In July this year, an evangelical pastor named Terry Jones proposed to start a bonfire of Korans on September 11^th to protest Islam.  Believing that the Koran “is full of lies,” Jones claimed that he had the right to burn the Koran (“Far From Ground Zero”).  This statement could not be ignored and sparked widespread controversy, especially in the United States and the Middle East.  Many argued against the pastor, bringing up two issues in particular.  First, President Obama declared, “This stunt he is talking about pulling could greatly endanger our young men and women in uniform who are in Iraq, who are in Afghanistan” (Mackey).  Secondly, the matter of the world’s growing view of America’s supposed anti-Islamic sentiment was mentioned (“Far From Ground Zero”).  If the government allowed this holy book burning to occur, it would certainly alienate American Muslims as well as cause potential aggression and hatred from foreign Muslims.

            At first, these potential problems did not seem to sway Jones from his decision to burn the Koran.  Even after worldwide protest, death threats, hate mail, and his own community rejecting him, Jones was still adamant about “International Burn a Koran Day” (“Far From Ground Zero”).  Protests of the bonfire grew violent in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leading to the deaths of seventeen people (Erlanger and Healy).  These aggressive protests continued even when Jones began to rethink the Koran burning because the Muslims “were informed enough to see that he had not definitively backed down” (Nordland).

            On September 9^th, Terry Jones finally stated that his church would not burn the book.  He claimed that “God is telling us to stop” (“Pastor Cancels Burning”).  Jones did not take responsibility nor feel any remorse for the riots and deaths that stemmed from his proposed plan.  Instead, he actually said that he was grateful that these events transpired because they helped to prove his point.  His point was that Islam is radical and dangerous and should be rejected by the world.  He believes that the reaction to the potential Koran burning helped to show the world that his claim is indeed true (“Pastor Cancels Burning”).

            While the majority of people agreed that burning a holy book, even if it is not their religion’s holy book, is wrong, there were still many who sided with Terry Jones.  Those who did want to go through with the bonfire argued that Islam is dangerous and should not be practiced.  However, those who disagreed stated that most Muslims are not radical and rather passive.  Freedom of religion was also taken into account by those against the burning (Erlanger and Healy).  Destroying a religion’s holy relic is a form of religious persecution.  Even though it may seem like everyone should be against the burning of the Koran, or any holy book, there are still those who would argue otherwise.  Issues like this could very well rise again in the future; will they all be resolved as this one was?

Works Cited

Cave, Damien. “Far From Ground Zero, Obscure Pastor Is Ignored No Longer.” The

            New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Aug. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Cave, Damien. “Pastor Cancels Burning of Koran.” The New York Times. The New

            York Times, 11 Sept. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Erlanger, Steven and Jack Healy. “Planned Koran Burning Drew International Scorn.”

            The New York Times. The New York Times, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 5 Oct.

            2010.

Mackey, Robert. “Video of Obama’s Comments on Koran Burning.” The New York

            Times. The New York Times, 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Nordland, Rod. “Afghan Protests Against Koran Burning Turn Violent.” The New

            York Times. The New York Times, 10 Sept. 2010. Web. 5 Oct. 2010. 

Bibliography

Barnard, Anne and Manny Fernandez. “On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Rifts Amid

            Mourning.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2010. 

            Web. 5 Oct. 2010.

Blog Assignment #2

            Chinua Achebe’s critical essay of Heart of Darkness is one of the first to directly accuse Conrad of being racist.  Achebe makes statements such as, “Joseph Conrad was a thoroughgoing [bloody] racist” and, “The question is whether or not a novel which celebrates this dehumanization, which depersonalizes a portion of the human race, can be called a work of art” (Achebe 343-344).  It is quite clear that Achebe believes Conrad was a racist.  While this essay does make many good points, it also has its weaknesses, one of which is particularly bothersome.

            Overall, the essay makes a fine argument.  It points out key passages in the novella and dissects them to unearth Conrad’s racist undertones.  For example, he quotes the two bits of the novel in which the Africans speak.  Achebe begins by saying that “these instances might be mistaken for unexpected acts of generosity from Conrad”, but then goes on to say, “In reality they constitute as some of his best assaults” (Achebe 341).  In the first sentence, Achebe brings up a possible counter-argument, but immediately defaces it.  He continues on with just how the natives speaking truly was a racist insult.  Mentioning counter-arguments only to destroy them is an effective way to make a case and sway people in the direction one wants.

            Now, it may seem as if nothing is wrong with Achebe’s essay, but that is not entirely accurate.  At the beginning of the essay, the author mentions two separate real-life stories in which he supposedly encounters racism.  The second of which is of a high school student who sent Achebe a letter after reading Achebe’s book Things Fall Apart.  The student expresses his excitement about learning the customs and superstitions of an African tribe (Achebe 357).  Achebe, after telling this brief tale, says, “The young fellow from Yonkers . . . is obviously unaware that the life of his own tribesmen in Yonkers, New York, is full of odd customs and superstitions and, like everybody else in his culture, imagines that he needs a trip to Africa to encounter those things” (Achebe 357).  There are some serious accusations in that statement that do not seem to have much ground.  The student was simply happy to learn of another culture, and Achebe condemns him for that, which is hardly fair.  Yes, the town of Yonkers does indeed have its own customs and superstitions, but they are entirely different from those in a town in Africa.  Perhaps Achebe is harboring some grudge against students, or perhaps Achebe himself is racist.  He assumes that all the people in Yonkers share the same views as the student, that they are all racist.  It is certainly not acceptable to claim that all white people are racist.  Maybe Achebe should have analyzed himself before he judged Conrad.

            Achebe is a great literary debater, however he is not perfect.  It is good that someone decided to write on Conrad’s potential racism, but it might have been more affective coming from someone with a little less bias.  Surely many people have ignored Achebe’s essay because of this.  While that may not be reasonable, it is a cold fact.  When arguing a position, sometimes it is better to not put as much obvious emotion in it as Achebe did.

Works Cited

Achebe, Chinua. "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's Heart of Darkness." Paul B. Armstrong. 336-49.

Armstrong, Paul B, ed. Heart of Darkness. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.

Essay #1

“Marlow was a Punk-Ass Bitch”: The Story of how Marlow did Nothing

            In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, the main character, Marlow, finds himself in the midst of an ethical struggle.  As he witnesses the cruel treatment of fellow human beings, he must make a choice.  Does he help them, join in with the slave driving, or maintain a neutral stance on the situation?  Considering this is a fictional story, one would tend to assume Marlow would become the hero to the slaves.  After all, fiction usually shows the protagonist from an idealistic perspective.  However, Marlow is not the usual “hero” to a story.  Marlow does not join the company’s employees who force the slaves to labor under brutal conditions, but does that make him better than them?  That is the key question.  Morals and inward sympathy alone do not make a person better than someone with different morals and thoughts.  Action is what really sets people apart.  At least, it is in the eyes of humans and society.  Marlow seems to view the treatment of the slaves with a vague air of disgust and pity, and he seems to find the issue ethically wrong; however, he never really does anything about it.

            As Marlow describes what he sees of the native slaves, the overall tone of his language makes it clear that he pities them.  The first time he observes the slaves, they are walking up a hill carrying baskets of dirt on their heads.  “I could see every rib, the joints of their limbs were like knots in a rope, each had an iron collar on his neck and all were connected together with a chain whose bights swung between them, rhythmically clinking,” Marlow depicts the dejected men (15).  Marlow is already beginning to realize that the natives are being poorly treated.  The men are obviously not well fed and are being worked to the point of utter exhaustion.  The scene mildly disturbs Marlow, and he says, “Instead of going up I descended to the left.  My idea was to let that chain-gang get out of sight before I climbed the hill” (16).  He does not want to walk with them because he does not want to continue watching the wretched beings.  Unlike the driver of these slaves, Marlow has some heart, some feeling for the natives.  He realizes that they are fellow humans and dislikes seeing them in such a condition.  Marlow thinks these slaves are in a poor state, but this sight is nothing compared to what he stumbles upon when he reaches the station.

            When Marlow arrives at the station, he strolls into the “grove of death”, where he is shocked by what he finds (19).  He begins to illustrate the horrid scene, saying, “My purpose was to stroll into the shade for a moment, but no sooner within than it seemed to me I had stepped into the gloomy circle of some Inferno” (16).  Already, he is calling the place a Hell.  Marlow is clearly taken by surprise by what he continues to communicate to his audience.  “Black shapes crouched, lay, sat between the trees, leaning against the trunks, clinging to the earth, half coming out, half effaced within the dim light, in all attitudes of pain, abandonment, and despair,” he declares of the dying natives (17).  If Marlow did not feel sympathy towards these individuals, he would have continued through the trees with maybe only a passing comment on the slaves.  Using words like “pain” and “despair”, he shows that he commiserates with the natives.  He proceeds to say:

They were dying slowly-it was very clear.  They were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing earthly now, nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation lying confusedly in the greenish gloom.  Brought from the recesses of the coast in all the legality of time and contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and rest.  (17)

The reason he says the natives are not enemies or criminals is because earlier he mentions that they are referred to as criminals by the Europeans (16).  Decaying under these trees, they are certainly not dangerous felons.  These passive, now seemingly unearthly beings are allowed to “rest”, but in reality they are just going away to die.  Marlow realizes that the natives are fading, and that the Europeans are the reason for their suffering.

Farther into the novella, Marlow not only does nothing for the natives, but now he does not even want to hear of their plight.  The Russian, Kurtz’s follower, begins to describe what the natives do for Kurtz.  Marlow interrupts, shouting, “I don’t want to know anything of the ceremonies used when approaching Mr. Kurtz” (58).  To Marlow, it does not seem right to make the natives act in such a way towards someone who has done nil for them except murder, cheat, and rob.  He goes on to say, “I had no idea of the conditions, he said: these heads were the heads of rebels. I shocked him excessively by laughing.  Rebels!  What would be the next definition I was to hear.  There had been enemies, criminals, workers‒and these were‒rebels” (58).  The heads he refers to are the shrunken heads placed on stakes around Kurtz’s hut.  These heads were the heads of natives who most likely did nothing except disobey Kurtz.  Marlow, reminiscent of when he allowed the chained natives to pass out of sight before, avoids the reality of the slaves’ lives.

            If Marlow was an ordinary fictional hero, he would have done something incredible to save the slaves, but he is not one such protagonist.  One might assume that Marlow commit some act to save the slaves.  After all, he obviously finds the treatment of the natives ethically wrong and cruel.  Unfortunately, he does not do much of anything.  Marlow describes a young man with vacant, dying eyes.  Moved by the sight of this man, he makes a gesture of kindness.  “I found nothing else to do but offer him one of my good Swede’s ship’s biscuits I had in my pocket,” Marlow expresses his good deed (17).  It is not much of a feat, though, is it?  He does not go to the station to steal provisions for all of the natives in the grove.  He does not petition the manager of the station to give them more sustenance.  All he does is offer one measly biscuit to a man who barely has the strength to accept the item.  Yes, the action does seem kind, but it is hardly selfless.  One could argue that Marlow really was trying to help the native, and that he really was helping to save the other man’s life.  Although, it is much more likely that Marlow simply did this to make himself feel better, so he could tell himself later that he did not just walk away.  Obviously one biscuit would not save the dying man’s life, and it would barely even ease his passing.

            Now, theoretically one could say that by doing nothing, Marlow was actually being noble.  In comparison to the other Europeans who were enforcing the endless toil, it could seem this way.  How is inaction ever helpful, though, especially in a situation such as this?  The fact of the matter is that it is not.  Doing nothing does not save any of the natives.  It actually, in one circumstance, does the exact opposite.  During a small battle with the natives, Marlow’s helmsman gets stabbed by a spear and dies (45-46).  Marlow later blames the helmsman’s own imprudence for this tragedy, saying, “Poor fool!  If he had only left that shutter alone.  He had no restraint, no restraint . . . ” (51).  The shutter he refers to was the shutter that protected the pilot-house from the outside elements.  The helmsman did indeed open the shutter to fire at the natives that were attacking the steamer, but Marlow, knowing that they were being shot at with arrows, made no attempt to stop the helmsman (45).  One could suggest that Marlow was caught up in the moment and was not thinking, but if he truly cared, he could have saved the helmsman.  Perhaps he did not want to risk his own life in an attempt to save the helmsman’s.  This would correspond to his earlier neglect of the slaves’ circumstances solely on the basis of him not wanting to deal with the issues.

While Marlow never joins the slave driving, he also never does anything to stop it.  Now, in real life, who, if placed into a situation like Marlow’s, would do anything different?   Not many people outside of novels commit great deeds and save lives.  For example, slavery has been abolished in today’s world, but there are people who still work in detrimental environments that are nearly as terrible.  Big companies enforce sweat shop labor so they can make larger profits.  Taking into account the inhumane conditions the employees of sweat shops are forced to endure, one would think that companies that use sweat shops would be boycotted by the public.  However, the masses simply chose to ignore the facts of sweat shop labor and continue to purchase goods from these companies.  The workers within these corporations also avert their gaze, pretending that forced labor does not exist anymore.  Bearing in mind this real life example, it is not so difficult to see why Marlow did nothing about the situation the natives endured.  Undoubtedly, this does not mean that what he did was morally or ethically correct.  It does make the novella quite realistic, though.  Conrad knew what he was doing when he designed Marlow to be like any other average person.

Works Cited

Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2005.