New Beginnings

Tonight on New Years Eve the world is waiting till the clock strikes 12:00 to ring in another year and bring about the changes they hope to find in the new year. As the world sits waiting for the clock it's interesting to think that time is a human construct that was created in order to give our lives order and structure in the everlasting chaos that surrounds us. In Waiting For Godot Estragon and Vladimir have no semblance of time and remain waiting for the mysterious man known as Godot without any real clue as to when he will or will not arrive. The lack of "time" leads to their constant questioning of what they are doing and why and is a common theme that can be found within man. As man waits on the clock to strike, dictating what is to come in the new year, it lends me to question what would become of the world if "time" had not been created?

Would families gather to celebrate new beginnings and cherish the time their spending or would another day go by where loved ones forget to tell the ones they love most that they hope their future becomes what they want to make of it? I believe time allows us to remember the memories that are most important to us and gather those around us whom we love while we still can. Although it can seem to be a burden at times, a constant reminder of things we need to get done under a certain "time" constraint, I think ultimately time is important to who we are and how we develop. Estragon and Vladimir almost reduce them selves to suicide because they have no indicator of when time will finally bring what they are waiting for, and I feel without "time" as a measurement of things to come, this would be the fate of many more people. Overall I feel time is important to us and the new beginnings it brings are capable of changing the world and everyone waiting on that clock tonight.

Cultural Relativity

         My grandfather had four wives and 18 children. My father has one wife and four children. The stark contrast between these two statements couldn't be anymore apparent, but should one be viewed as wrong compared to the other? My father was born and raised in West Africa where the beliefs and cultures are more than different than those we have here in America. My father, for instance believes "stupid" is a curse word, and he used to think that you shouldn't sing at the dinner table. Interestingly enough he too was taught that whistling at night summons bad spirits, a belief I was surprised to have read about in "Things Fall Apart". Needless to say some of the ideas my father brought with him to America are seen as silly and impractical, but I don't feel that makes them any more right or wrong than the customs we practice here. 

         I think the thing that makes the world so great and beautiful is the diversity that can be found among us. I take pride in being able to say I have 17 aunts and uncles and an endless amount of cousins while some of my friends can't say the same. I love learning about the festivals my dad experienced as a child and the crazy adventures he used to have that were the norm over there, but would be seen as foolish over here. Sure there are practices and ideologies that I don't agree with simply because I grew up in America, but those same practices are what make that culture what it is. Times change and ideas change and one day our beliefs and cultures may overlap, but until then its safe to say that I can live my life my way and they can live theirs their way. In "Things Fall Apart" that is how I try to view the sometimes horrifying traditions and ideas that are presented. I don't agree with killing innocent children for an "eye for an eye" ideology, but there isn't much I can do to stop that belief. I will never have more than one spouse, but I don't look down upon it because I don't know what it means in that culture. I believe Cultural Relativity has a lot of truth to it and that people should pay attention to its core message because then we may not have some of the prejudice and bias in the world that we do now.

The Lowest Brain Capacity

   Due to the fact that we have just finished our satire thesis papers I decided I wanted to focus on one of the readings from that unit. Although we didn't read "The Lowest Animal" by Mark Twain as a class, I wanted to talk about some problems I personally had with the essay because it was the story I wrote my paper on. After reading "The Lowest Animal", it was easy to tell that Twain was commenting on the brutal nature of man and his innate corruption. Using satire, Twain stated that man was the "lowest animal" and had descended from animals due to his tendency for evil acts that "higher animals" wouldn't be possible of committing. However in claiming this I find a slight issue. Twain feels that man is low because he commits acts of injustice with a certain malice that animals don't; however these acts that man commits upon man; murder, thievery, and adultery, are apart of human nature and have been occurring since the dawn of time, due to the fact that man is able to rationalize what he is doing and go through with it whether he thinks he is wrong or right. Animals on the other hand commit these acts, or sins as some see them as, and get away with it in Twain's mind because they simply do not know better. Is it okay then to claim man is worse because he has the brain capacity to understand right and wrong whereas animals simply do not? My answer to this question is no. I feel to compare a man's wrongs against an animals wrongs would be like comparing a strawberry to a red pepper. Yes both are red and you can eat both, but beyond that they are on completely different wavelengths. To say a man should be held to a higher standard simply because his brain has a higher capacity for knowledge and evil is ridiculous at least to me, when comparing it to an animal who would never be able to understand the differences between right and wrong, charity and crime. This however, is solely how I feel on the issue between man and animal. 

   In the case of man compared to man I think certain exceptions can be applied. For example a young boy may steal bread from the neighbor next door to feed his starving family but another young boy may steal bread from the starving family. In both cases we know stealing to be wrong, but in the case of the boy trying to steal for his family we tend to have more sympathy and we see the second boy as wrong or corrupt. Ultimately I wanted to address this issue because I feel today we see a lot of people trying to argue they "didn't know better" when trying to get out of trouble: as in cases like the shooting of Michael Brown and recent drone killings of innocent people, when it is obvious that these cases are null. When a human takes another human life, they know what that means and they have the brain capacity to understand death. I feel that these people who make these decisions; to prey upon innocent people, to hurt the helpless, and to take from the needy; these are the people who should be considered the lowest animals of all.