blog #4

The article The Challnge of Cultural Relativism is completely true in the fact that each culture has its own customs and that their customs are “right.” This is shown perfectly through the experiment Darius had done. I think the theory of Cultural Relativism is totally true as well, and that not only do morals change as you go to different cultures, but also as you go through different time periods in the same culture. For example, slavery was once widely accepted a few hundred years ago. However, today it is looked down upon in our culture. The only problem I see with this theory being plausible in today’s world, or even in the future, is that people will always be trying to force their customs and morals onto others. This article reminds me a lot of how I was feeling when I read Things Fall Apart. Not in the fact that I thought their culture and customs were wrong, just that it was weird and different to what I was used to. For example, the kola nut custom was nothing I had ever heard of before, so it was a new thing for me to have learned. And how the Africans had a “forbidden forest” where they put twins and miscarriage babies and those that had done something to disgrace themselves, such as if someone hanged oneself. Within the novel, this is kind of like how the white man was towards the Africans way of life when the white men were introduced, and vice versa. The white men were shocked that Okwonko’s friends couldn’t even take him down after he hanged himself and that they had many gods. The Africans found it weird that the white men had “iron horses” and had only one god. In our society, Cultural Relativism is seen in the Muslim extremists. They are viewed as heroes in their own culture because they attack the “evil land” of America. Of course we see them as being terrorists and that their way of life is wrong because we’re the ones they are attacking. However, our government would step in even if it wasn’t us they were attacking, because we find it necessary to force our customs onto others because we are “right.” This tendency is probably what caused the terrorists to attack us in the first place. And this “forcing of one’s customs onto others” has been around forever, like when all the missionary work was being done years and years ago, and will always be around because it is human nature to want to be dominant over someone and to have them follow your ways.

blog #3

Quote/statement - "In the study of Beowulf, the character of the hero and the theme of the poem seem both to require and to resist separate analyses. Edward B. Irving Jr. makes theme and character one when he claims that "to write of the hero in Beowulf is to write of everything in the poem." Peter Clemoes concurs: "in an important sense, the hero IS the poem." In contrast, Kathryn Hume separates the poem's representation of the hero and its essentail meaning: "were the poem centered on Beowulf himself, we would expect to learn something about him as a person." She claims that the poem gives us Beowulf's deeds and public speeches but no "private thoughts or personal hopes or misgivings," not even "characterizing features," save for "extraordinary strength." Similarily, John Niles argues that the poem's audience "cannot really identify itself with Beowulf the man...He outdistances us and becomes part of the marvelous machinery of the plot, like Grendel or the dragon. We know too little of his everyday humanity, his normal human feelings, to be able to see him as an extension of ourselves."

response- I agree with Edward B. Irving Jr.'s and Peter Clemoes' statements in that Beowulf IS in fact the poem. I agree because without Beowulf, there would be no poem, and with no poem, there would be no Beowulf. But I mainly agree with this because I disagree with the argumentative statements by the critics. John Niles’ statement that the reader can’t sympathize with Beowulf is not a sufficient argument either. I think we weren’t meant to sympathize with Beowulf due to the fact that he is superhuman and fights monsters, like the dragon. Obviously we normal people don’t deal with that in our everyday lives, or at all in our lives for that matter, because dragons don’t exist, so it would be impossible for us to see him as an extension of ourselves due to the fact that basically the whole poem is about fantasy. Kathryn Hume’s statement that Beowulf has no soliloquies or even a physical description of himself is true. However, those things are obviously not needed in the poem since it is regarded as a classic and is world famous.

quote/ statement - "Despite the possibilities, few critics have set out to examine Beowulf as an imagained person. the most influential critical essay on the poem, Tolkien's "Beowulf: The monsters and the critics" left no room for the project. Tolkien foreground the monsters and the monstrous, thereby leaving Beowulf at the poem's periphery. For Tolkien, theme, the the character of the hero, is central and the poem's theme is the threat to human order posed by the monstrous, as illustrated in the hero's battle against Grendel and the dragon. For Tolkien, the poem is about the onslaught of the monsters-not quite allegorized into transparent representations of Christian notion of evil-against mankind, whose champion is an everyman without personal qualities or human contexts, a hero with "no enmeshed loyalties, nor hapless love"-"He is a man that for him and many is sufficient tragedy." Tolkien's Beowulf is "something more significant than a standard hero, a man faced with a foe more evil than any human enemy...is before us" Tolkien's Beowulf is significant and signifies but has no character at all."

Response- I believe that Beowulf is an imagined person. I agree with Tolkien in this because, like I said earlier, he has superhuman strength and fights dragons. Now, there have been other characters throughout other literary works with these characteristics and attributes, such as Superman and Harry Potter (in the Goblet of Fire), respectively, and both of those people are imaginary. Also, like Tolkien says, “Beowulf is significant and signifies but has no character at all.” This is true because, like stated by Hume, we get no insight on his “private thoughts or personal hopes or misgivings,” so, to the reader, Beowulf has hardly any character.

blog #2

An issue that is brought up in one of the works that we have read is alienation and/ or being a social outcast. In the story Grendel, Grendel is a social our cast and is alienated as well. He is a social outcast because he is different from everybody else. Grendel just watches the world from the surrounding areas, usually perched in a tree. He would just sit there and observe the villages and make comments about how they are always drunk and singing and making threats to everyone and all the other villages. Although, this seclusion was brought upon by himself not wanting to be involved with the humans, he does get alienated by them. One night, Grendel goes to the mead hall asking for help from the humans, but instead of lending a helping hand, they attack him with spears and drive him away from their mead hall. This alienation by the villagers caused Grendel to become even more of a social outcast. I think this is bad that this happens in the real world, because it can emotionally scar a child if they are alienated and/ or become a social outcast. Those who have just moved to a new town are especially susceptible to this kind of treatment because they do not know anyone. For example, I have moved a lot, and when I would first move in and school would start, I wouldn’t know anyone and I’d feel left out and alone, like a social outcast. Lucky for me, though, these experiences did not emotionally scar me.

blog #1

A controversial issue in today's society that is brought up in one of the works we have read is bullying. this issue was raised in the Power of One. Bullying is a major part of Peekay's life while in the boarding school. The amount of bullying and intensity of his bullying, however, made me look at it as basically torture. the judge and his peons were so cruel to peekay. like when peekay is forced to hold the metal rod at arms length for as long as he could, and if he got a worse time then the last session, he would be beaten. or like when he was forced to eat someone's poop. this kind of experience, especially in a small child, would be horrifying and would scar them for the rest of his or her life. although this torture turned peekay into a better person, the bullying that goes on in the real world usually makes the victim more susceptible to depression, and the like. in extreme cases, unfortunately, the victim will either commit suicide or bring a gun to school and kill others, or possibly even both. if bullying always resulted in the positive output that peekay had, then bullying wouldn't be so looked down upon. like i said earlier, though, it usually results in the negatives. i think it is unfortunate that bullying occurs, especually since the bully-er is just making himself or herself feel better about the insecruities they have about themselves by pointing them out in others, and most times exaggerating the severity of them. like with the judge. i think he picked on peekay, not just because he was a rooinek, but because of the fact that the judge was not smart at all, and he felt that having power over a defenseless little boy made up for that lack of intelligence. this example is how a stereotypical bully scenario is seen as- a person bigger, and whom usually is dumb, picks on a smaller child than he or she is. another typical bullying scenario is the jock against the athletically challenged (or just a talented person against a not talented person). this scenario doesn't come up against peekay in the power of one, though, because he is very good at boxing, and he is good at rugby as well.