During the nineteenth century, crime was a significant part of life on the Mississippi River. It was a frontier without much law enforcement, so the crime rate was very high. Crime was seen in daily life, and this theme is used by Mark Twain in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. It is a significant part in the story of Tom’s childhood and his journey to adulthood. The crimes start off small and grow into worse and worse crimes as the story continues. Twain investigates many different types of crimes, from petty to crimes that would earn one a life sentence today.
In the nineteenth century, America expanded through purchases like the Louisiana Purchase made by Thomas Jefferson. This new land was a new frontier, yet to have been thoroughly explored and very unpopulated. Because the new frontier was so vast and was slowly being populated, a prominent law enforcement system was not seen in the significantly spread out cities. Because of this lack of a justice system, criminals were very active in the frontier and the crime rate was very high because one could get away with the crime. A significant type of crime that occurred frequently on the Mississippi was piracy. Pirates were numerous along the waterway and committed crimes from stealing to murder. Pirates vandalized, robbed, captured, murdered, sunk ships, and sold goods. The owners were deceived or ambushed, and the pirates accomplished this by using the river to their advantage. They would use caves, rocks, cliffs, bushes, islands, river narrows, rapids, swamps, and marshes. Pirates played on the black market and vandalized foreign ships and sold the imported goods on the black market. Although this vandalizing of foreign ships helped the American economy in the frontier, it was still a common criminal activity on the waters of the Mississippi River.
In The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, piracy and treasure come into play toward the end of the book. First, Tom and his friends commit petty crimes leading up to the crimes that lead to the piracy. Some of the first crimes Tom commits are playing hooky from school and deceiving his aunt. This very first “crime” Tom commits appears in the first chapter. His aunt suspects he skipped school to go swimming, and Tom lies to his aunt about why his hair is wet. He almost gets away with the deception, but his cousin gives him away. His next crime is deceiving once again. Tom tricks his friends into doing his chore for him while also gathering trinkets from his friends. He deceives and steals from his friends. This shows part of Tom’s character. He is smart and uses his intelligence to outsmart people.
Tom and his friends desire to be criminals, another way crime is seen in the story. Tom wants to be a pirate and find treasure. Later on, Tom and his friends play Robin Hood, and the boys wish they could be outlaws for a year. Crime is also seen by Tom. Tom witnesses Dr. Robinson, Injun Joe, and Potter dig up a corpse in the graveyard. While the three adults are committing this crime, the men begin to argue because Potter demands for extra pay from Dr. Robinson. Dr. Robinson knocks out the drunken Potter and Injun Joe attacks Dr. Robinson with Potter’s knife, stabbing and killing Dr. Robinson. When Potter comes to, Injun Joe tells Potter he killed the doctor because Potter’s knife is still in the doctor. Potter believes Joe because he is still dazed and Injun Joe covers up his tracks. Tom witnesses three crimes: grave robbing, murder and lying.
Tom, Huck, and Joe Harper fulfill their dream of being pirates one night when they sneak off to Jackson’s Island. For this journey, the boys commit another petty crime. The boys steal some bacon to bring with them on the journey, and, after they eat the bacon, they reflect on their actions and feel remorse. One can see as the book progresses the crimes become worse, from lying to actually stealing something. Although the crimes are small, Twain shows the influence of choice in crime and the effect of a new unconquered, unsettled frontier and its main source of life, the river, have on one’s childhood. This effect can be seen on Twain’s childhood, and then the influence of his childhood in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer.
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer plays on many realistic crimes as the book progresses from Tom’s childhood to his adulthood. His dreams of being a pirate, an outlaw, being Robin Hood and looking for buried treasure turn to Tom and his friends encountering real outlaws, real criminals, actual crimes, and stolen treasure. Instead of playacting out these “heroic” roles, as the boys grow up, they begin to see the world as it really is. They begin to realize being pirates is not that great of a life. They realize outlaws are serious, real criminals who could harm them at any moment. The boys are faced with reality toward the end of the book and have to decide between good and evil. Tom has to choose whether or not to keep his mouth shut about the fact Injun Joe killed the doctor, not Potter. Huck has to decide to save Widow Douglas from being murdered by Injun Joe.
The realistic crimes seen in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer can be seen in the history of the Mississippi River. Twain, as he was growing up, encountered an uncivil frontier with that many outlaws. Twain witnessed two murders when he was a boy: the first one he watched a local man murder a cattle rancher, similar to Tom witnessing the murder of Dr. Robinson. These childhood experiences can be seen in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer through Tom’s adventure into adulthood and Huck’s adventure into adulthood as well. The effects of the history of the Mississippi River are prominent in the themes of this story. Twain brilliantly uses his personal experiences, like growing up in a town without strict law enforcement, to create depth to his story on the adventures of boyhood and the transition into adulthood.
As you may recall, 2015 was partly about returning to books I have loved and enjoyed for many years, as well as a continuation through the ever-expanding (and recently dismissed) Expanded Star Wars Universe. Last time, I mentioned I would include this time the book reviews for my latest read-through of two favored series of my youth, the oft-rejected Jedi Prince series by Paul and Hollace Davids, one of the earliest YA Star Wars series before the hoopla of recent years (especially this one), and my favorite series of all time, The Chronicles of Prydain, included later in this issue. As always, these are not thorough treatments of the works but merely initial reactions and reviews — perhaps they will be profitable anyway. Enjoy.
#1 — The Glove of Darth Vader ⭐⭐⭐
Sure, it’s a “kids” book, and the environmentalist push toward the end is in retrospect rather heavy-handed, but this isn’t all that bad. The dialogue is a bit goofy at times, but trying to capture famous characters is certainly a challenge, especially with so little material to base characterizations upon (3 movies is rather different from, say, 7 seasons of a TV series) — especially when intentionally watering their dialogue down for a younger audience. (Though the choice to transcribe Chewie’s and R2’s dialogue does get a bit annoying.) The book (and whole series) suffers from that “let’s only mention planets we’ve seen/heard of before” limitation, whether foisted upon the creative teams by the owning company or not, but if you can easily overlook that sort of thing, with the right attitude it adds to the familiarity of it all more than distracts. The time on Calamar is interesting enough while being fairly believable and credible for the Star Wars Universe (laying aside the notion a race intelligent enough to build large, powerful space craft should be able to overcome whaling).
The premise of the villain being a three-eyed mutant proclaiming to be the new Emperor feels initially goofy and “kid-book like,” especially when adding in the notion of “Darth Vader’s glove is indestructible and a symbol of power,” but those ideas are developed in rather impressive ways. The idea of Trioculus being the Emperor’s son may seem goofy, but it, too, is handled rather well when we find out it’s all a ruse concocted by the Grand Moffs who want to re-solidify their power and authority now that a large vacuum exists in the upper echelons of the Empire. This “kids’ book” has some rather intelligent components to it, such as the political machinations of the Grand Moffs as just mentioned, the glove of Darth Vader being useless for Trioculus since he isn’t a real Force user (and relies on technology that is killing him as part of the ruse), the Emperor’s real son is being kept locked away because he is supposedly insane — they may not sound like much here, but they do come together rather well, even with all the “kid book” goofiness (like the acronyms for everything and such). Still, this book has a fair amount of violence, death, threats, deception, and more, so its “kid book” status is somewhat dependent on your own maturity-level awareness. Not too shabby, after all — it has held up rather well.
#2 — The Lost City of the Jedi ⭐⭐⭐
This installment threatens to diminish the re-enjoyability of the series by introducing a young teen character, and while that would certainly appeal to the basic intended audience, somehow the book manages to elude that deadly pitfall for the most part. Ken, the mysterious “Jedi Prince,” is not in the book all that much, fortunately, especially since his scenes are the worst of the book: a droid just for correcting homework? a fairly well-adjusted human who grow up solely among droids? a worrying companion droid named Chip? Rather painful, though I suspect it didn’t bother me too much the first time I read this twenty-some years ago. As I said, fortunately Ken and his droids are in it infrequently and more time is spent on Trioculus and his plans to take full command of the Empire
This installment’s “New Mother Nature” moment is the anti-slash-and-burn deforestation of tropical rainforests conflict toward the end, but that’s a good idea anyway (just like not killing whales is a good idea), so it isn’t intrusive. It is even worked into the main story better with the herbs and seeds Trioculus needs to heal his wounds are imperiled by his own destructive orders, causing him even more pain. The only really irritating part of the book is the rhyming botanist alien guy, but he’s not in it too much, either.
One of the more enjoyable aspects of the book is how well it picks up where the last one left off, continuing the basic storylines and character directions intelligently. Han’s desire to take a break from the Rebellion and restore a life and place for himself is rather believable, even when it conflicts with his love for Leia. It’s rather believable, considering his plans at the beginning of Episode V (it’s easy to overlook things like that). Trioculus continues his Glove of Darth Vader scheme of convincing the Dark Force Prophets to make him Emperor well, and the intelligent writing comes through again with the Prophets not being all that Force adept after all, relying more on trickery, spies, and technology more than actual Force skill. Episode IV did try to tell us Darth Vader was the last of the Force users (since the Emperor was keeping his secrets and all).
True, the “Lost City of the Jedi” doesn’t seem all that sensible, especially with the whole holocron thing taking over later, but it kinda works, I suppose. Why Luke wasn’t raised there instead of Tatooine, well, who knows. It’s just something you sort of have to go with. On the whole, it was much better than I remember it being, which may say more about my memory of books I read 20 years ago than the book itself, but there it is.
#3 — Zorba the Hutt’s Revenge ⭐⭐⭐
I am tempted to go for 4 stars with this one, even with its goofiness. It’s an impressively compact work with interesting conflicts primarily between the competing villains and interesting character developments (if somewhat far-fetched, even for Star Wars). Sure, the notion of Jabba’s dad getting revenge may seem juvenile, but not when you consider what Liam Neeson has been up to lately, movie-wise. The “Jabba’s will” plot device is also a bit goofy, but hey, it works fine for complicating the action quickly and efficiently.
Sending Lando packing seems far-fetched, but it’s not really inconsistent with Lando, at least if you take Neil Smith’s books as “true enough” for our purposes. Zorba’s and Trioculus’s fight over Leia is rather enjoyable, especially since it gives us a look at other stuff in the universe without having to focus on the good guys all the time. Han’s squashed hopes for being a homeowner are part of the goofiness, but it somehow fits rather well also, and I doubt he would have wanted to stay in Cloud City with Jabba’s dad as governor, anyway. The Mother Earth Crime of the Novel is the dangers of air pollution (braze = brown haze), and though it is much more prominent than in the earlier two novels, it fits far better throughout the novel with what happens and is not just a climax-plot-contrivance device as it sort of was before. Even the brief Ken episodes don’t get as silly and irritating as they could have. This was a surprisingly refreshing quick read. It almost makes one wish the “grown-up” Star Wars books didn’t have all that literary shilly-shallying.
#4 — Mission from Mount Yoda ⭐⭐⭐
Kicking off the second mini-trilogy, Mission from Mount Yoda brings a new tenor to the series (as much as possible for a “kids book” series). The base of rebel operations moves from Yavin 4 to Dagobah, and the Empire is also making big changes. The Prophets of the Dark Side, seeing their opportunity to take control now that Trioculus is in carbonite, make a very drastic move and basically steal Trioculus’s body and destroy it, and Kadann declares himself the new ruler of the Empire. Time passes in a strange way in this series, but we get the basic sense enough time passes for information to get spread around where it needs to be spread. An interesting component of this entry is the antagonism between the Dark Prophets and Grand Moff Hissa, and while the whole Dark Prophets thing seems to contradict Tarkin in Episode IV (when he says Darth Vader is the last of the adherents to the Force, since he must not know the Emperor was Sith, too), it adds an interesting layer to the Empire, with the political moffs antagonistic to the Dark Force users. Hissa pays a heavy price for his loyalty shifts, but we almost feel sympathy for him, considering the terrible pressures upon him by all sides (almost).
Another engaging aspect of this story, so to speak, is the relationship of Han and Leia: the authors add some friction to their relationship, slowing down Han’s romantic fervor, even making him question his desire to marry her. While that sort of thing is usually irritating in a romantic comedy, its brevity and believeability come across very well, even for a “kids’ book.” It adds just enough of a twist to prolong things without being nonsensical, and the rest of the story adds enjoyable components and moments that make their relationship a bit richer.
Similarly, the “Ken is a teenager” subplot again threatens to diminish the enjoyable nature of this for older readers, what with the sort of inane “he has to start school” idea (inane considering he has been raised in the secret Library of the Jedi — the boy knows almost more than our heroes; he’s certainly had more formal education than Luke!), but it is again brief, ends quickly, and we get back to better action soon enough. At least the authors came up with some slightly plausible reasons for why he has to go to school, indicating his Jedi Library education didn’t cover everything (though, he is lacking in mostly practical things, which is a cautionary tale against the purpose of education).
The Environmental Problem of the Week is toxic waste dumping, and surprisingly our heroes cannot solve the problem this time. Instead, they aid the sufferers and rescue a civilization’s historic art treasures and basically abandon the problem. That gives the story a strange authenticity: they can’t just magically counteract decades of toxic waste dumping. Let this be a lesson to you, First World countries. Finally, we meet Triclops, and his connection to Ken and knowledge of Ken’s secret past are hinted at well without dragging the story down. The authors do a fine job of wrapping up this story while setting up eager anticipation for what comes next. This series is rather impressive, I must say.
#5 — Queen of the Empire ⭐⭐⭐
I’d go with 2.5 stars, but I’m rounding up simply for sentimentality’s sake. This is certainly the weakest of the series, though some of it is understandable in that it is trying to be a bit lighthearted before the big slam-bang finish up next. In a way, though, structurally, this book is impressive since the beginning events and ending events mirror each other well — and though we just said it was the most lighthearted and goofiest of the entries, it begins and ends with rather serious occurrences. Another weakness is the dialogue, which has always been a bit of an issue for this series (and all Star Wars books, pretty much), but this time some of the characters say and do things that don’t always feel all that consistent. The coincidences of characters all showing up at the same place is another regular trope in this series, but here it feels even more forced and convenient than usual, especially with Ken and Luke just showing up in the nick of time at the end with the HRD and whatnot.
Finding Lando as an administrator of a new planet is a good part of the book, in that is shows us a little “passage of time” idea and how resourceful Lando is: he doesn’t depend on the Alliance for everything all the time. That was probably the best part of the book, even though it is tied in to some rather silly sorts of things (like Han and Leia eloping at a Hologram Amusement Park thing). The Triclops subplot gets a little momentum, and the Trioculus plot is taken in very unexpected directions, so those are good.
The Ecological Problem of the Week is barely mentioned, and rather weird, dealing sort of with the weather effects of having too many milk-producing bats or something like that. I’m not quite sure what it was, but it only affects the Falcon for a bit (cleverly tying in to moments of the last story, briefly) and our heroes don’t even bother trying to address it or consider it, and it’s over before the third chapter.
Overall, some good moments, and some rather shocking and surprising twists at the end, but despite some clever structure and Lando moments, it’s on the whole the weakest of the bunch (but, hey, one of them had to be).
#6 — Prophets of the Dark Side ⭐⭐⭐⭐
I’m a bit confused by the antagonism for this book, especially considering what it is and when it was. I also don’t understand all the hagiographic idolatry of Peter Pan, but that just seems to encourage me I’m understanding things like reality better than a lot of other people. Let’s note four impressive things about this book: (a bit spoiler-filled here, sorry — skip this section if you want to read it yourself):
– The main villain of the series, Trioculus, is killed in the first few pages of this book. True, we did think he was killed earlier in the series, and he hasn’t caused all that much difficulty to anyone beyond air pollution and rain deforestation (not to ignore the ignominy he caused Princess Leia), but with all the times villains and heroes have been rescued and restored from death and seeming-death, the fact the main antagonist is finally killed in the opening of the final book of the series is impressive.
– The main supporting villain, Grand Moff Hissa, is also killed off in a manner cleverly foreshadowed earlier in the book, despite the fact he too has survived other near-death experiences in the series. He even is allowed a bit of nobility toward the end, and we come quite close to feeling sorry for him by the time of his demise.
– The long-running plot thread of Prince Ken and his mysterious origins is brought to a fairly satisfying conclusion, still with a bit of mystery open for exploring in further books or series (though totally ignored in other Star Wars adventures). What’s perhaps most impressive is the absence of any “reunion” scene: we could have expected the typical low-brow pre-teen father/son reunion with years of heartache and mystery erased in one hug and a paragraph, but we don’t get any of that resolution, giving us a perhaps more realistic (and grown up?) ending/non-ending. Ken now has to live with his origins and be his own man. Yes, it is similar to Luke’s story in Episodes IV-VI, but it is different enough to be worthwhile.
– Similarly, in the blink of an eye, Ken’s old life is effectively shut off from him perhaps forever — his youth and old home and droid friends/instructors are shut down and he basically can’t go back. Very few of us have had the access to our youth so wholly eliminated as Ken has at the end of the story. Yes, there is the unstated possibility of reactivating the Lost City, but all the characters sound like they have no intention of doing that, even if the trapped villains escape and leave us with no reason to keep the Lost City unplugged. That’s pretty tough.
It’s not Tolstoy, no, but considering what it is, from when it was, how well it wraps up so many of the threads from the first five books, leaves us with fairly shocking conclusions and open-ended non-resolutions (intentionally, not just forgotten components), this is an enjoyable and impressive finish to a far-more decent series than a lot of people seem to credit it.
Dylan Thomas was born on October 27, 1914. He left school at age 16 to become a reporter and writer. His most famous poem, “Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night,” was published in 1952. In 1931, at the age of 16, Thomas dropped out to become a junior reporter at the South Wales Daily Post. His position didn’t last long, since he quit in 1932 and turned his attention away from journalism back to poetry. Thomas soon found success in “And Death Shall Have No Dominion,” published in 1933 in the New English Weekly, marking his first international publication. This poem sent Thomas to England in 1933 to meet with editors of English literary magazines. His published efforts brought Thomas praise and honors, including the 1934 Poet’s Corner Prize. This period was also when his lifelong struggle with alcohol abuse began. To support his family, Thomas worked for BBC as a scriptwriter during World War II. He was exempted from fighting due to a lung condition. Even with this he still struggled financially. He was unable to keep up with taxes he owed. Even with Thomas in high demand for his animated readings, debt and heavy drinking took their toll. He died in New York City while on tour in 1953, at age 39.
“And Death Shall Have No Dominion” was Dylan Thomas’s international breakthrough. This poem has 3 stanzas with no definitive rhyming structure. This poem is definitely a perplexing one upon first read. My first guess as to what this poem was referring to was World War II. I couldn’t however put the pieces together on how it related. This link to World War II is shot down in the first stanza.
And death shall have no dominion.
Dead man naked they shall be one
With the man in the wind and the west moon;
When their bones are picked clean and the clean bones gone,
They shall have stars at elbow and foot;
Though they go mad they shall be sane,
Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again;
Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion.
There is no mention or link to World War II or any other war. It deals more with death than anything else. After doing some research as to the meaning, one possible explanation is such: “The title of the poem is derived from the biblical passage in Paul’s epistle to Romans, chapter 6 and verse 9. The poet showcases the reality of death and also gives it a good meaning. He lets us see the beauty behind death.… The dead persons who have gone ahead of us have timeless values. The memory of our dead loved ones lives with us” (poetandpoems.com). The author, following the logic of this explanation, is trying to tell us death has no victory over man; the loved ones we have lost will always be with us. It does not matter whether they are physically with us, what matters is they are in our hearts. This is a very biblical concept found in 1 Corinthians 15:55, which states “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (ESV). We even see in the 7th line the idea the dead shall rise again. “Though they sink through the sea they shall rise again.” These are very powerful words. This type of poetry would sooth very real hurt in WW2 Britain.
The second stanza is just as deep as the first stanza, yet it deals with seemingly the same issues but in a different aspect of war.
And death shall have no dominion.
Under the windings of the sea
They lying long shall not die windily;
Twisting on racks when sinews give way,
Strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break;
Faith in their hands shall snap in two,
And the unicorn evils run them through;
Split all ends up they shan’t crack;
And death shall have no dominion
This stanza is dealing with the sea and presumably the navy. He is talking about all the souls lost at sea during, again presumably, WW2. But even here we see the theme of the dead returning to the living. Death has no dominion in the sea, and the sailors shall be freed from their sunken vessels and released from the temporary prison of death. They are “strapped to a wheel, yet they shall not break.” This stanza, while seemingly gloomy and dark at first, is actually quite the opposite. He is giving the families of the soldiers, and now the sailors, hope of their one day return.
The third and final stanza is more upfront with the reader. It talks about what happens after life.
And death shall have no dominion.
No more may gulls cry at their ears
Or waves break loud on the seashores;
Where blew a flower may a flower no more
Lift its head to the blows of the rain;
Though they be mad and dead as nails,
Heads of the characters hammer through daisies;
Break in the sun till the sun breaks down,
And death shall have no dominion.
Even in death the author proposes death has no dominion. Once we die, once “a flower may a flower no more / Lift its head to the blows of the rain,”we are free from death and its domain. The author’s point is death is only momentary; even in death we don’t lose our loved ones. We, the survivors of human conflict, will always hold the ones we loved close to our hearts, where death has no dominion. This is true regardless pf the circumstance of loss. This is true about grief. We as humans often refuse to give up on those we love; it is not in our nature to leave behind someone we love. We will defend them and their memory until we one day pass away, too. This is the point the author is making, that death has no dominion over the living, but also it has no dominion over the dead.
One’s chief interest in the life of any great thinker is to determine those influences which seemed to have had the greatest impact on their life and work. Considering this, this paper will only touch briefly on those influences which left a deep and lasting mark on George Sand.
Sand was born Amantine-Lucile-Aurore Dupin on July 1, 1804 in Paris, France. Notorious for her bohemian lifestyle in life, she is now hailed as representing the epitome of French romantic idealism. She demanded the freedom of living that was commonplace for men of her time for herself and for those of her own gender. Called Aurore in her youth, she was brought up at Nohant, near La Châtre in Berry, the country home of her grandmother. There she gained the profound love and understanding of the countryside that later informed many of her works. In 1817 she was sent to a convent in Paris, where she acquired a mystical fervor that, though it soon abated, left its mark. For while within the strict environment, Sand turned to reading. The long hours of girlhood with little companionship were filled with entirely unguided literary exploration. She filled her imagination with Montesquieu, Locke, Aristotle, La Bruyère, Pope, Milton, Byron, Dante, Bacon, Virgil, Shakespeare — but above all these her influence was Pousseau, that patron saint quoted and followed through many years. During her adolescence, an ever-constant quarrel over her between the noble grandmother and by no means stupid mother played a great part in her confusion of social standards.
She married in 1822 to a man far older, unintellectual, and overall vastly her inferior. As Providence would have it, separation came ten years later. Aurore, now Madame Dudevant, started for Paris, leaving her two children, along with years of unhappiness and moral struggle, behind her. Her unhappiness was never suspected by those around her. It is the opinion of some Sand married passively, as she did in all outward acts of her life. She seemed to pour more intimate musings of herself into her novels than she did in relationships. The modern reader, however, reading the early novels so full of domestic unhappiness cannot but doubt whether any imagination, no matter how vivid, could have produced them by untrained bitterness.
George Sand was particularly susceptible to her environment, particularly the influence of men in her environment. This produced a writer of many sides and with many wide and deep sympathies. Through her novels one can see a shift in style here, or a change in tone there that was influenced by whatever great mind she was surrounded by at the time. She admitted herself too easily influenced later in life, saying she had tired herself out by chasing too many ideas. Throughout all of her works, though, her key themes remain: 1) the independence of women, 2) the sovereignty of the people, 3) a deep religious faith, and 4) a profound love for nature and real art. It is often noticeable in defending these beliefs she tried so hard to promote Sand often grew tired of the struggle, and at these moments she returned to her ever-constant solace — her constant appreciation of nature and its God.
In January 1831 she left Nohant for Paris, where she found a good friend in Henri de Latouche, the director of the newspaper Le Figaro, who accepted some of the articles she wrote with Jules Sandeau under the pseudonym Jules Sand. In 1832 she adopted a new pseudonym, George Sand, for Indiana, a novel in which Sandeau had no part. That novel, which brought her immediate fame, is a passionate protest against the social conventions that bind a wife to her husband against her will and an apologia for a heroine who abandons an unhappy marriage and finds love. In Valentine (1832) and Lélia (1833) the ideal of free association is extended to the wider sphere of social and class relationships.
While her fame grew, so did the list of her lovers. It eventually included, among others, Prosper Mérimée, Alfred de Musset, and Frédéric Chopin. She remained unchanged by Musset’s skeptical views as well as Chopin’s aristocratic prejudices, while the man whose opinions she entirely agreed with, the philosopher Pierre Leroux, was never her lover. Despite these exceptions, however, most of her early works, including Lélia, Mauprat (1837), Spiridion (1839), and Les Sept Cordes de la lyre (1840), show the influence of one or another of the men with whom she associated.
Eventually, she found her true form in her rustic novels, which drew their chief inspiration from her lifelong love of the countryside and sympathy for the poor. In La Mare au diable (1846), François le Champi (1848), and La Petite Fadette (1849), the familiar theme of George Sand’s work — love transcending the obstacles of convention and class — in the familiar setting of the Berry countryside, regained pride of place. These are considered by some to be her finest works. Sand produced a series of novels and plays of impeccable morality and conservatism — ironic, considering her rather promiscuous early life. Among her later works are the autobiography Histoire de Ma Vie (1854–55; “Story of My Life”) and Contes d’une grand’mère (1873; “Tales of a Grandmother”), a collection of stories she wrote for her grandchildren.
George Sand’s novels portrayed a view that challenged the social norm of France. She believed women had just as much of a right to smoke and wear suits and have an opinion as men did. She believed there was much more to the women of the world than becoming a housewife and contenting themselves to be the wives of the world’s leaders and shakers instead of being the leaders and shakers themselves. This challenged the very Napoleonic Code in clause 213, which states “the husband is bound to protect the wife and the wife to obey the husband.” In 1800s France this didn’t mean the mild submission the popular view of complimentarianism promotes today. This meant subjection to the will of the husband in all things. Whatever dowry the wife brought was his. Whatever money the wife might earn was his. The French woman could hold no property, could not testify in a civil case, could not sign a legal document, had no chance at education except in convents, had no authority over the education of her children, and could obtain no divorce from her husband except on the grounds of extreme cruelty. In addition to these laws which established the legal inequality of women, there were also countless social boundaries and rules that also restricted her activity. Many literary and business endeavors were considered inappropriate for women, as well as many venues where they were unwelcome. And while women were not perceived as intelligent enough to pursue a career as a writer, men wrote about the fickleness of women all the time.
Ultimately, Aurore Dudevant wrote under the male pseudonym of George Sand for two reasons. The first, I believe, was because so many of the literary geniuses she surrounded herself with were men. Many of her treasured influences in her childhood as well as her adult life were men. It has been shown her literary style, as well, was influenced by her lover du jour. In some small part of her, she wanted to be like them, and being androgynous was one of the easiest ways for her to do so. The second reason was clearly because her views were so extremely controversial. Such blatant rejection of the established values would have never been accepted by society had she written under her female name. Politics were certainly not considered a women’s field, but Aurore clearly had the smarts to write about them. Today, she is considered not only an incredible novelist, but also as a key figure of the feminist movement. And now, a pseudonym such as hers is unnecessary for female novelists, perhaps in part thanks to her steps toward female equality in society.
Bibliography
Impromptu . Dir. James Lapine. Avante-Garde Cinema, 1991. Web. 15 Jun. 2011.
The Eurocentric view of historians and Spaniards alike has turned the Conquest into a romanticized time period neglecting the importance of natives and Africans in battles and colonial establishment. The myth of the white man being the primary conquistadors is refuted through evidence of the Tlaxcalans, Huejotzincans, and Maya helpers as well as Juan Valiente and other unnamed blacks. The myth of the white man has been perpetuated for a variety of different reasons and served very specific purposes in colonial times. Reshaping our view of the Conquest and shifting away from a Eurocentric view of history is vital to developing a better understanding of the exchange.
The myth of the white man being the primary fighters and victors of the Conquest originated because the most widely read accounts of the conquest, especially the conquest of Mexico, create the visual of Europeans triumphing over natives, no matter the odds (Restall 45). The romantic image of a few Spanish conquistadors miraculously defeating many natives is imbedded into history through writings about the Capture of Atahuallpa, the Alamo, and other events (45). Restall also argues the myth of the white conquistador is “a corollary to the handful-of-adventurers image, and is thus equally central to the conquistadors’ own portrait of the Conquest” (45). The ideas perpetuated in widely read history books not only romanticize the Conquest as solely the fruits of the white conquistador, but also distort the truth.
Despite the overwhelming number of natives and blacks that aided the Spaniards, if their contributions are mentioned, it is in passing. Pedro de Cieza de Leon both ignored and revealed black roles in his writings (60). Spanish and native sources make references to the black presence in the Conquest (57). Alvarado only mentions native allies once in his two letters to Cortes during the 1524 invasion of Guatemala. The mention of five to six thousand “friendly Indians” is juxtaposed against the 250 Spaniards, thereby providing clear evidence against the idea of the Spaniards as the sole victors (45).
In the colonial period, the myth of the white conquistador served various roles for the Spaniards, specifically Eurocentric thinking, the goal of obtaining titles, and keeping natives and blacks in subordinate roles or as slaves. Restall mentions the Songs of the Aztecs, which spins the Conquest as a native civil war resulting in incomplete Spanish domination (46). Restall argues this view is not only an alternative to the “predictably hispanocentric perspective of the Spaniards,” but is also a view found frequently in native sources (46). The probanzas de merito the conquistadors wrote to the king were written with the goal of obtaining titles such as Admiral, and thus were focused specifically on the merits of the author. If authors had included anecdotes about the importance of the native and black allies, the king might become concerned about the lack of power and leverage the Spaniards had over the natives, and may even doubt a conquistador’s leadership, therefore not giving the desired titles. By nature, probanzas de merito were self-serving and Eurocentric, thereby ignoring key native allies. Third, Spaniards desired to keep natives and blacks as auxiliaries or slaves. Restall notes Spaniards “considered it great hardship to go without them [native or black auxiliaries]” (51). Black slaves of Spaniards functioned as domestic servants, assistants, and servants who were armed by necessity (54-55). Black slaves were also expected to fill marginal posts on the outskirts of the Spanish towns (62). As armed servants, blacks were expected to protect their masters. If forced to fight an onslaught of natives, black servants could earn their freedom through fighting and surviving (55). After earning freedom through fighting, these blacks were still expected to take on the aforementioned marginal posts on the outskirts of town. A majority of Africans brought to the Americas were brought as slaves, and as a result of both their subordinate status and the Eurocentric worldview of the Spaniards, their central role in the Conquest was consistently ignored (53).
While Tlaxcalans, Huejotzincans, and Maya allies were essential to Spanish victory, they simultaneously pursued interests of their own. Combined, these examples refute the myth of the white man and demonstrate the white man would have failed without these allies. Despite the expansion of the Aztec empire, a small city-state of Tlaxcala maintained independence and presented both a danger and opportunity for Cortes (46). If the Tlaxcalans had continued their initial hostilities toward Cortes, he would have been forced to retreat (46). Indeed, a small Tlaxcalan faction was in favor of developing an anti-Mexica alliance with Cortes, enabling the destruction of the Aztec empire and Tenochtitlan. The Tlaxcalans ensured vital native support for Cortes, while the achieving their goal of disabling the Aztec empire for freedom (46-47). The Huejotzincans, who assisted the Spaniards in the conquest, were not tools of Cortes’s strategy, but used the Spanish to pursue their own interests. Specifically, the Huejotzincans used Spanish presence to engage their rivals, the Aztecs and the Tlaxcalans by overthrowing the empire in power and obtaining leverage against a rival city-state (48). Two major yet distinct Maya groups in Guatemala, the Cakchiquel and Quiche, were in a brutal civil war in the 1520s. The Spaniards not only used these groups as their own “allies” at various points in this civil war, but also used the groups against each other and against smaller Maya groups through exploiting regional politics and attempting (though ultimately unsuccessfully) to obtain control over the whole region (48).
Juan Valiente is an example of a successful black conquistador, and is therefore proof Spaniards and white men were not the only victors in the Conquest. Juan Valiente convinced his owner in 1533 to allow him to pursue conquistador status for four years as long as he brought his earnings back. Valiente fought in Guatemala, Peru, and later in Chile. By 1550, he had become a captain, horseman, earned an estate outside of Santiago, was granted an encomienda, and married. Before reporting back to his owner, he was killed by the Araucanians in 1553 (53-54). Valiente achieved a status as high as the Spanish conquistadors, but kept fighting instead of enjoying his new way of life, and as a result was killed in battle.
Two other instances of unnamed blacks demonstrate their vital role in the Conquest and act as proof the Spanish would not have survived without them. An African discovered fresh water in the Ecuadorian interior for a company led by Diego (Alvarado’s cousin) and another African saved Almagro’s life (60). Without these key yet unnamed participants, Diego’s entire company may have died and Almagro would not have reached the fame and recognition he has today due to an untimely death. Lastly, Restall does not mention this directly, but since black servants would fight to protect their masters, many were killed. Servants sacrificed themselves to the Conquest and for Spanish glory without being acknowledged.
The aforementioned examples are a few of the recorded examples of native and black assistance in the Conquest. Many more unnamed allies assisted the Spaniards in their endeavors. Disabling the myth of the white man matters because it further reveals Eurocentrism in history and demonstrates the Conquest as we know it today is not the whole picture. Evidence of native and black allies also refutes the myth “a few great men” overthrew well-established empires. Without allies, the small groups of Spaniards would not have successfully gained power and overthrown the Aztecs, despite advanced weaponry. While recent scholarship is starting to convey the pivotal role natives and blacks played in the Conquest, the myth of the white conquistador and belief of whitewashed history still reigns supreme in many students’ minds.
The Holocaust was a eugenics program that attempted to cleanse the Aryan race and society as a whole. Eugenics is the concept of breeding out traits considered to be inferior or the root of disease — societal, genetic, or otherwise. The use of eugenics through methods of sterilization and euthanasia became a solution to what was perceived by many to be a serious problem. Eugenics was incredibly popular in the world at the time. It was practiced throughout much of the western world in the form of sterilization. Hitler started the Nazi eugenics program only five months into the office of chancellor in 1933, and he began it as a sterilization campaign aimed at the mentally ill. The practice continued in some parts of the U.S. until at least the late ’60s. Starting with the mentally ill, the Holocaust spread to political dissidents, followed by certain races and homosexuals. In this way, psychology was the primary tool used by the Nazis to justify and fuel the propaganda of the Holocaust.
The idea of Aryan domination first found a foothold in Alfred Ploetz’s The Efficiency of our Race and the Protection of the Weak. Ploetz originally argued the Jews were equal and indispensible, but revised his opinion after deciding Jews were too individualistic and lacked nationalism.Later, psychiatrist Alfred Hoche wrote Die Freigabe der Vernichtung Lebensunwerten Lebens, which spoke of euthanizing “life not worth living.” His idea was the mentally ill are merely shells of humans and they are massive burdens on society, financial and otherwise. Dr. Hoche even calculated the specific average financial cost of each mentally ill person’s burdens society per year (Cornwell 89). These calculation became central in Nazi propaganda. His work led to the euthanizing of mentally ill patients began, but the Nazis were forced to ban the practice because of public outrage. Despite the ban, most psychologists continued to kill their patients based on their beliefs in eugenics. Dr. Elizabeth Hecker was one such doctor who continued to kill her test subjects when she was through with them, she is even now still lauded as a pioneer of developmental psychology. Eventually, Alfred Hoche recanted after a close relative of his was disposed of.
The Holocaust started with the disposal of the mentally ill, but it moved past that. Prior to 1934, the Nazis had a neutral stance on homosexuality. Ernst Röhm, head of the SA, and many other officials were openly homosexual. Röhm was popular, became politically ambitious, and started to grow his own paramilitaries. Hitler and Himmler responded by filling the newspapers with rumors Röhm was working to stage a coup backed with planted evidence and used those rumors as a justification for a party purge. Himmler feared a conspiracy and thus the Holocaust grew to include the homosexuals (Oosterhuis 195). Despite that, homosexuals did not face the same severity of persecution as Nazi psychologists thought and proved homosexuals could be quarantined and rehabilitated. Again, the Nazis turned to the psychologists for justification. Mental illness is functionally definable as any culturally unacceptable deviancy or idiosyncrasy, and so with homosexuality considered to be a mental illness and also life not worth living. In this sense, the Holocaust never did move past the disposal of the mentally ill.
The Jews were next in 1935 and the justification was a little harder to reach. The breakthrough came when, “Erich Jaensch began organizing his biopsychological typology work around a notion of a superior ‘Northern integration type’ (the ‘J’ type), whose attributes he contrasted with an inferior ‘Jewish-liberal dissolution type’ (the ‘S’ type). The ‘S’ type — which he increasingly called the Gegentyp (‘anti-type’) — was described as intellectually rigid and abstract, yet with a tendency to become easily fragmented” (Harrington).
These results which purposefully aligned with the preexisting anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazi party were used as a justification and a source for anti-Semitic propaganda and the wholescale persecution of the Jews at the national level.
The corruption of science didn’t end with psychiatry. The biologist Adolf Meyer-Abich gave a guest presentation at John Hopkins in 1933, where he showed a film depicting the Fuhrer principle in bacteria colonies. He failed to comprehend why the American scientists did not take the documentary seriously (Harrington 357). However, psychology fundamentally uses the culturally normative ideology as its basis for inquiry into both society and individual persons (Strous 8). Psychology, unlike the hard science, adopts an ideology and then builds evidence in support of that ideology rather than attempting an objective observation with analysis appropriate to the evidence. The field adopted the Nazi ideology as naturally as it adopts any ideology. In fact, it was in the Third Reich where psychology was first treated seriously by a governing authority and by a people as a whole with the Vordiplom Prüfung. The Vordiplom Prüfung, or the Diploma Examination Regulations, became the first professional qualification exam for psychology in 1940 making psychology a legitimate profession as it remains today. Even the modern qualification exams are nothing more than updates of Vordiplom Prüfung (Geuter 199).
The majority of psychologists intimately involved with the Holocaust would never see a second within the walls of a prison. Whether they had directly been involved with the killing or if they had merely claimed to have empirically proven scientific justification for the killing, they were given the most leniencies at the Nuremburg Trials. More psychologists and psychiatrists were prosecuted than any other group of professionals, but they were absolved of guilt because the courts believed the sterilization and euthanasia was legal. The majority of psychologists intimately involved simply chose to ignore their past, pretend nothing had happened, and repress their history (Oosterhuis). Dr. Elizabeth Hecker, who had maintained the first adolescent psychiatric clinic that tested and killed any children deemed delinquent or abnormal after being studied or experimented on, was never punished for her crimes. Instead, Dr. Hecker was elected an honorary member of the German Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Many others continue to be cited and quoted in modern medical articles without mention of the highly unethical and torturous nature of their studies (Langsdorff).
The evolution of psychology as a profession under the rule of the Third Reich and the aid it provided to the Third Reich is clearly demonstrated historically. Psychologists provided Nazi Germany as a standard by which they could justify their worst atrocities, including the holocaust. The Nazis were given a position by which they could claim their opposition was both anti-science and a form of social disease requiring extermination. Any group they disliked could, and were, written off as antisocial and destroyed. But did this tendency to facilitate and organize the destruction of individuals with twisted scientific rationale end with the Third Reich?
Works Cited
Cornwell, John. Hitler’s Scientists: Science, War and the Devil’s Pact. New York: Viking, 2003.
Geuter, Ulfried. The Professionalization of Psychology in Nazi Germany. Cambridge: CUP.
Harrington, Anne. “Metaphoric Connections: Holistic Science in the Shadow of the Third Reich.” Social Research, 1995-07. 62:2.
Langsdorff, Maja. Die Geheimnisse um J. H. Schultz, Die Rolle des Autogenen Trainings und seines Begründers im Nationalsozialismus.
Oosterhuis, Harry. “Medicine, Male Bonding and Homosexuality in Nazi Germany.” Journal of Contemporary History, 1997-04. 32:2, p. 187-205.
Strous, R.D., “Psychiatry during the Nazi era: ethical lessons for the modern professional.” Annals of General Psychiatry, 2007-02-27.
With the creative freedom seemingly to do whatever they want, the Beach Boys in 1972 do something pretty unusual: pack up an entire recording studio and ship it to the Netherlands to make a new album in a new and familiar setting, giving us what feels almost like an ode to 19th-century Western America: Holland. The album has nothing to do with its eponymous country, as far as I can tell, other than the time on the other side of the Atlantic moved many of the Boys to write about the land they left behind and other feelings of uncertainty and loss in this unusual time. On one hand their creativity was unleashed; on the other hand, many old familiar faces were not around, especially Bruce Johnston and Brian Wilson. Still, Holland is a remarkable album capturing the dynamism of the Beach Boys during an unusual era.
Holland Side One
Much has been said in several places about “Sail On, Sailor”: how it was originally not submitted to be on the album, how the production company rejected the album without a potential “hit” song (10 years into the Beach Boys’ career the studio still has control over their albums!), the resurrection and lyrical reworking of the song, et cetera. It’s easy to imagine what the album would be like without this song — just start the album from track two. Still, the song fits very well with the entire vibe of the album, and its connectivity to the album is so strong it feels strange thinking the album was intended to exist without it. It sets the dominant mood of the album very well, making a nice up-tempo(ish) bookend with “Funky Pretty.” “This is a mellow album with a lot of heart,” says this album. “We’re on an adventure of mildly languorous enthusiasm. An adventure of reflection.” They are sailing, but this isn’t the Sloop John B. They are all Huckleberry Finns rafting down the river.
“Steamboat” continues that aura perfectly well. Instead of a raft, though, the medium of the languorous journey of reflection is now a steamboat chugging along at a moderate pace. Instead of considering it too slow, as some apparently do, it’s better to embrace it as a call to patience, a call to slow your life down and enjoy what is happening in your life — and if you can’t enjoy what is happening in your life now, do what you can to fix that and get to a more enjoyable place of peace and tranquility. This is a bit ironic, then, considering for Mark Twain the steamboat was an exciting symbol of maturity, progress, and change. It was the opposite of Huck’s raft, yet here the Beach Boys equate them.
“California Saga” is an impressive, wistful look back at the land the Beach Boys have physically departed during this time. “Big Sur” feels like the raft and/or steamboat has docked, and we are relaxing on the beach for a while, which makes sense, since Big Sur is a magnificent coastal site in California. “The Beaks of Eagles” is a very evocative product of its time: this song definitely matches the way the Beach Boys look in the studio, especially Mike Love, whose spoken word voice is rather powerful in its sincerity and quietude. It reminds me very much of the beginning of Centennial. “California” is a sharp turn toward what could easily be mistaken for a goofy romp, with the almost honky-tonk sounds and unusual lyric. Yet, it is a very intelligent tribute to California the way only someone who knows it and loves it could be — it’s like an inside joke but one that invites strangers to take part and learn about what is so wonderful about the subject matter.
Holland Side Two
Continuing this remarkable atmosphere of smooth sailing down the river, Carl Wilson’s fantastic “The Trader” is both a politically-driven artifact of its time and a transcendent piece of beautiful music enjoining us to get to a peaceful place and relax and listen to it and the world around us. The first half of the song is very much a diatribe against Imperialism, possibly a diatribe against Columbus Day, but it, too, is very evocating of Centennial — that must be part of the reason I enjoyed listening to this album so much (to be taken both ways) this summer. I should really watch Centennial again. The second half is definitely one of my favorite parts of the album. The quality of Carl Wilson’s voice around the “Eyes that see beyond tomorrow / Through to the time without hours / Passing the Eden of flowers / Reason to live” section is fantastic, both vocally and lyrically. We are far away from the Beach Boys of the ’60s. Getting to a quiet place where you can listen to this son is definitely a “reason to live.”
“Leaving This Town” shifts the mood again to a somber, sorrowful song about leaving more than just a town: “Sometimes it’s hard to make it through the day / Sometimes it’s hard to find my way / Sometimes it’s hard to notice the changing days / When your friends have all gone / Leaving this town for another one.” It reminds me of both the end of summer before all of us going off to college for the first time, some leaving early, some of us not leaving at all. Then, too, it reminds me of that bizarre last day of a college year: nothing feels quite so strange as walking around campus a few hours after graduation, when all your friends have packed up and driven off and all the halls and rooms of laughter and memories and shared moments are still and silent and empty. This is a very powerful song, but despite its potential for melancholia the music, especially the near-funky bridge, refrains from succumbing to despair. There is still optimism undergirding this song. Perhaps we will all return to this town again someday, together — or, better yet, we will all be together again somewhere else better, sooner. Additionally, this song is a great demonstration of the new life and musical talent Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar brought to the band for a little while.
Dennis Wilson’s second contribution to the album, along with “Steamboat,” is another beautifully quiet song “Only with You.” It easily recalls “Make it Good” and “Cuddle Up” from Carl and the Passions — “So Tough,” but it’s possibly even better than those. Dennis’s songs weren’t necessarily the most lyrically complicated, but genuine love and passion don’t need floridity and profundity. The simplicity of these lyrics, the powerful yet restrained way Carl sings these words, and the sweet musical accompaniment make this a very enjoyable contribution to this album. It is yet another variegated emotion on an excellent album that has been too often dismissed and neglected.
The album wraps up with Brian’s only new contribution, a laid back groove called “Funky Pretty” that mingles a bit of their Transcendental Meditation experiences with the album’s motif of lost love. Neither an up-tempo rocking conclusion (which would, after all, feel out of place on this album), nor a slow ballad typically ending most generic pop-rock albums, “Funky Pretty” is its own groove, an unhurried ditty with unabashed humor, astrological linguistic rigmarole, and a sprinkling of wistful missing love. Sometimes, if you don’t have enough words to make it to the end of the musical line, you just got to let the music carry you through. The ending of the number is a treat, as many layers of vocals and voices imbricate in a positive, carousing manner. It’s easy to imagine the Boys standing around the studio singing their different lyrics into their microphones, smiling and laughing while memories of “Barbara Ann” shenanigans flit about a much older, wiser, sadder, hairier group of top-notch musicians.
Mount Vernon and Fairway (A Fairy Tale)
This is an experience, that’s for sure. It’s best to do what Brian says and listen to it in the dark. Thanks to modern technology, we can listen to it in its entirety without having to flip over the record and break the mood halfway through. It’s a remarkable version of how the Beach Boys came to be, as if told from a children’s fairy tale, and that’s the only thing I can say about it directly without spoiling any of it for you. I can appreciate why the other Boys didn’t want to include this on Holland originally, especially as they were supposedly about moving forward and doing new things, finding new sounds (even if their subject matter was about the past and land they left, too), and Mount Vernon is wholly unlike where the rest of the band was going and what it was doing, but Carl made a good decision in including it as an EP, even if it furthered the rift between the Boys and Brian for a few more years. Brian Wilson had a gift, and though it was damaged and delayed and possibly thwarted at times, he still managed to share a great deal of beauty with us in a comparatively short amount of time. This is a gift from a genius to us all.
Outro: Maturing Beach Boys in the Tumultuous ’70s
This was a strange, exciting time for the Beach Boys collectively (not to ignore or belittle Brian’s issues at the time). Carl is starting to come into his own, Dennis is blossoming as a real musician (if you don’t necessarily like his voice or the simplicity of his lyrics), Al is contributing even more intelligent numbers and growing as a lyricist, and the contributions of Blondie Chaplin and Ricky Fataar prove the Beach Boys were not just a flash-in-the-pan ’60s-only one-trick-pony group. Oh, yes: and Mike Love is still being Mike Love. They could adapt to the times, grow as musicians, and be relevant and creative and worthwhile as ever. In a time of change and uncertainty, the early ’70s-era Beach Boys responded with fresh, enjoyable music. Go get a copy of Holland & Mount Vernon and Fairway (A Fairy Tale) today and enjoy them.
Published in 1949, George Orwell’s 1984 describes the futuristic and dystopian society of Oceania where the government maintains a totalitarian grip over the populous by way of omnipresent propaganda, ubiquitous surveillance, and a restrictive chokehold on any form of individualism. The novel was published four years after the end of World War II, and was undeniably beyond its time. Orwell comes across as practically prescient through his chilling depiction of totalitarian states that overwhelm the citizens who live within them. It is logical to assume Orwell was, in the least, inspired by political and economic events taking place in and around Britain during the ’40s.
Thankfully, readers of Orwell do not have to rely upon conjecture to inform them of his novel’s original purpose; in fact, a letter Orwell sent in 1944 to a certain Noel Willmett detailed his personal stance on world politics at the time. He focused specifically on his fear totalitarianism and “Fuhrer-worship” were consistently becoming more frequent throughout the world. He also explained how he worried this rise of “emotional nationalism” and leader-worship could inevitably lead to major historical revisions. He elaborated that “Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history.” This theme is exemplified through 1984’s “Ministry of Truth,” the institution that essentially rewrites history so it accommodates whatever the government wishes to tell its naïve civilian population. Orwell drove his point further with a numeric example he later utilized in his novel: “[Hitler] can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the Fuhrer wished it.” This serves as a more personalized precursor to 1984’s analysis of individuality oppression.
Orwell also explained how he believed society was already on a downward slope toward a more totalitarian outlook. He detailed two major reasons for this decline in the general interest in democratic principles in British society. The first reason he gave was based upon the growing tendency toward indifference for political individualism in the younger generation of his time. “Do you realise, for instance, that no one in England under 26 now has a vote and that so far as one can see the great mass of people of that age don’t give a d*mn for this?” He followed by saying a further problem with Britain’s social situation was how most of the intellectual community tended toward totalitarianism over individualistic values. They would take Stalin, for example, over Hitler, disregarding the potential issues that would arise from such a decision. “Most of them are perfectly ready for dictatorial methods, secret police, systematic falsification of history etc. so long as they feel that it is on ‘our’ side.” Orwell connected this general disregard for the necessity for political protection of individuality with the argument Britain and the United States have not experienced totalitarianism yet, and therefore do not understand its ramifications. It would be much easier to ignore the potential evils of policies such as public surveillance, Gestapo-like police, and the rewriting of history when they are all proposed in the name of homeland-defense or emotional nationalism.
An article by John Bennet describes how Orwell’s involvement in both the BBC and the Spanish Civil War shaped how he viewed the media. The fact news reports of the war tended to bear little to no resemblance of the actual events to which they referred made Orwell very skeptical of the media’s overall validity. Bennet also says Orwell partially based his “Ministry of Truth” off of BBC’s efforts during World War II. “Orwell noted that the BBC put out false hate propaganda during World War II, and controlled history by censoring news about the genocidal Allied policy of leveling German cities by saturation bombing.” This experience proved to be pivotal in how Orwell believed the control of the past to be integral to the control of the present and future.
Orwell’s many predictions were not restricted only to the 20th century; many of them are gradually becoming more obvious in modern society. Even in the West, a fountainhead for individual political liberty, the things Orwell was so vigilant in warning the world about are becoming progressively more prevalent. Bennet describes how even the seemingly far-reaching concept of what Orwell coined “newspeak” has already invaded western media. “The corruption of language described in 1984 is widespread in the media today, with ‘newspeak’ terms such as democratic, socialist, fascist, war criminal, freedom fighter, racist and many other expressions being used in a deliberately deceptive, propagandistic way….” Orwell understood the intrinsic reality of government and society so well his warnings apply in the modern day just as well as they did while Stalin was still alive.
George Orwell’s 1984 serves as a warning to all people concerned with the longevity of their individual rights and political freedom. After over fifty years, his words still continue to impact how people view government and its potential evils. His writings were undeniably affected by his own experiences in the fields of media and political conflict, and hold serious weight for people living in the modern world. Certainly, George Orwell hoped people would heed his warnings and remain constantly aware of their social situation. As Bennet said, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”
Bibliography
Bennett, John. “Orwell’s 1984: Was Orwell Right?” The Journal for Historical Review 6.1 (1986). Web. 9 Dec. 2015. <www.ihr.org>.
Marshall, Colin. “George Orwell Explains in a Revealing 1944 Letter Why He’d Write 1984.” Open Culture. Ed. Dan Colman. 9 Jan. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.
In the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto, authors Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spell out the beliefs, motives, and hopes of the Communist party. Communism, in its essence, is the abolition of social class, freedoms, and private property. The goal of the Communist party is to have the proletarians or the lower class overthrow the bourgeois or upper class. The Communists believe the lower class is oppressed by the upper class and it is time for the lower class to say no more and become free from the bourgeoisie.
Communists believe once the lower class is free, the proletarians will be in charge and rid societies of social structures and social classes that have plagued the world since Roman days and before. Communists want to equal the playing field by throwing away social classes. They want to control the flow of everything, including private property and inheritance. Communists believe private property should return to the government after a person passes on, instead of it being passed on to the heirs of the dead person. Communists want to do the same with inheritance. This way everyone has the same equal opportunity for everything and no one man is inheriting a huge amount of land or money. In Communism, not only is everything “equal” but also money is shared. Money is taken from the wealthy or hard working people and given to the poor. It’s like a large scale version of Robin Hood. It also gives no incentive to the people to work or try their best to accomplish something because they are spoon fed by the government and don’t have to try for anything. Communism is basically the opposite of the glorified American dream.
Communism not only wants to rid society of classes and freedom, it also wants to rid society of religion, family, education as it is currently, countries, nationality, eternal truths, and all morality. The want to abolish religion, family, eternal truths, and all morality should be a red flag right away to Christians and dissuade them from this type of social structure. Christians should be careful of Communism because it directly goes against what Christians believe. Christians believe religion is an important part of life, all morality and eternal truths are from God and are necessary in life to live like Christ, and family is a God-ordained thing created by Him and vital to our essence. Humans crave relationships, and family is the most important relationship after God. Communism wishes to destroy all of that, so Christians should strongly disagree with Communism. Communism takes away vital parts of human life, parts that make up who we are as humans.
Communism is a nice idea, but it only works on paper. First, the proletariat overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not end oppression. The proletarians may not be oppressed anymore, but they become the people they despised. They become the bourgeois. They become the oppressor. The bourgeois becomes the oppressed. This doesn’t end anything. The cycle of oppressed and oppressor only continues and only the roles have changed. Communism wants to throw off the past, but they are just continuing it. The lower class people of feudalism pushed their way into the bourgeois and became the bourgeois and another people group filled in the empty place and the cycle continued. In the same way, what the Communists wish to do is just continuing the cycle.
Second, something as large as every country switching class roles through revolutions would take much time and, in many cases, turn into chaos and anarchy. Revolutions can take many years to complete the goal. Economies would fail because of the turmoil and war and spending going into the revolutions. The whole world would be in chaos because of the failing economies, therefore the economic structure of the world would fail also. Countries would shut down, limiting the resources being exported and imported into the country, depriving the country’s people along with the rest of the world. Along with the world economy being shut down, countries could spin out of control amidst a revolution and go into anarchy. The lack of a leader and control in the country could really run a nation into the ground. Overthrowing another class through revolution may seem easy, but it is easier said than done. Then again, it seems Communism wishes to ruin the world through a worldwide social upheaval. Changing social structures and styles of government takes time and money, which a lot of countries do not have. Communism only seems to take place in countries with revolutions, which is why they want social upheavals to occur, so Communism can take root. John F. Kennedy said, concerning Communism, “Communism has never come into power in a country that was not disrupted by war, corruption, or both.” Communism is only a good theory, but it is has many, many faults. Any form of government has faults, but Communism is the faultiest because its beliefs and hopes only work in theory. Proof of this is countries like Russia, where the people are oppressed and controlled by the government. They have no freedom and, until recently, have been very behind the rest of the world economically and technologically.
Finally, Communism believes in equality among everyone. All wealth is shared among the people of the nation. Property will be socially or commonly owned, given, and shared by the government, not a private person. Production will not be privately owned, but socially shared. Everything would be shared and controlled by the government. The wealthy’s money would be shared with the poor. Hard working people would lose their money to those who are lazy and don’t work. The world and its people being equal is a nice idea, but the world would need to be a perfect place. The problem with this idea is the world is far from perfect, and because of sinful nature, there is no equality and people are constantly fighting for equality. Jesse Ventura said concerning the ideas of Communism, “The Communism of Karl Marx would probably be actually the best for everybody as a whole. But what he didn’t figure into was human nature, and that’s what corrupts it.” Sinful nature makes the idea of perfect equality and the world in harmony an impossible idea. Only when Christ returns with the New Jerusalem and sets up His thousand-year reign could something like the world being equal and perfect be possible. Sin nature means people make wrong choices, are imperfect, and struggle with being in harmony with one another. That is why there are wars and evil things and people, and why Communism just doesn’t work in the present age.
Communism sounds like a good idea, but that is as far as it goes. Communism doesn’t survive or work off the pages of this pamphlet. Communism destroys fundamental structures and beliefs. As Christians, we cannot accept Communism because it wishes to take away many things we hold dear and are vital to what we believe and hold as true. As the world, we cannot accept Communism now or ever because it is controlling, could put the world in more chaos than it is now, and it takes away rights we hold as true and God-given. Communism does not have a place in the present age or really in any age. Communism is very relevant and present today in the world, and the world needs to rebel against because it is not good for society, the economy, and the world as a whole. Christians and all people, in the United States or not, should listen to the words of Emanuel Celler: “Communism feeds on aggression, hatred, and the imprisonment of men’s minds and souls. This shall not take root in the United States.” Communism should not be allowed to take root and destroy our beliefs, rights, hopes, and dreams, because Communism is only good on paper.
Bibliography
“Quotes on Communism.” QuotesGram. Quotes Gram. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
In the pamphlet The Communist Manifesto, authors Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels spell out the beliefs, motives, and hopes of the Communist party. Communism, in its essence, is the abolition of social class, freedoms, and private property. The goal of the Communist party is to have the proletarians or the lower class overthrow the bourgeois or upper class. The Communists believe the lower class is oppressed by the upper class and it is time for the lower class to say no more and become free from the bourgeoisie.
Communists believe once the lower class is free, the proletarians will be in charge and rid societies of social structures and social classes that have plagued the world since Roman days and before. Communists want to equal the playing field by throwing away social classes. They want to control the flow of everything, including private property and inheritance. Communists believe private property should return to the government after a person passes on, instead of it being passed on to the heirs of the dead person. Communists want to do the same with inheritance. This way everyone has the same equal opportunity for everything and no one man is inheriting a huge amount of land or money. In Communism, not only is everything “equal” but also money is shared. Money is taken from the wealthy or hard working people and given to the poor. It’s like a large scale version of Robin Hood. It also gives no incentive to the people to work or try their best to accomplish something because they are spoon fed by the government and don’t have to try for anything. Communism is basically the opposite of the glorified American dream.
Communism not only wants to rid society of classes and freedom, it also wants to rid society of religion, family, education as it is currently, countries, nationality, eternal truths, and all morality. The want to abolish religion, family, eternal truths, and all morality should be a red flag right away to Christians and dissuade them from this type of social structure. Christians should be careful of Communism because it directly goes against what Christians believe. Christians believe religion is an important part of life, all morality and eternal truths are from God and are necessary in life to live like Christ, and family is a God-ordained thing created by Him and vital to our essence. Humans crave relationships, and family is the most important relationship after God. Communism wishes to destroy all of that, so Christians should strongly disagree with Communism. Communism takes away vital parts of human life, parts that make up who we are as humans.
Communism is a nice idea, but it only works on paper. First, the proletariat overthrow of the bourgeoisie does not end oppression. The proletarians may not be oppressed anymore, but they become the people they despised. They become the bourgeois. They become the oppressor. The bourgeois becomes the oppressed. This doesn’t end anything. The cycle of oppressed and oppressor only continues and only the roles have changed. Communism wants to throw off the past, but they are just continuing it. The lower class people of feudalism pushed their way into the bourgeois and became the bourgeois and another people group filled in the empty place and the cycle continued. In the same way, what the Communists wish to do is just continuing the cycle.
Second, something as large as every country switching class roles through revolutions would take much time and, in many cases, turn into chaos and anarchy. Revolutions can take many years to complete the goal. Economies would fail because of the turmoil and war and spending going into the revolutions. The whole world would be in chaos because of the failing economies, therefore the economic structure of the world would fail also. Countries would shut down, limiting the resources being exported and imported into the country, depriving the country’s people along with the rest of the world. Along with the world economy being shut down, countries could spin out of control amidst a revolution and go into anarchy. The lack of a leader and control in the country could really run a nation into the ground. Overthrowing another class through revolution may seem easy, but it is easier said than done. Then again, it seems Communism wishes to ruin the world through a worldwide social upheaval. Changing social structures and styles of government takes time and money, which a lot of countries do not have. Communism only seems to take place in countries with revolutions, which is why they want social upheavals to occur, so Communism can take root. John F. Kennedy said, concerning Communism, “Communism has never come into power in a country that was not disrupted by war, corruption, or both.” Communism is only a good theory, but it is has many, many faults. Any form of government has faults, but Communism is the faultiest because its beliefs and hopes only work in theory. Proof of this is countries like Russia, where the people are oppressed and controlled by the government. They have no freedom and, until recently, have been very behind the rest of the world economically and technologically.
Finally, Communism believes in equality among everyone. All wealth is shared among the people of the nation. Property will be socially or commonly owned, given, and shared by the government, not a private person. Production will not be privately owned, but socially shared. Everything would be shared and controlled by the government. The wealthy’s money would be shared with the poor. Hard working people would lose their money to those who are lazy and don’t work. The world and its people being equal is a nice idea, but the world would need to be a perfect place. The problem with this idea is the world is far from perfect, and because of sinful nature, there is no equality and people are constantly fighting for equality. Jesse Ventura said concerning the ideas of Communism, “The Communism of Karl Marx would probably be actually the best for everybody as a whole. But what he didn’t figure into was human nature, and that’s what corrupts it.” Sinful nature makes the idea of perfect equality and the world in harmony an impossible idea. Only when Christ returns with the New Jerusalem and sets up His thousand-year reign could something like the world being equal and perfect be possible. Sin nature means people make wrong choices, are imperfect, and struggle with being in harmony with one another. That is why there are wars and evil things and people, and why Communism just doesn’t work in the present age.
Communism sounds like a good idea, but that is as far as it goes. Communism doesn’t survive or work off the pages of this pamphlet. Communism destroys fundamental structures and beliefs. As Christians, we cannot accept Communism because it wishes to take away many things we hold dear and are vital to what we believe and hold as true. As the world, we cannot accept Communism now or ever because it is controlling, could put the world in more chaos than it is now, and it takes away rights we hold as true and God-given. Communism does not have a place in the present age or really in any age. Communism is very relevant and present today in the world, and the world needs to rebel against because it is not good for society, the economy, and the world as a whole. Christians and all people, in the United States or not, should listen to the words of Emanuel Celler: “Communism feeds on aggression, hatred, and the imprisonment of men’s minds and souls. This shall not take root in the United States.” Communism should not be allowed to take root and destroy our beliefs, rights, hopes, and dreams, because Communism is only good on paper.
Bibliography
“Quotes on Communism.” QuotesGram. Quotes Gram. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Redeeming Pandora 