Response Paper

What I thought was really interesting about the chapters at first was that they were about Asians (Chinese and Japanese) the most, and I had never really studied or read about Chinese racism before. Initially that was what struck me as I was reading, but then I thought about it and racism is racism, no matter what the racial group that is being discriminated against is. It is always a terrible and unjust thing and it shouldn’t matter what color you are, everyone should be outraged by it. Racism is totally irrational, as shown in the chapter 1, when the city of Los Angeles was portraying the Chinese as dirty and unsanitary, even though the city was responsible because it wouldn’t extend the sewage system out of the middle of their area. I cannot understand where racism comes from or why people would feel such a strong hatred for people because of their color. I don’t think anyone can completely understand it, even those who are racist, because they couldn’t rationally explain it to any non-racist. It doesn’t make sense, but what it does (as well as what these chapters did for me) is it made me wonder about what the people of the future will think about out time. I know there are still racist in America today, but it isn’t as prominent an issue anymore, I don’t think, so I wonder if there is anything that is going on today that the our children and grandchildren will look back on in history class and say how incredibly stupid what we were doing was, like how incredibly stupid racism is and was. It really made me think that I really need to think about what I believe in and do, in order to not be looked back on as spurring on an unjust system or living in an unjust word. It made me think about our need to make sure that when we are done living our lives, we are proud of our actions and have not made anyone feel less than they are, and have made as many people as we can happy but not at the expense of others.

One more thing I wanted to mention about the chapters is how it differed from Richard Wrights piece in allowing the reader to make their own conclusions.  Molina’s chapters said this was racist, this was bad, they thought this, and you should feel that and didn’t allow the reader to think anything other than that. It felt more forced and pressured and made me want to resist it a little. Where as Richard Wright’s style made the reader fell smart. Obviously any rational and sensible person would make the same conclusions about Wrights stories as Molina told us to make about hers, but the reader (or at least I did) feels more accomplished and opinioned when making conclusions about Wrights stories. Its kind of like in movies and shows when the older sister doesn’t tell the little brother what to do, but in a round about way makes him think he should do it, but he thinks the idea was all his own. When he is told to do something, he resists and won’t do it, but if he thinks he thought of it himself, well then he’s convinced it’s the right thing to do and he’s a genius. 

Book 1 Thoughts - A Tale of Two Cities

In "A tale of Two Cities", by Charles  Dickens, one of the main themes (and most interesting to me) was that of 'restoration' or, as Book the First is titled, "Recalled to Life." Another thing this book did a lot was compare things; Cities, people, groups, characteristics. The most interesting 'restoration' in the book to me was that of Sydney Carton. In true fashion of Charles Dickens and "A Tale of Two Cities", I will compare the restoration of Carton and the city of Paris.

Sydney Carton started off as a "Jackal". He was a loner, practically dead inside. He hated everyone and everyone hated him. There was nothing left for him in life, he had no purpose in life and so had given up. All Carton did was drink all day. When he looked in the mirror, he was disappointed with how his life had turned out. Through Charles Darnay (a character who looks exactly like him) he sees the man he could have been and hates himself and Darnay for showing him that he is essentially a failure. Carton believes himself empty of anything worth of love and sees no way for him to change.

But Carton meets Lucie and falls in love with her. I think because of her compassion and willingness to see through to him and believe that he can change, even though no one else, including himself believes in him. His love for Lucie really struck me because he completely opens up to her and tells her his every emotion and thought and personal struggle of his. He allows himself to be open, honest, and vulnerable in front of her. He tells her he loves her and what that love is. But what really makes his love for her so touching is that he gave his love for her husband, basically his competition, to make her happy. His love wasn't dependent upon her love in return. he knew that she loved her husband but he didn't stop loving her. He loved her and loved for her to be happy, even if her happiness didn't depend on his. The fact that someone could love someone that much was really awesome for me to see. It was also really powerful to see how love can transform/restore people, just like Cartons love for Lucie transformed him and allowed him to be happy with his life and feel like he had something worth living for, or even dying for. This love was able to resurrect his wasted life even though physically, he died.But spiritually and emotionally he was recalled to life through his sacrifice to make Lucie and her family happy. His love and death was able to turn his whole life around and  make him see beauty. He even saw the beauty in his death. He was able to see past the mayhem and violence around him (in Paris) to the bright future which would eventually come from it, just like Lucie was able to see through his wasted life.

Which brings me to Paris' go a restoration. In the beginning of "Two Cities" Paris started out at its all time lowest. There were people starving and dying, with no houses and not enough clothes, with no beds or blankets, living on the streets. These peasant made up the majority of of Paris, and the rich, the minority, made up the group of oppressors. The peasants are tired of the injustice that surrounds them and a lot of them are planning to revolt. They are full of hatred for the rich and vengeance for anyone who is not with them. They want a change and will do anything to get it. As they prepare to get there justice, their anger and hatred and vengeance overwhelms them and they become worse than the rich oppressors. They kill people violently and with angry hearts. They kill people who used to be rich or who they think are traitors. They kill everyone who is not fighting with them and even some people who are with them. It because a bloody, violent mess that is worse than before they started the revolution. Because the try at restoration was spurred by hatred and vengeance instead of love and happiness they were not able to recall Paris to Life. The problem only got worse. Instead of feeling liberated and worth something, like Carton did, they just felt even angrier.

This shows me that being born anew requires a selflessness and humility in order to resurrect a person or city or country. Carton was sacrificed his life for Lucie's happiness in the place of her husband, showing both selflessness and humility, while the peasants of Paris acted out of anger and used violence to try and sort out there problems. And while they were right to be angry, they were rash and in the midst of their fight acted out of selfish desires, like Madame Defarge and many other revolutionaries. Martin Luther King Jr's warning that violence will never solve the problem is exemplified here in "A Tale of Two Cities". Perhaps a calmer and less violent revolution would have prevailed and the oppressed would have gained their justice instead of falling deeper into the injustice and taking part in it themselves.

Honors Proposal

Paris during the French Revolution - 1789-1799

       I chose Paris during 1789 to 1799 mainly because my teacher last year, Sarah recommended to me that I read "A Tale of Two Cities", which is about lower class citizens in Paris revolting against the French aristocracy, but I never got around to it. I wanted to read it because Sarah told me it was a really well written and good book and I trust her opinion. She recommended it to me because she wanted me to start reading more challenging and more thought provoking books than the ones I was reading. She couldn't say enough good things about it and she just convinced me to read it, but I never had time last year. I also don't know too much about the French Revolution or what it was like in Paris during that time so I thought it would be a perfect fit for me so that I could learn about a piece of history that I was never taught and at the same time read a book that I have been wanting to read.
       So, I already picked "A Tale of Two Cities", which left me with only three more novels to pick that depicted Pairs between the years of 1789 and 1799.  The first one I chose after "Two Cities" was "Ninety-Three" by Victor Hugo. This book is about the revolutionaries who are trying to change the government of France and the counter revolutionaries, who are trying to put France back the way it was before the revolution. My third book is "The Golden Hour" which is a modern book that will show an outsiders perspective on the French Revolution, as a young boy time travels to that time period and is thrown into the middle of the Revolution. My fourth and final novel is "The Gods are Athirst" by Anatole France, which depicts the Rain of Terror portion of the French Revolution. The novel follows a young Parisian painter who becomes a juror on the Revolutionary Tribunal.
      The other resources I will be using to learn more about my city and decade are these two webs: http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/history/assets/french_revolution.gif and http://www.thecorner.org/forum/messages/14/210.gif, these online resources: http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/revolution.htm, http://www.parisrama.com/english%20version/pages_history/revolution.htm, and http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/frenchrev.

List of authors and such: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Fcollection=66&Itemid=27, http://history-world.org/french_revolution.htm

Socratic Seminar Response

In our Socratic Seminar the other day, the part I found the most thought provoking was our talk about guilt and who is guilty when it comes to oppression. We talked about how Martin Luther King Jr. says that if you stand idly by and don’t defend yourself (if you are the oppressed) you are just as guilty as your oppressor. Discussing this brought us to think about what ethical responsibility, if any, people have when they disagree with a law or paradigm. This really made me think about two important questions; Does standing idly by make you just as guilty as the person that is enforcing the unjust laws? And, was MLK right in sending judgment upon oppressed people who don’t resist against their oppressors?

I think that Martin Luther King, Jr. a very inspiring figure and someone worth emulating. His ideas are so powerful and strong, but at the same time they are guided by such a morally straight standard that they are hard to live by. He condemns you if you live in injustice committed against you and he condemns you if you fight against that injustice with violence. The only correct option in his opinion is that you use non-violent resistance to try to make your oppressor understand you. Now, I agree with him that violence will never solve anything in the long-term. Violent resistors will never gain the support of uninvolved bystanders or their oppressors because violence creates a defensive and usually equally violent reaction instead of garnering support for a cause. Adversely, the outside public will respect non-violent resistance and will advocate with and for the oppressed. But, I do think that MLK is a little harsh when he condemns the oppressed to the same level as the oppressor if they accept their unjust system. Every second the oppressed speak out, they put their lives in more danger. They are already living in fear, and when they resist, their fear only increases 10 fold and their lives become even more endangered. I don’t think that it is fair to judge people for accepting their situation passively, if by resisting they risk their life. 

On the other hand, if you are an outsider, a third party observer, I believe you do have an ethical responsibility to stand up for the oppressed or against a certain law that you find immoral. If you are sitting back living a great life, not being oppressed, and you see a person or group being overpowered or oppressed and you know it is wrong, you have a duty to stand up for those people. I really liked what we talked about in the Socratic Seminar about even if it doesn’t have an impact on you and you think its not your fight, if you don’t resist with them or advocate for them, you are doing a greater injustice to those oppressed people than the oppressors. Unlike the oppressors, you know that it is wrong, but you choose to let it keep happening instead of stopping it. This really had an impact on me because of the whole gay marriage thing. I, personally think it is wrong to keep gay people from marrying and living like everyone else, but that law personally doesn’t impact me in any way, so I never really took an interest in it or talked about it. But after the Socratic Seminar and our readings, I do believe that I need to be an advocate and stop standing by and letting the injustice continue. Not only is it the moral thing to do and will spread justice further and to more people, but also, if I ever become the oppressed, how can I expect anyone to advocate or fight for me, if I never did the same for them? If I don’t take up my ethical responsibility to defend an unjust or immoral law for someone else, I wont have to right to be offended or claim injustice if no one helps me regain my rights, if I never help anyone gain theirs.