Poo-tee-weet

This past month we finished and discussed Slaughterhouse Five.  One of the manor points of discussion was how Kurt Vonnegut intended for Slaughterhouse Five to be an “anti-war” novel.  I think that most people could agree that he did intend for this book to serve a purpose, other than to tell a story about aliens. The main topic that I wanted to touch on was how Vonnegut made the chirping of the bird so symbolic, adding to Vonnegut’s loss of words over the disaster at Dresden. 

“Poo-tee-weet” was one of the only things that Billy heard after the bombing and this is significant in two ways.  Number one, as we said in class, this signifies how there is nothing intelligent to say about war, because war is pointless.  There is nothing to say about war because it is unnecessary. Number two, it is hard to talk about something so terrible and it was hard for Vonnegut to write about something that was so traumatic for him.  It amazes me how Vonnegut was able to say so much, yet so little about war through a single chirp. I believe that it is obvious that Slaughterhouse Five was intended to be an anti war novel. I also wanted to talk about how Vonnegut reacted to war, how society glorifies war, and my personal opinion on the matter. 

Vonnegut experienced the war first hand. He was there and he saw the destruction with his own eyes.  I think that more people need to see and understand the true destruction that war brings.  In the movies we see the buff actors that play heroic soldiers that save the world. The media never shows us the scrawny boy that scarified his life. I think that war is glorified to the point that many Americans like the thought of it when actually war is the “Children’s Crusade” that was discussed in the first chapter.  I wish that more people could see that harm that war has on the whole world.  It is my firm belief that war should be avoided at all cost, especially when it involves the murder of innocent people.

Response to "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism"

 In the novel that we recently read in class, Things Fall Apart, missionaries are attempting to take over and reform a villages customs.  The village has certain customs that involve throwing twin babies into the woods.  The missionaries thought this custom was extremely barbaric but for okonkwo's village it is seen as normal.  This all has to do with how someone grew up and what they see as being normal.  For instance, in the passage, The Challenge of Cultural a Relativism, Callatians ate the bodies of their dead fathers  and the Greeks practiced cremation.  The Greeks were asked how they felt about eating the bodies of their dead fathers and th Callatians were asked how they felt about burning their fathers bodies.  Both groups thought the other practice was horrific.  What do the missionaries, villagers, Callatians and Greeks all have in common? Cultural relativism. What was accepted as a normal practice in the village and the Callatians community is considered right and normal in their societies but for the missionaries and the Greeks it is seen barbaric. There are also some cultures that women are above men or men are above women.  In my opinion, I think in theory it would be great to be able to accept other culture's customs an beliefs, but when someone grows up believing one thing and their parents push it on them, it's going to be hard to accept something that another's culture believes.  For example, I grew up in a Christian house hold, celebrating all the Christian holidays like Easter and Christmas, and attending church almost every Sunday.  For me, it is odd to think that some families do not go to church on a regular basis, or even believe in God.  It is even weirder for me to think that their are religions out there that are basically the complete opposite of Christianity.  People would like to say that they could easily accept other cultures practices, but at least for me it is really hard to picture something that I didn't grow up believing.  So basically, I do not believe it is possible for other cultures to understand another cultures customs.

Fate or Freewill?

        The ongoing discussion the last few weeks has been whether or not fate exists, or if we have the power to make our own decisions.  In the play Oedipus, his future is unavoidable. No matter what he does he would have ended up killing his own father and sleeping with his mother.  I believe this is pretty far fetched, mostly because it is ancient literature and people believed in prophecies. Then in the movie Run Lola Run we saw Lola and Manny change their and others  fates just by bumping into someone.  I don't really think I believe in either of these views.

        In my perspective, we can control what we do. I believe that God knows what direction we are going and where we will end up, but we have the power to control our own actions and control our "fate". I guess in a way, life does work like the Movie Run Lola run. I don't think it is as crazy as the movie.  If you are having a bad day, you will likely take it out on someone else.  That person that you take it out on will be upset and take their anger out on somebody else.  That third person was effected by the the first persons bad day, so it is similar to the butterfly effect.  So basically, I guess I do agree with how in Run Lola Run and how Lola was able to change her fate by making a small change.

Recently while applying to colleges, I have been debating with myself on where I want to go.  My choices are between Pitt, Temple, and Drexel.  I was most likely going to choose Temple until someone told me about a really good nursing program in Lancaster. I could go to Temple or Pitt, but then I would be paying more for school. If I did this nursing program I would commute and have a lot more money to spare.  It really comes down to whether or I'm willing to give up the "college experience". At this point in my life, the choices I make now will effect where I am one year from now, and where I will be 20 years from now.

Girls Rule, Boys Drool

While sitting in class reading the short story Eveline, I started to think about how many connections it has to modern day society and the dependency of women on men.  Statistics at showing that the number of stay at home moms is on the rise ... But why? Why would a woman chose the be dependent on a man like in Eveline? Another good question is why do girls in high school insist on having a boyfriend, just for the sake of having one?  As a young woman who is about to leave home to go to college, I see being dependent on a man as a weakness.  The only thing someone needs to be suspenseful (in my eyes) is a good education.  Once you have an education you will have no need to be a stay at home mom.
I think that a women's dependency on man has a lot to do with the fact that men have the tendency to overpower women; in most cases a man would win a combat fight against a women. Because women have always been seen as inferior, people think that it is okay for a man to rule a woman.  Men see it as okay to beat a woman because we see ourselves as inferior.  I have never heard of a case of abuse where a woman abuses a man. It just doesn't happen.
Back to the topic of dependency... Throughout the short story we hear about how Eveline falls into the arms of one man after another.  I thinks this reflects the actions of the common day (excuse my language) slut. But we have to ask ourselves why those kinds of people exist?  Why do women feel the need to be dependent on other men?  I think Eveline is dependent on men simply because the time period makes it very hard not to be. BUT, we live in the 21st century and it is my belief that every female, no matter her age, should be able to survive without a male (except for reproduction purposes). Who needs guys anyway.