Which Murder is Worst?

You are told about two different murders that took place in a nearby town. Who would you give the worst sentencing to? Both murders took place at night while the victims were sleeping. None of the victims were tortured, in fact, it is suspected that the victims knew no pain. The first murderer killed a family of three, leaving only the young daughter, a minor, alive. The second murderer killed a young woman in her own house. Who would you give the worst sentencing to, the murderer of three or the murderer of one? Naturally, you will most likely respond that both should be given a severe punishment, but the one that took three innocent lives will suffer more. In actuality, the murderer that killed three, you would probably send to a rehabilitation center and the other murderer would have the worst sentence. The reason? The man who murdered the young woman was in his twenties, lived with his parents, and was a social outcast. He was someone you avoided on the streets, and most likely avoided you. The murderer of the family? Well, she was the young daughter left alive. She's pretty and fragile-looking, someone who you would help without a second thought.
It is human tendency to attempt to rationalize, well everything. As jurors, or someone solving or following a case, the one question always lingers, why? It is more important to us to understand the reason behind the act, than the act itself. Poe illustrated this in "The Tell-Tale Heart." Never once does the narrator try to defend his actions, instead he attempts to define his motive. Poe is illustrating to the audience that the narrator cares more about being understood than his past deeds. As readers, we are just as guilty. Instead of condeming the narrator for his acts, we are engrossed by his insanity. We feel separated from the narrator. Yet again, he is someone you would avoid on the streets. But we do not avoid him for the murder, instead, we avoid him for his mind. Albert Camus illustrates the same concept in The Stranger. Camus deftly moves his audience to outrage over Mersault's trial. Yes, he murdered a man, but what does his mother's passing have to do with anything? We feel this outrage and shock because we view the world through Mersault. Mersault does not see the connection, and even we are hard pressed to see it as well. The irony is this is a valid description of the real world. If we were in that courtroom, we would want the answers to all of the questions posed by the prosecutors. Yet, they had nothing to do with the murder. It goes back to human tendency to rationalize. We cannot accept that Mersault would kill a man for no reason other than he was hot. We need the reason that something is already wrong, after all he never mourned for his mother. We cannot accept that a little girl would kill her family because there is something evil inside of her. We need to know that something is wrong, but we can fix it, as long as we support her. We can accept the fact that the man murdered the young woman. Afterall, she was beautiful and he would never have had a chance with her. He does not know how to interact socially or play well with others. But, he still should have known better.
Through our attempts to over-rationalize, we provide our society with confusing contradictions. We get lost in the insanity of one character whose story is all about murder and lost in the murdering ways of another character whose story is all about a different view of life. We give help to the murderer who can interact socially and condem the one who cannot. Our society needs to know the why behind most actions, however, we only accept the why when it fits our standards. Is this the way it has to be? Or can we, by realizing our tendencies, change the way we view others? I prefer to believe that we can judge a person by both actions and thoughts. I prefer to believe that if I were a juror, the appearance and acceptable societal standards would not stand in my way of passing down a fair and just sentencing. On the other hand, this form of judgement is deeply ingrained in our society. From character witnesses to who we play with on the playground, we base our decisions on how others operate with the whole. There may be no answer to this puzzling dilemma, but I do know this, it would not be comforting to be a stranger in our society.

Hidden Unequality

Virginia Woolf once stated that in 100 years from her essay, she believed that women would no longer be the protected sex. This essay was written eighty years ago and it is easy to see how many would believe that we are, if not completely, nearly there. After all, women are now figureheards in business and education. Higher education classrooms have as many female students as male, sometimes the females make the majority. There are now laws against sex discrimination. If she qualifies, a woman cannot be turned down for a post based on her sex alone. Women are welcomed in the worlds of business, education, and armed forces. It would appear that the male superiority that Woolf noted has all but faded to extinction. But is it really so? Are males and females on an equal playing field?
Women have certainly overcome many obstacles over the years. No longer is a woman trapped like Edna was in The Awakening. A woman is able to have her own income and lifestyle, very different from Nora in A Doll's House. Finally, a woman is not barred at every door by a man as Virginia Woolf experienced in her lifetime. On the surface, men and women are truly equal. If that is so, why are there still discrepancies in everyday life?
A woman is no longer barred from the workplace. Yet, it is extremely difficult to find a "successful" career driven woman who is a mother. Or if she is a mother, one who does not seem distant and unsure with her children. Society has allowed women a place in the workplace, however to reach the milestones that men reach so early in life, a woman is forced into a decision. Does she follow her career or does she give it all up to raise a family? Men have no such issue. If we are equal, why do the women have to answer this question, while the men do not need to make a choice.
Women have been given equal rights by law. However, the courts favor women. during a custody battle, the mother nearly always gets the children. Despite backgrounds of drugs, abuse, or neglect, the mother still keeps her children. Good fathers often lose their children for no other reason than they are not their children's mother. If we are equal, why does the mother gain custody more than the father? If we are equal, shouldn't each custody battle be based on the merits of each parent?
Virginia Woolf claimed that women served as looking-glasses for men. By looking into the mirror, the men were able to see themselves larger than life, especially when the mirror was so small. Many would tell you that womankind no longer feels inferior to its male counterparts. Yet, woman fight for the attention and approval of men constantly. As young children, girls strive for the love and attention of their father. As young adults, girls work to get the attention of the star football player (or his equivalent). As women, the goal is to attain the love and attention of one man for the rest of his life. Women fight so hard to get this attention, that they often bring eachother down in the process. Gossip, name-calling, mud-slinging, all runs rampant in any setting that is dominantly female. No one is allowed to outshine the other. The goal is to meet the approval and needs of one man, more than anyother woman can. Sometimes, the consequences of such actions are not thought of. In today's society, where girls often "sex-up" for a man, have women really stopped serving as a looking-glass? or has the frame merely changed?
I believe that in many ways women have lessened the gender gap. The gap is no more feminine, more subtle. It is easy to say that the graduating class has a higher proportion of females in its upper half than males. It is easy to say that mothers now are able to get custody of their children. It is easy to say that a woman does not need a man to survive. It is not easy to say that women have all the opportunities and sacrafices of men. It is not easy to say that a mother and father has equal opportunity to custody. It is not easy to say that women do not build a man's ego. Our society is still transitioning, however, it would be wrong to say that our society is equal. Equality does not mean that one gender has more of an opportunity than another. Complete equality will come no one has an advantage over another by gender alone.

Middle East Shocks

The Middle East, specifically Afghanistan, has been a topic of conversation in American homes for years. The turmoil in this region, as well as the many events that tie the United States to this region, have made it such a pertinent topic. In class, we recently read A Thousand Splendid Suns. The story put into perspective just exactly what life is like in the Middle East. Today, the war and troubles facing this region are so far away, that modern American children simply cannot relate. Instead, we listen to one-sided news and make assumptions. A blanket statement perhaps, but most were shocked by the atmosphere presented in the novel. Some were shocked at how normal the characters seemed, others were shocked at how much violence occurs. I did not share these shocks.
I believe that I have been given an accurate representation of the Middle East at home. My parents spent three years there, and close family friends spent twelve years. I have grown up hearing stories of the wonders and horrors that occur in the Middle East. As I got older, my parents did not sugar coat the events in the Middle East. However, they did not exaggerate or dramatize these events. I grew up hearing stories of families, children, and individuals, just like me, trying to find their place in the world. I believe too many Americans are given only one view. Too many Americans believe that the Middle East is full of violence and heathens, while others are in denial about the atrocities being committed. The violence does exist, and that must be learned. Despite culture or religion, there are basic human rights that all countries should enforce. However, it should not be assumed that just because someone is Middle Eastern means that they are finatics. Just like any group of people, there are both good and bad people. I do not believe that it is fair that such a large population of the world should be catagorized under one general description. I believe that the media is partly to blame. Too often, the events in the Middle East are either ignored, or when reported on, are full of violence. I am not saying that the bad stories should not be told, but just as stories of hope and peace are reported about other regions of the war, so should there be stories of hope and peace for the Middle East. However, I also feel as if Americans should not be lazy in their education. We as a people should not just take the word of some journalist. If we hear a story, we should listen to other news stations, and when possible check the validity for ourselves.
For me, there should have been only one true shock from the novel. For me, the amount of hope and perseverance the Afghanistan people show is truly remarkable. I am not sure I would be able to survive a country full of so much turmoil and still have hope for the future. The characters in A Thousand Splendid Suns are truly remarkable. Even in my worst nightmares, these people are survivng more than even my imagination can supply. This story shows the remarkable strength of a remarkable people. From now on, I know I will have hope, because if these people can survive that, I can survive whatever I am facing.

Fading Influences

Often at the forefront of social revolutions is literature in the form of social commentaries. These works of literature are able to connect to the population in general and bring about great social change. After the revolution is over, these works invariably end up in the school curriculm. The idea is that students would gain an appreciation of the society within they live and how very hard it is to bring about societal change. But is this the most effective way to teach? For how long do these social commentaries have any influence? Or should the changing times be kept in history class?
I do not believe that social commentaries only fit in history classes. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to use socieal commentaries in a literature course to teach societal differences. My main reasoning being, the students just do not get it. The students understand that society has changed, they even understand what society was, what it is, and what it was like in the middle. The concept is easy enough to grasp, its the literature that is not so easy. This is being demonstrated in our current unit, gender studies. Everyone is able to easily comprehend the society that A Doll House and The Awakening are a part of. However, it is extremely difficult for all to connect to the literature or to understand the literature in context.
The many discussions on The Awakening has proven that when reading literature, most students (our class being the microsociety) attempt to put the literature into their society not put them into the literature's society. It is all to easy to say that Edna should have fought or that Nora should never had left her children, especially since these are available options in our society. It is not so easy to understand how these women had no other option. It is very difficult to comprehend that Nora could leave her children because it was the only way to truly take control of her own life. It is even more difficult to understand that Edna's suicide was inevitable and truly heroic. Afterall, how could Nora take care of children if she could not take care of herself? Also, how could Nora take the children with her when the law would not allow it? How could Edna have fought society outside of society when the only escape from society was death? How could Edna have made different decisions when the only decision that was hers alone was her death? These are not easy concepts to grasp, which in a sense is miraculous. Our society has progressed so much that we cannot comprehend a society where one gender is dominant. However, as stated earlier, studying gender studies is too difficult in literature, for this exact reason. The students cannot comprehend on such a personal level the society they intellectually understand.
I propose that instead of teaching the society through these units, literature is taught instead. For the student to truly connect with the literature in its own context, that is what I believe the goal of the unit should be. This is the more difficult goal of the two, however it is the most beneficial to the students and the world. For the students, mental capacities are stretched. For the world, not all societies progress in the same manner or same speed, by being able to read literature in context, it may be easier to bridge societal gaps. As a whole, the social commentaries of the past are not losing influence, their influence is merely changing. Societal change can no longer be derived because the change has occured and has been around for quite some time. The commentaries no longer comment on society. However, the commentaries have a great influence on how to perceive other societies. In this sense, the commentaries greatest influence lies in connecting the societies of today.

A Mixing of Ideas

"We can understand the appeal of Cultural Relativism, then, even though theory has serious shortcomings." James Rachels stated this in his article "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism." Rachels makes many points about the shortcomings of Cultural Relativism, at the same time, he pulls out exactly what he sees beneficial from it. Cultural Relativism is based on the fact that cultures have different moral and ethic codes, according to their society. Therefore, it can be assumed wrong to judge these codes according to a different society's dangers. Deduced from this is the fact that there are no universal truths in ethics and morality. Rachels goes on to say that this ultimatum in unsound. He believes that there are some beliefs that have been proven wrong, some codes that are universal, and that some practices are inately wrong. I am of mixed opinion. I agree with some of Rachels's arguments, and believe that he is being too hard on others.
Rachels is from the University of Alabama, and therefore lives in the same culture as we do. In our culture, there are very few gray areas. In fact, we try very hard to define all gray areas. For instance, everyone has different ethnic backgrounds in America. Excepting a few traditions, we all live American lives. We all follow the laws and ethic codes of America. The differences in tradition may be wich holidays we celebrate, not whether or not we kill our children. Cultural Relativism does not fit in our culture. Cultural Relativism gives us no concrete right or wrong, in fact it says there is no such thing. In his own way, James Rachels is rejecting Cultural Relativism in the same manner as our society rejects the bareness of breasts. He is not keeping an open mind, he is attempting to fit this theory into our culture, a theory that does not belong.
This theory of Cultural Relativism, for most Americans, would be better on paper and remaining a theory. Very few people accept the fact that there is no right or wrong. However, the theory is valid. No two cultures are exactly the same, does that mean one is wrong? No, it just means that through different development and views the two cultures have learned to value different things in a different order of priority. Most differences in values between cultures, as Rachels pointed out, can be determined by the different conditions imposed upon the society. Cultural Relativism helps us to understand different cultures. By accepting the fact that there is no true right or wrong, it forces people to look for the reason for the difference. Upon finding the reasoning, the difference does not seem so extreme. I found this to be true in Things Fall Apart. At the beginning of the novel, I found Okonkwo to be very harsh to his father. I also saw him as cruel and selfish. However, I upon futher review of the novel, I found my accusations to be false. Okonkwo was just living by the standards of his society, and it was wrong to judge him by mine. By my standards, Okonkwo was a detestable figure. But when I thought about his culture, I understood him. Understood his actions and thoughts.
While I do not agree with Rachels rejection, I believe that he makes some arguments of merit. Cultural Relativism has the potential to ignore horrific facts. Anti-sematic nations should not go on killing sprees, and slavery wars should not be waged. This argument ties into another of Rachels, that there are some universal ethics that do exist, because without them a society would not survive. That being said, I believe it is only logical to believe that these univeral moral would hold true and stop any horrific acts form continuing. I still do not believe that this goes against Cultural Relativism. Cultural Relativism states only that there is not a universal code, that does not mean to say that some morals are not universal. I also highly doubt that Cultural Relativism is not about accepting, but about understanding.
Cultural Relativism states that moral codes can only be judged by the society and time they are found. I do not agree with the Middle East's practice of beating women. However, when considering a society based on honor and men having the higher position, understand where the beatings can be found acceptable. To my moral standards, these acts are horrific and I believe that something needs to be done about it. However, I do not believe that this is the goal of Cultural Relativism. I do not believe that the theory is attempting to promote beatings, or on our side, the uncovering of women. I believe that Cultural Relativism is attempting to create an understanding between cultures, one where we are not to quick to judge. We do not have to agree with the other cultures actions, nor do we have to sit around and do nothing, we just need to understand the reason behind it. By understanding the reasons better, we understand the culture better and are able to make better relations with that culture.

"The Hero and the Theme"

"The poem's theme and the heor's goal are one." George Clark made this statement in his analysis of Beowulf in regards to its hero and theme. Many scholars have studied this poem over the years. Debates rage about who the author(s) was, the purpose of the poem, and how the hero and theme are related. After analyzing all views on the argument, Clark came to the decisiosn that theme and hero were one in the same. After reading his analysis, I find that I am in full agreement. It could be stated that Beowulf's goal was to fulfill the theme of the poem. The poem's theme is to lead a life worth remembering. This life is one of success and honor. Every man should strive to live up to his father and to avoid shaming his children. In my eyes, this is exactly what Beowulf did. He wished to fill the gigantic shoes of his father and uncle. At the same time, he wanted those around him to remeber him kindly. Honor and chilvary were the ultimate goals for Beowulf and the theme.

George Clark quotes Kathryn Hume as stating "'We know too little of his everyday humanity, his normal human feelings, to be able to see him as an extension of ourselves.'" I could not disagree more with this statement. I view Beowulf as the perfect hero. Humes is stating that there is no personal connection between Beowulf and the reader, to me this is what makes him perfect. Choose your favorite hero and I guarantee you, it would be a hard thing to find someone in agreement. Humes is right, there is nothing specific to connect hero and reader. At the same time, there is nothing to separtate the hero from the reader. What one reader connects with, another may not. Any past struggles or emotions are alluded to so broadly in the text that anyone can connect with it. Beowulf is expressed as a typical man. The only exaggerated aspect is his strength. Beyond that, Beowulf could represent any man anywhere. The fact that Beowulf lives up to the poem's theme, indicates that all men are capable of such a feat. Beowulf's heroic qualities are obtainable by the common man. That is what makes him such a wonderful hero for me, he is not Superman. He is a regular man living life in the best way imaginable.
Beowulf 's theme is the same as its excellent hero. Beowulf does not have an obscure theme that is hard to find. Nor does it have a hero that exceeds normal expectations. Beowulf teaches its readers to lead a life full of honor and chilvary. More importantly, it teaches that any man is capable of just such a feat. Most people today think of Superman, Batman, or Spider-Man when they think of fantasy heroes; Beowulf certainly does not make the list. But he should. Today's society often looks for an escape when they are reading. However, the escape is short lived. Reading of the grand hero may give the reader enough courage to face the problem he ran from, but it will do little to carry him through life. Beowulf is not a momentary escape. Beowulf provides its readers with the tools to handle any battle. It gives the reader the sense that no challenge is to great for the ordinary man. Beowulf gives power to the ordinary man. It makes him the hero.

Changing History

What I learn in school is always correct. Well, as a little elementary school student I may have believed this. But as I got older, I reliazed that this may not always be the case. Teachers make mistakes and subjects are constantly evolving. For instance, one lesson stressed in the sciences is that the "facts" we study are actually theories. Tomorrow, everything we have learned could be turned upsidedown. However, no one has ever told me that history is recorded incorrectly, nor in fact that there is no way to accurately record history.
Beowulf and Grendel were excellent examples of how there are two sides to every issue. In Beowulf, Grendel is depicted as a heinous monster. A monster that goes on killing sprees with no provocation. He is an unnatural evil thing whose death deserves to be gruesome and painful. In Grendel, Grendel is a young creature that attempts to fit into man's society. However, man is a pitiful group of braggers and so-called "heroes". Despite the fact that in Grendel mankind is something to be ashamed of, Grendel still wishes to be accepted by these great beings. When he enters a hall extending the hand of friendship, he is attacked and driven out of the hall. Is it no wonder that he retaliate? In mankind's society, such a treatment to another being would have caused a greater retaliation. What is more, it would have been expected and approved of. Instead, Grendel is painted as an evildoer. Both authors told the same story, from two different points of view. However, the stories could not have been more different.
History is very much like Beowulf and Grendel. In school, Americans learn about the great feats of George Washington and our other founding fathers. Of how our ancestors shook off the chains of England's tyrannical rule and established the wonderful country of America. English students learn how the ungrateful colonists rebelled against the great and wondrous rule of England. This is not the only example, either. Years from now, my children will learn how terrorists attacked our great nation on September 11. In foreign countries, some children will learn how freedom fighters took a daring attempt against the oppressive United States. The facts and numbers may be the same, but the change of a few adjectives, and history is completely rewritten.
So few people consciously realize the unstability of history. What people learned of history in school, people accept as cold, hard facts. One reason for this is that unlike in the sciences where we are told that not everything is 100 percent true, it is implied that everything learned in history is 100 percent true. So few in America question whether the what the colonists did was reasonable or not. However, subconsciously, people are aware of how history is not set in stone. People often wonder aloud how such and such an event will be recorded. This implies that there can be more than one view to an event. Unfortunately, not many bridge the gap between the subconscience and conscience.
Nothing can truly be done to fix history. When it comes to mankind's history, it is impossible to find an impartial account. Even if the historian has no ties to the event, the historian may have his own view, or his sources may be biased. In my examples, it can be seen how just one or two words, or even the rearranging of a sentence can change history. History is so easily influenced by those who are writing it. I believe that the only measure that can be taken against this dilemma is allowing students to know, from an early age, that history is subject to influence. We cannot change how we record history, but we can change how we view it. After this class and reading Beowulf and Grendel, I know I will veiw history differently. I will always wonder how others view the events of today's society. In this manner, I think we may be able to keep an accurate record of history. When we compare our views with others' a common ground may be reached, and that will be where true history lies.