Just a little more on Oroonoko

After reading the first portion of this story, as Oroonoko was on the boat headed for the plantation, I remember thinking that I would be very upset if he didn't find Imoinda over there.  Needless to say, when they found each other and finally got to be together I was pretty happy.  Unfortunately the story just goes downhill from there.  I don't quite get why people thought Oroonoko would simply sit around and let the promises made to him be delayed forever; I was more surprised that he waited as long as he did.  And seriously, "we have to wait until the governor gets back" is a pretty shoddy excuse considering the entire point of a deputy governor is to fill the governor's shoes while he's not around.  There's no reason he couldn't have made the call himself, which means he was just being (as we found out later) a major asshole.  I guess maybe they were used to dealing with slaves who had been captured in battle and felt, culturally, that their fate was deserved.  Whatever the case, things took a sharp turn for the worse after he led the mass escape.

(www.quickmeme.com)

I was heartened to hear in class that I was not the only one who approved of his killing Imoinda.  At that point it was obvious they were not going to get their freedom, even though they could have given the colony a hundred other slaves as a ransom.  (From a pragmatic point of view, why the people in charge wouldn't trade two troublesome slaves for a hundred more docile ones is something I'll never understand.)  I agree with his determination to live free or die, as did the founders of this country under much less harsh treatment than he suffered.  What's more, the manner of his death justified his choice to me fully; if they would go so far as to cut off his genitals and other parts of his body and burn them in front of him, I cringe to think what they would have done to his wife and unborn child.

Oroonoko's death scene, to me, was the ultimate revelation of who is "civilized" and who is "savage."  Part of why I view Oroonoko and Imoinda as so high on the "civilized" scale is because of where they started in relation to where they ended up, in terms of morality and personal growth and character.  If you are raised in a civilized culture, with an emphasis on right and wrong, a strong moral code, and a high degree of organization, I think it is far worse for you to sink to the barbarous level of Oroonoko's grandfather than it is for someone raised in a less civilized culture.  Basically, I think you should be measured by the culture you were raised in.  Of course, the natives in this story present an interesting dilemma.  They have a strong moral code and a good understanding of right and wrong, but they don't have a lot of organization.  Does this make them more civilized or more savage?  The definition you use has a great effect on how they are categorized.  Personally, I consider morality to be the most important product of culture, so I consider a highly moral society to be a civilized one.  How about you?

(4 out of 5)

What's wrong with these people?

Oroonoko really got to me.  I was actually mad after the ending, which in my opinion means that at least the author succeeded in her goal of making people care about this issue.  But reading a story so heavily saturated with slavery made me think of a quote by one of my favorite authors, Terry Pratchett.  He speaks through the character of Granny Weatherwax, saying, "A sin, young man, is when you treat people as things.  Including yourself.  That's what sin is" (Carpe Jugulum).  And that's exactly what happens over and over again in this story.

First off, I don't think I have to tell anyone that slavery is the most literal example of treating people as things.  Slavery takes a human being and makes him a salable commodity, preempting his free will and self-determination.  But it's far from the only example of this definition of sin.  Oroonoko's grandfather treats Imoinda as a thing, there for his pleasure alone, and when he decides to punish her, he sells her to slavers with barely a second thought.  His actions also show how little he regards his own grandson when he steals away his betrothed, the woman he loves alone and who loves him in return.

Again and again in this book, white men are proven to be faithless liars.  These men treat everyone around them as things, justifying their manipulation and deceit by telling themselves they're just slaves, or just natives, or just subjects, not worthy of respect or consideration.  In fact, these men are even lying to themselves, not respecting themselves enough to maintain their honor.  The worst thing, in my opinion, is that they leave honest people looking like liars if they trust their words.  For someone in a position of power, such as a deputy governor, such behavior is despicable  and an atrocious example to set for his subjects.

I also get the sense that the colonists view the natives from the same dehumanizing perspective.  The author says that they don't dare take the natives as slaves because they are so numerous.  This implies to me that if they could get away with it, they would just enslave the natives; after all, they're just godless heathens, right?  I think this is the exact reason the author makes such a big deal of the innocence and morality of the natives compared to the whites.  In fact, the disparity between the religious tenets of these liars and their actions makes me think they see God as just another thing, something to use to calm the masses but which means nothing to them.

So what do you all think?  Did Terry Pratchett get it right, or is there more to the story?

3 out of 5

Living in Utopia

I can't say I would care to be a resident of Utopia as it was described in the book.  Mind you, if I were allowed to change a bunch of things then I'd be all for it.  Of course, a lot of the things I didn't care for, such as making women subordinate to men and no provision for privacy, are due to societal changes that have taken place since the book was written.  I also find the idea of not having a place to call my own a bit unsettling.  Honestly, I find it easier to give up personal property than the idea of home.  But when you get right down to it, most of the things I was the most uncomfortable with were things that were products of society at that time.

If More had suggested that women in Utopia were treated the same as men, that would have seemed very odd then.  It might have even affected the popularity of the book, since logically most men would not have wanted women to get any crazy ideas.  And until it was mentioned in class, it had never occurred to me that privacy just wasn't a thing then.  So if most of the problems I had with Utopia originated from the author's society, what would Utopia look like if it had been written recently?

I find myself thinking first of the internet, probably because I spend a lot of time on it.  I feel that Utopia would have to have widespread access to the internet; otherwise I couldn't consider it a free society, and if it isn't a free society then it isn't a utopia.  What's more, the internet (or at least interconnectedness) allows for higher efficiency in many areas of work.  A catastrophic accident created a food shortage?  No need to send a runner to all nearby towns hoping they have a surplus, we'll just hop on the government website and see who has the most food to spare.

Leisure time was a vaunted and attractive part of Utopia.  Of course, now we have a good amount of leisure time.  Does this mean the new Utopia will have even shorter workdays?  With the advent of technology like the combine harvester, considerably fewer people would be needed to run the farms. More and more factory work is automated.  And as for spending all that leisure time, the internet provides vast opportunities for both entertainment and learning.

Advances in food production and crop yield mean that starvation should never be a concern.  After all, the world produces enough food today to feed everyone; distribution is the problem.  In Utopia, that issue would be eradicated.  This means that Utopians could either devote less land to food production, or could reap a surplus of food and trade it to their neighbors.

The modern world is a complicated place.  I know I've only scratched the surface of the ways Utopia would be different if it were designed today.  I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks.

2 out of 5

Utopia Today

(Sorry to jump back so far but this has been mouldering in the back of my mind for a while now.)

Thinking about Utopia, even today we're still a long way off.  But it isn't an even progression.  In some ways we have achieved parts of Utopia.  

Certain aspects of Utopia can actually be found in our culture.  We certainly have a lot more leisure time now than they did when this book was first published.  Six hours of work a day for seven days a week gives 42 hours of work per week, very close to the 40 hour work week expected here in the US.  And while it is debatable how well a family can live on that income, it is undeniable that we are closer to that aspect of Utopia than we used to be.  Leisure and free time activities are a large and thriving part of our daily lives.

Education is another facet of Utopia we mirror.  In the US, a child has access to basic education no matter how poor his family may be.  Admittedly, the quality of education varies drastically from place to place, but it's still a step in the right direction.  And with all the information available at libraries, on the internet (if you know how to sort through the misinformation) and all of it for free, anyone with drive, discipline and an internet connection can become an expert in any of a wide variety of fields.

I'd like to know what other people think.  Obviously, some aspects of Utopia are basically obsolete or generally undesirable, and we're still a ways off on others, but would you agree that we have achieved Utopia in a few areas of life?  Are there any parts of Utopia existing today that I overlooked?

(1 of 5)

Love 'em and leave 'em

In the last few weeks I've really struggled to find a topic I felt strongly about. Yeah, I think the Wife of Bath is interesting, but honestly, she's really said it all already. I didn't feel like I had anything to add. It wasn't until I read her story that I found myself with something to say.

I was already familiar with the story she told. I don't remember reading it, but I must have, most likely when I was a lot younger. I'm pretty sure that in the version I read the same woman who was raped at the beginning is the one the knight ends up marrying. The story Chaucer tells us doesn't specify, but it seems to me like the sort of thing he'd mention. “And whan the knight saugh verraily al this, / That she so fair was and so yong thereto” (1250-1251), “oh, and she was the same woman he wanted so badly in the beginning of the story,” Chaucer never said.

So what happened to her? Obviously, she got justice, of a sort at least. We never know if the queen's solution was acceptable to her or if she would rather have seen his head roll. Sadly, this is a prime example of the unconscious and unintentional sexism rampant throughout many cultures and eras; she showed up, got raped, and that was all the storyteller needed from her. Of course, perhaps she preferred to fade into obscurity.

However, life had to have been hard for her after this. Obviously, the stories of King Arthur's court, as well as his idealized system of laws and governance, are either a fictional tale or a highly romanticized and exaggerated story, so we don't know what protections might have existed for her. However, there are still areas of the world today where a woman who has been raped will be charged with adultery. Even if she was protected, as seems likely under Arthur's fair laws, she had to have suffered some ostracization. Human nature is consistent enough that you know someone would have blamed the victim.

I think that, as a young woman, clearly unmarried since she was a “mayde,” this event would have been an impediment to finding a good marriage. Really, since the knight got away with his life, I really think the least he could have done would be to give her a rich dowry to offset the damage he did. He was certainly happy to offer all his worldly possessions to the old woman to avoid marrying her.

The blame here could be placed on the knight, persisting in his selfishness, but it could also be placed on whoever originally told this story. I'd love to know what you think.

Beowulf and the Dragonborn

Reading through the story of Beowulf for the first time, I was surprised by the word “thane.” As I read further, getting the context of the word, I found myself nodding along. I was already familiar with the concept of a thane, a person who fights for a lord and receives certain benefits in return, from (believe it or not) a video game. To be specific, from the game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (Bethesda Software, 2011. PC.)

                                    Main theme from Skyrim. (It's kind of a big deal.)

For those of you unfamiliar with this game, I'll give a brief overview. The Elder Scrolls games (five so far, with a sixth on the way) take place in a huge sandbox world. In video game terms, that means that instead of following a linear plot, you are free to wander around, pursue whatever goals you like, and the main plot can wait until you're good and ready. This world has its own religions, its own books (compiled here or here), and the characters in the game even go about their own lives, following a daily routine that you, as the player, may never even see. What's more, each game in the series takes place in a different part of the world, so each one exposes you to a unique culture.

In Skyrim, the culture of the Nords (natives of the province Skyrim) bears more than a passing resemblance to the culture of the Danes and the Geats in Beowulf. Historically, each major city in Skyrim was ruled by a jarl, but in modern times they have been united under a high king. Each jarl has thanes, and when your character does enough good deeds for the people of a city and its surrounding lands, the jarl will make you a thane and give you a weapon from his armory as your badge of office, promising to inform his guards that you are not “part of the common rabble.” (watch the whole video or go to 3:24 for the thane part) There is a famous mead hall, Jorrvaskr, older than the city it resides in, as well as a fortress named “High Hrothgar.” The names of Nords also bear a marked similarity in style and sound to the names in Beowulf.

More interesting to me than the cultural similarities are the parallels between Beowulf himself and the Dragonborn in Skyrim. The premise of Skyrim is that dragons are awakening from millennia of slumber and wreaking havoc on the land, and only one person, the Dragonborn (that is, the player's character) can defeat them. Your character can take a dragon's soul after killing it, preventing it from returning, and can use that soul to access dragonlike abilities and powers. Beowulf was renowned for his strength and fighting prowess. Likewise, the Dragonborn becomes, by the end of the game, one of the most famous warriors of his time, no matter what path you choose for your character.

Personally, I am pretty stoked to see old stories receive new life in modern media, and since video games are one of my favorite media, I thoroughly enjoyed this new perspective into one of my favorite games.