What's Actually True in Slaughterhouse-Five

When I read the title, Slaughterhouse-Five, an entire mess of images jump out at me from the cover page. If you analyze the cover... well, you don't really get anywhere with your imagination.  I mean, it's red. The author's name, Kurt Vonnegut is very prominent on the cover. There's a skull with bones...Something that you'd probably see on a pirate ship's flag. The words, "dead men tell no tales" ring through my ears as I'm suddenly time-warped to my eighth grade field trip to Disneyland Park in Anahiem, California......

My friends and I have stood in line for two hours to get into the "Pirate's of the Caribbean" themed ride in Adventure land. Finally! We've managed to get all six of us in the same boat! So here we are, floating on the boat... We go down this huge waterfall and suddenly find ourselves in a cave filled with pirate booty. The words, "dead men tell no tales" are chanted by the animatronic pirates throughout the ride, haunting us until the very end of our journey out of the dangerous, stormy seas....

Similar to the time warping that I've expressed is how the tale of Slaughter House Five is conveyed through Vonnegut's writing.Throughout the entire book, the protagonist Billy can be considered to be a very passive character. He's given the gift of traveling through time. He is able to see things happening in his past and things happening in his future. The present setting where Billy recounts the events of his life is centered around the firebombing of Dresden, a time in which he was enlisted to fight as an American soldier.

One has to wonder if Billy is truly scared of everything happening around him. I mean, he seems VERY passive in everything, every event, and every action of the book. Perhaps his reaction is a result of the fact of knowing that he will be okay. He knows everything about his life at certain points to which he should not be able to know the outcome of an event, (such as the firebombing at Dresden). Would we possibly react differently to circumstances in the present if we knew our outcome of our futures? Billy  knows that this is not where he will die. In fact, Billy knows far too much about his own life, and life, itself, on Earth.

 Billy comes in contact with an extraterrestrial race, the Tralfamadorians, that explain certain truths about Earth. They explain how reproduction actually works. It involves multiple mates to conceive of a human child, including the mating of a few Tralfamadorian couples. When Billy and his wife are creating their child, he knows that the Tralfamadorians are also helping them conceive.  The debate is simple. Do these Tralfamadorians actually exist? Or is all of the extraterrestrial, and time traveling experience a coping mechanism for Billy as he deals with the trauma of war?

I believe that all Billy claims in the book to be happening is all entirely true. Yes, even the alien part! One of the main characteristics of post modernism concerns the absence of meta-narrative. This means that there are actually multiple truths about the world. Vonnegut satirizes meta-narrative when he describes Christianity. Billy contemplates the "lynching" of the wrong man, Jesus Christ. How bizarre is it to have multiple followers believing the claims of one man, saying he is the son of the God of the human race? So why is it hard for people to believe in the existence of the Tralfamadorians? Perhaps they aren't the saviors of the world, but why couldn't it have been that God had made them to coexist with the humans as well?

Ultimately, I believe Vonnegut's book emphasizes the fact that in post modernist society, truth makes itself known to us through many forms as we experience life through a fractured identity.

Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery.... and Freedom!

...Douglass, Solomon, and Freedom

Knowledge is power, and the truth will set you free. Or at least, in the case of Frederick Douglass, knowledge was the enabling force that led Douglass to his eventual freedom. In reflection, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass embodies this philosophy. Douglass is a slave who is taught by his mistress, Sophia, to read and write. In fact, the relationship between slave and master is intriguing to Douglass. At first, his mistress Sophia shows Douglass a tender and gentle disposition. She does not rule him harshly. Instead, she is nurturing. She teaches him how to start reading. Through this simple act, she rejects the Southern belief and practice of the 1800's to deny slaves the possibility of education. She aids the development of Douglass' literacy. However, this loving disposition between the two, slave and mistress, does not persist as Sophia becomes aware of her actions through the informing knowledge of her husband. Her heart turns cold and she becomes harsh in her rule, baring the guilt of inflicting pain upon her slave as a consequence of her transformation. But Douglass’ exposure to literacy persists as he continues to learn how to read and write from the neighborhood boys surrounding him.

Once exposed to the truth, one can never go back to the way things were. I’d like to think this is somewhat similar to the shadows in Plato’s cave. Once someone sees the actual figures making the shadows on the wall, one will never be satisfied with knowing only the shadows ever again. One will know that there is something else out there making them. One can never go back to how life was before, because the knowledge of knowing something else has widened the possibility of knowing more than what they had settled for in the beginning. Plato claims that some can never handle the truth, and many cower away from the power it can give you. Is this the same mentality that the slave owners want to inflict upon their slaves? Will the slaves grow hungry for freedom if they are exposed to its concept through reading and writing? Will they group together and overtake their masters and mistresses of the South?  Or will they be better off not knowing there is a world out there that could give them something better than what they have right now?

        This self-consciousness is what Douglass gains through his mistress. Knowledge sets Douglass free. His mistress has enabled him to learn and know a world of possibility, and Douglass is exposed to the world around him simply, through understanding words on a page. So there is possibility for having a better life and improving one’s self, and there is a concept known as freedom that involves being the master of your own fate, doing what you want, when you want, and where you want it. Therefore, through his pursuit of attaining more knowledge and access to information, he begins to set himself free from the life, morals, and rules that he had once known to be final. This is Douglass’ plight to becoming a self-made man.

          It’s a bit ironic if we are to compare it to the story of 12 Years A Slave, the academy award winning film for best movie of 2014. The protagonist, Solomon Northup, is a prominent member of society in the North. He is well educated and an accomplished violinist. In the plot, he is kidnapped and sold into slavery by two white men seeking profit for enslaving blacks. His slavery lasts for twelve years. Throughout his time as a slave, Solomon learns that he is better off hiding his past identity. He hides his abilities of being able to read and write from his mistress and master. This is the only way he will be able to survive so that he will not be killed by white folk who might find his abilities to be intimidating and threatening to their position. 

           In a conversation with two other captured black men, Solomon discusses escape. One of the men encourages the others to just surrender to slavery. This man has been a slave his entire life and finds hope in knowing that his master will save him. But Solomon and the other educated man distinguish themselves from other slaves describing their educational differences to set them apart. Unlike the slave, these men were exposed to a life of knowledge. Unlike the slave who was born into slavery that is content with knowing a fixed position in life, Solomon and the other man are not content. Finally, in meeting a Southern man with liberal ideas, Solomon entrusts a letter for him to deliver to his friends in the North so that he will be rescued from slavery, freed and reunited with his family once again. Happily, he is rescued, but so many others are left behind to continue their lives as slaves and throughout their lives, they will know nothing else.

           In both narratives, the central theme that persists is knowledge. Knowledge is power and the truth that they gain through knowledge brings them freedom. The truth sets both of the two men, Solomon and Douglass, a part from everything else. The ability to read and write allows them a chance at freedom. Knowledge allows them rebellion against a lifetime of oppression. Yes, the truth will set you free!

The Little Black Boy

"The Little Black Boy"

In The Little Black Boy, a black child discusses his spirituality by using the color of his skin to determine his position with God and his position in society. It is very obvious to claim that there is some racism in the poem. But what is actually racist about the poem is very debatable. The child was born with black skin, but claims that his soul is white. His mother tells him that the sun, where God lives, creates the light. Perhaps the whiteness of his soul that the boy refers to is the symbolic color for the light that God sheds upon his creation. The poem continues to say that because of the color of his skin, the black boy can bare the heat and the light from the sun's rays. The black boy says that, "these black bodies, and this sun burnt face, Is but a cloud and like a shady grove". Because their skin can bare the pain, they are closer to God. They are his lambs, and he is the shepherd. God says, "come out from the grove, my love and care, and round my golden tent like lambs rejoice." Perhaps this golden tent alludes to the tent that Moses entered when he met with God in the desert to lead the Israelites to his kingdom of the promised land. Like Moses, the black boy is chosen by God.

 The boy directs the rest of his speech to the 'little English boy saying, "When I from black and he from white cloud free, and round the tent of God like lambs we joy, I'll shade him from the heat till he can bear, to lean in joy upon our fathers knee." The English boy sheds his white cloud, as the black boy sheds his black cloud. The cloud symbolizes the skin of the black boy and the white boy. The cloud is very literal and very deceiving. Society has placed the black boy at a lower level of the human hierarchy than the white boy because of his skin. But this, too, deceives the people from knowing that the black boy's soul is white, truthful, righteous and honest. The white boy's soul is darker. Because of the white boy's skin, the black boy will bring the white boy to the truth, because he was given the power, through his skin to bear God's rays of light and heat.

The last two lines, "And then I'll stand and stroke his silver hair and be like him and he will then love me," is very tricky. Is the black boy referring to the silver hair of God? Through art and literature God is known to have silver hair. Or is the black boy referring to the white boy's hair? My interpretation is that the black boy was referring to the white boy. The black boy is able to touch God's knee. But the knee is symbolic of a sign of reverence. We kneel down in front of a cross or a king to show respect. Although the narrator is a child, naive and full of hope, to be able to touch the hair of God is a mighty gesture and honor. However, Moses was the one person, able to see the face of God and his hair turned white because of it. If the black boy was symbolic of Moses, perhaps this theory of the silver haired person to be God would be acceptable. But I believe that the main focus of the poem is the acceptance of the spirituality of the black boy through God's eyes and through the white boy's eyes. The white boy represents the whole of society, and sadly, the only way for the black boy to be loved and accepted by him, is the revelation of  the black boy's white soul, and the action of saving the white boy's black soul. As unfortunate as having to prove one's worth is, The poem Little Black Boy, personifies the truth concerning our perception of the people in the world around us.

Todays Topic: Eating Babies Like Chips- Taylor

Eating Babies Like Potato Chips.

Let's eat Mr. Potato head!

When my youngest cousin, Eliseo, was born, I made a few strange comments that I'm not necessarily proud of. One of them was calling him, a sack of potatoes. When he was a new born baby, he would sleep and sleep and sleep and do absolutely nothing else. His body was still developing, right before my very own eyes into a fully formed human body, but at the moment he looked like a cute blob. So he was my potato boy. I, somewhat, identify in comparing children to food like in Jonathon Swift's A Modest Proposal. However, Swift takes the function of turning children into food a step further. Swift wants to take malnourished children and turn them into something useful for the commonwealth. Poor children, predominantly of Catholic origin, are being starved throughout the regions of Ireland. He proposes fattening them up and serving them to the wealthy Irish landowners. Child birthing would become a new job, for all those pregnant women out there. They'd sell their babies into the meat market at the age of one. Yes, some think it's vulgar, but  some of the pros that Swift suggests possess positive economic, social, and political value for the Irish common wealth. First, husbands would be nicer to their wives, because now, they'd earn some income on the side for getting pregnant all the time! Second, instead of having to provide for another child, they could just sell the ones they don't like for money. Third, chefs would have an entirely new field of meat to experiment and create recipes for! Fourth, Ireland and its wealthy landowners will become culturally enriched through its new food source, (talk about the tourism its going to bring).  Finally,...Obviously, you'd probably value your kids more, because now you get to choose which ones you can sell and which ones you don't have to keep.

Swift's proposal is probably the best solution to history's problems. I mean, why isn't Congress looking to mold their social programs after his model nowadays? The answer to solving Washington's big problems with the economy is right in front of us. Some brilliant master mind thought it up two hundred years ago! All we have to do is change our product. We don't need to shut down the government, all we need to do is to start selling immigrants in the meat markets. And we'd have so many flavors! Asian, Mexican, African, European..You name it..The U.S. has it! That's how our economy's gonna start thriving again. Okay, maybe we have more problems than that and should not take Swifts' proposal literally. I mean, that's probably murder...So... Perhaps we too, should look at our problems more closely,  and analyze the state of mind in which we find our ideals and principles of our country, as Swift did when he wrote about the state of his country, Ireland, back then. Swift makes us think about the state of our principles and priorities. How many of us put economic priorities over our priorities for preserving the quality of human life first? We choose cheaper fast food than home-cooked meals because we're lazy and it's cheap. Perhaps, our consequences and choices are not shed in a vulgar light like Swift's proposal for eating children. But the economic choices we make somehow, will eventually, and probably indirectly affect humanity and our value for the standard of living. Everything is connected although it's hard to see. We must look further than simply settle with something at face value.

-Laura Miller

Salon Talk of the day: Candide and the "Can-dide" Pope

Salon Talk of the day: Candide and the "Can-dide" Pope

IS THIS OUR FATE?!

Yes, it is true. A guy named Pope wrote Essay on Man. I'm assuming that he isn't the Pope we all think he is; the Pope that drives around in a cute little car called "The  Pope Mobile", kissing babies and blessing people on the streets of Vatican City. No, this is another guy. But his name is somewhat intimidating, and it does reinforce a religious consciousness to his writings of what he believes' man's role in the world to be. Basically, Pope claims that man should make do with their lot in life and be content. "Everything happens for a reason," is that annoying quote you're mother will tell you when you're a bench warmer on the school volleyball team and when the coach only puts you in for the last two minutes of the game. Well, that's what happened to me! But this piece of advice continues to frustrate me, today. Hold on! How was I suppose to follow that advice back then? Was I suppose to sit and wait for something to happen? Maybe I'd grow two feet taller and spike the ball harder into someone's face! But that, of course, never happened...( just my own misery and failure).
But, a man named Voltaire argues against this philosophy in his book, Candide. Voltaire's characters believe in this very philosophy and apply it to every situation. Disaster after disaster, they constantly are reassured, hoping that although bad things happen to them, something good will come of the chaos.  I'd say that Pope just got "Cann-dide" by Voltaire. They're broken by the end of the book. Will they build a society on the remnants of what spirit they each have left? I don't know how that would be possible. The book shows us the hell that these characters suffer with a lack of taking action. They lack initiative for  freedom to make sense of the chaos, freedom to challenge it, and the freedom to make change to better their lots in life. These touch upon some of the Enlightenment characteristic: Reason, Progress, and liberty.
When I think of what Pope expresses throughout his poem, he claims that man's undoing is due to our own greediness and pride. We hunger for knowledge and power. We strive to raise ourselves up to a level of godliness. Yet, humanity can only understand so much. What much we CAN comprehend, is the information of the world that we should be satisfied with. We are not capable of seeing the entire truth. If we were to see the actual beings or things that made the shadows in Plato's cave, we'd probably go crazy, and we wouldn't be able to survive. Hence, humanity must accept its lot, and its place as slave or master, subservient to a higher power we can never understand. Humanity must accept its fate, its life, and its death. Pope's stance goes against everything the Enlightenment represents. Although Voltaire's work is an exaggeration of the human experience when dealing with chaos, I believe  his view on progress, reason, and equality are evident and speak for themselves throughout our history. So how can we just settle for our lots in life? Whether we truly are fated to be something or not, well that's up to interpretation. I, myself, like to think that I have free will to choose the path I take.

Laura Miller