Department of English Gymnasium Steglitz Berlin
Table of Contents
Department of English Gymnasium Steglitz Berlin |
|||
| Hello everybody, my name is Amalia-Sophia. I’m in the 12th grade and I have been doing English for five years. In my leisure time I read a lot, play the piano and do horse riding. Maybe you’ve a different view on the subjects I wrote about and want to talk with me about it, so don’t hesitate to send me an e-mail. (August 2004) |
|
Home | |
Table of Contents |
|||
Are you entitled to overthrow the government? Certainly, the animals on Manor Farm were entitled to do so. Unfortunately the story "Animal Farm" by George Orwell does not describe the prosperity of "Animal" or "Manor Farm" which it was called at the beginning and again at the end of the story. I would have liked to read, whether the animals really understood what was going on in their self-organized state when they started the rebellion or if everything went on as usual. So we only know about the time between the rule of Mr Jones – the tyrannical farmer - and the animals´ self-built state under the government of Napoleon and the remaining pigs, which finally was rechanged into a rule of human beings when the pigs ultimately turned into humans. This should make the reader more aware that the power of Napoleon and the human beings is identical.
The animals have only one way out of their miserable existence. They must drive away the dictator Napoleon plus his helpers and build a new community based on separation of power. Only this could help them to erect a new system which gives the foundation for democracy and for a smooth life.
|
| Back to the top of the page What´s your view? |
| Orwell warns us not to trust our leaders blindly Was Orwell a hysteric? No, I do not agree with the opinion that Orwell was a hysteric, because of his sorrow about the civilization of the world. Orwell wants to protect people by presenting negative examples of revolutions so that such mistakes do not happen again. As we can see in Orwell’s book 1984 people can be brainwashed and conditioned. For example, the "two minutes hate" are such a conditioning. People can be conditioned like biology teaches us. It is even shown in history that government can instill fanaticism: to give only one example, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party. Although one author in "The Ethical Spectacle" (1996) talks about Iranian and Chinese experiences which have shown the opposite, you cannot ignore bad examples like the Nazi regime. Orwell wants us to understand how dangerous trust in state leaders can be. If no one tries to protest, like it is shown in "1984" (there are not many people who oppose the system), or if the rulers are more intelligent than the people, like it is said in "Animal Farm", such a system of oppression, intimidation, infatuation, conditioning and thought control can work very well. The question of time in which such a system can survive remains open. So in my opinion George Orwell’s novel 1984 is not a utopia, it can really come true like history has shown if people do not control their leaders.
|
| Back to the top of the page What´s your view? |
| Guests of the Nation: An eye for an eye! There is no justification for reprisals - even in a war
"Guests of the Nation" deals with two English captives, who are guarded by three Irish soldiers of the I.R.A. Initially this imprisonment seems to be very relaxed, most of the time all men sit together and play cards. All the time there is also an old Irish lady, who does not really play a role in this story, although Belcher, one Englishman, has made her his friend for life. Everything is going its regular way even when the English and Irishmen are having an argument about capitalists and priests. It occurs that Donovan, one Irishman, does not really like the English. He changes their topic of discussion and informs them that if four Irish captives were shot by the English their hostages would have to die as a reprisal. In the end the the order arrives and the two Englishmen are shot. Why did O´Connor write such a cruel story? Is there any justified reason to take human beings hostage? Is this an acceptable possibility of insisting on a certain claim? First of all, holding somebody hostage is one of the oldest tactics in war. In most cases, kidnapping people, putting them under arrest and threating the enemy is aiming at the fulfillment of demands. If these demands are not granted in a stipulated period, the captives must die. Sometimes the hostage-takers still kill the captives, although they reached their goal. It also happens that the demands which have been set are much too high, so nobody can ever fulfill them. But let us return to the original question: Is there any justified reason to take human beings hostage - ever? Are reprisals justified? Not in my opinion. You are not permitted to force someone in order to get your conditions through. This is pure blackmailing and has nothing to do with justice or appropriate behaviour towards man. You should not reply with a misdeed, especially not concerning the killing of man. This infringes every aspect of human morality. When you look at the Old Testament, you will find "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth". Is that an excuse or justification for such a terrible action? No, our morality and conscience must forbid such doings! You may not hold another person responsible and guilty for politics or some private wishes. "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the Ten Commandments of the New Testament which is of paramount importance. Nowadays, there are so many examples of hostage dramas or avenging of murders respectively that you do not know where to start, for example the Tschetschenic fighters for economic and political independence from Russia or the Islamic terrorists. Even in war situations there are basic human rights. The most precious point in all fundamental rights is the one about the inviolability of human dignity. Nobody is permitted to infringe this.
|
| Back to the top of the page What´s your view? |
| The Lottery is seeking for a scapegoat Shirley Jackson dramatizes pointless violence and general inhumanity
The story begins on June 27th "with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day". A peaceful harmony grasps the readers round their hearts. School is out and at first glance the traditional yearly lottery seems to be a fine thing. But reader will find out later what it really means. So the inhabitants of that particular village gather in the square in the morning. Some of them are late and you can make out a tenseness on their faces and gestures that tells you the lottery will apparently not be a happy event. Time passes by as the drawing goes on. In the end Tessie Hutchinson is the winner - and her prize? She is stoned at once by every villager, even by her own family. Readers find out the reason for this yearly lottery by a statement made by Old Man Warner, the oldest member of the community: "Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon". It seems to be an agricultural custom. But can you reconcile such a tradition with your conscience or morality? No, definitely not! The corn and its growth must not be influenced by human sacrifices. In spite of that, a human sacrifice respectively a scapegoat - and nothing else Tessie Hutchinson seems to be in this story - is a very important ritual for humans, not only in religion. Just think of the role of Jesus, the saviour figure of Christianity. With his sacrifice, all man’s sins have been forgiven. From their souls their guilt has been put on the shoulders of Jesus as a scapegoat. It is said poor countries, more than rich ones, need scapegoats to account for their unhappy situation. In case of "The Lottery", the people require to hold someone liable for their harvest. If it is a poor yield they have someone to hold responsible for. In my opinion people will always need scapegoats
to keep themselves from shouldering any responsibility. There have been a lot of
scapegoats in history and there will always be
some. Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential
dictatorship needs some minority group or individual as a scapegoat which can be blamed
for the nation's troubles and used as a justification for its own demands for dictatorial
power as it is happening all over the world. Take for example the Jews during
Hitler’s bloody regime. Read the complete story here.
|
| Back to the top of the page What´s your view? |
| Immigration or "When Cultures Clash"
Was Enoch Powell right in his apprehension the Atlantic coastline of Great Britain will be "foaming with much blood" like the River Tiber?
In his famous "Birmingham Speech" of 1968, Enoch Powell appealed to the British inhabitants not to be mad and allow thousands of immigrants per year settling down in Great Britain. In his speech he uses grave comparisons and refers to history; for example "Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad" and "It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre" or " I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood", a Vergil’s quotation. He also refers to statistics about how many immigrants will be in Britain in twenty years. But apart from that he also gives the advice to curb the incoming flood of immigrants "by stopping the further inflow and promoting the maximum outflow." Before analysing his advice and considering whether it is practicable or not we must first check the motivation for immigration. This has always been a great sensitive topic in world. The reasons for it are wide-spread: political freedom, religious tolerance, economic opportunity or political refugees concerned about their lives. In general, there are two types of motivation for emigration and immigration afterwards:1. Push (need to leave in order to survive) 2. Pull (attracted to a new way of life) As mentioned earlier, there are also a lot of human beings who emigrate and later immigrate in anxiety for their lives. Such people cannot be sent back to where they came from. I guess, with his "Birmingham Speech" Powell meant those immigrants who come to Britain in the hope of economic opportunity. Let us have a look at some aspects of immigration
concerning a better life. May people really say that such immigrants are poison for their
own progress, for example, because they are affected by coloured immigrants competing for
their jobs? In my opinion they may not. There is no necessity to be afraid of that. If you
obtain a good education in school and at university you have the best chances to get a
good job. . |
| Back to the top of the page What´s your view? |
The main story starts with a speech by Old Major, who is
a very old wise boar. He desires an animal-kind life, the release from Mr Jones and the
hard work for the human beings. Unfortunately Old Major dies the next evening. But the
animals are really enthusiastic after his speech and start a revolution. Mr Jones is
driven out of the farm and the animals agree on seven commandments which everyone has to
obey. Soon afterwards the pigs take over the power on the whole farm. Secretly they go
further. First of all a leader is appointed called Napoleon. He and the whole government
abuse their power and come to the point that "some animals are more equal than the
others", which is a violation of the most important commandment. They treat their
"comrades" badly, tell them to work more, give them half of their rations and
suddenly kill other intimidated and infatuated animals. Rapidly the regime turns into a
dictatorship, which is not difficult for the reader to understand. Clearly, there is
something wrong, the revolution for improvement of the state has not gone well. If you
have an upper class which has the power, you must ensure that no single person or little
group of those governors can turn into a dictator. The main thing is that no single
individual can control all power. There must be separation of power into a legislative,
executive and judicative branch. Otherwise you cannot really control or interfere in any
ruler’s doings. 
The Irish
short story writer Frank O’Connor (pseudonym of Michael O’Donovan) wrote his
story "Guests of the Nation" in 1931. He probably took the impulse for his story
from the Civil War between 1920 to 1922 in which he fought on the Republican side against
those who wanted to accept the compromise of the 1920 Treaty.
The short
story "The Lottery" written by the prolific American writer Shirley Jackson
(1916-1965) was published in 1949 in New York amidst some other short stories. Her other
works range from children's non-fiction to fiction rooted in the Gothic to feminist
tradition.
The poet and politician John Enoch Powell was born in
Birmingham in 1912. In 1950 he became the member of Parliament for Wolverhampton
South-West as a part of the influential right wing of the Tories. In 1964 he became Shadow
Minister of defense but was dismissed in 1968 when he stirred controversy by calling for
an end to non-white immigration into Britain. After quitting the Conservative Party, he
returned to Parliament as an Ulster Unionist MP for South Down in 1974 until he lost his
seat in 1987. Until his death in 1998, Powell was noted for his oratorical skills.
Afterwards he became a big myth.