My mother’s view:
“Tall, handsome young man who dresses himself very well. Charming with an outgoing personality. Must be able to carry out an intelligent conversation with others and understand the meaning of the conversation. Attractive and outgoing, but not obnoxiously so.”

My Father’s View:
“Funny kid. Can’t keep his mouth shut most of the time but about half of what he says is worth listening to. Not bad looking. Looking for a girl that’s good looking and is bright and interesting to talk to. Likes someone who is just as interested in me as I am in them.”

Help Needed

This is probably what my parents would say.

Searching for single woman around the age of 18-20. Religious and is well educated. Able to help a slob clean up and can cook. Also may not do any drugs or anything illegal. Must be well respected and be presentable in formal situations. Must be fun to be around and be able to keep the attention of my son. Must be able to hold a job.

If you can't tell my parents are very elitist.

Help Wanted

So quoth my mother,

"Agh. If I had to write such a message, I'd probably include stuff like "should love books, be very energetic, have a lively mind, a intellectual bent, an appreciation of the unconventional, and a quirky sense of humor...must enjoy horror movies, homemade cookies, good coffee, long walks, classical music(?). Two-faced, self-important, image conscious, spineless, lemming-like trend followers need not apply. The ability to debate would be a plus"

Sounds dandy.

Attention

It is actually quite ironic, I hung out all day with my mother today and I found out what she really thought about having a son.

"Attention All-Seeking to find a better half for my son. Despite his looks, he means well. Despite how dumb he looks, he can be half a good guy. I do not how it is possible, because he drives my crazy, but I think he can make people happy. Whether mood you are in, he will always be there for you and make you laugh. He will take a bullet for most, and hopefully take one for you. Whatever your interests may be, he will be able to help you. He can make you frustrated to the core, but then make you laugh til you vomit. Ladies-He minds his own business, if you like that. Regardless, he will rock your world.

Personal Ad

Seeking a female for my son before I croak:
Looking for a brunette, who is tanned and fit. Has to be into to sports and excercising. Female has to be smart because no one likes an air head. This female also has to be fun to be around and like to have a lot of fun. My son likes to laugh a lot so it is also very important for this woman to have a good sense of humor so that my son does not get bored with you. My son is not that tall so this woman cannot be too tall.

Here is the awkwardness my mom wrote for me!

"Now accepting applications for a partnership position. Applicants must be open minded, adaptable, fun loving and well read. The ability to show affection and be cool headed in emergencies are paramount traits for this position. The successful candidate will have the ability to discuss varied topics from current events to emotions. They must demonstrate their commitment to womens equality in all aspects of life from the board room to the bed room. A generous nature and sense of social responsibly are required. Knowledge and appreciation of the arts is a plus for the applicant. An excellent sense of humor needed to successfully fulfill the duties of this position. Athleticism or an appreciation of sports is helpful. A Post Baccalaureate degree and comeliness will give applicants preference but are not required. Applicants sincerely interested in making this life long commitment may apply."

Wanted, young man single and free

A suitable suitor is wanted here
or else my daughter may never wed. I fear
for her future so this ad I put out.
The right man it will find, of this there’s no doubt.

Eighteen she is now, with brown curly hair.
She stays out of the sun, her complexion is fair.
The sax and bassoon, she can play both. Soon
the two of you will begin to play in tune
and beautiful music shall you two create.
Once you have met her you’ll swear it was fate
that brought you together. She loves to cook,
and bake, and so you’ll always be well fed.
She’s good with her hands – she can massage your head!
There’s not really anything we ask of you,
if you want her come take her, this is your cue.

A ladder outside her window they’ll be
climb up it and take her, you can have her for free.

World Series Champions 09

Stud

As written by my dad himself,

If the intent of the assignment is to get us to leave our cultural “comfort zones” to challenge our values and beliefs, the instructor succeeded. The thought of seeking suitors for our child- inferring her loss of will and assent in the process – conflicts with our deepest held values. That said, parental involvement in arranging marriages is a tradition of many cultures, and needs to be respected in the context of faith traditions and mores:

Be it known that Jean and Paul Adams of Kingston, PA wish for their daughter, Lindsay, a suitor to complement her many wonderful qualities and values. Lindsay is special because she understands her gifts and talents and openly shares them;she is unafraid to stand alone for what she believes; she selflessly goes the extra mile in support of those in need; and she has always used wisely her power of choice to help others. Suitors who will love and respect Lindsay, and who possess values and qualities that complement hers, should make their intentions known directly to our daughter.

Add

So I went right to the source and had my mom create this list of requirements.

Looking for a male that fits these requirements:
IQ≥140
Income≥85% of single working males
No genetic defects
A blood type (least incidence of cancer)
Weight≤170
Height≥5’10
No obesity history in family
No masochistic tendencies or history of sexual abuse
Must have a psychological screening

and preferably these too:
Asian
No chest hair
Good looking with a good sense of humor
Youngest child (no eldest or only childs)

Suitor for 18 year old female with blonde hair brown eyes needed. Ideally looking for …..
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/brett-favre-si-cover.jpg

Personal Ad

http://www.pemberley.com/photos/firth/IBM_ColinFirth.jpg

Male Seeking Female

Age: 18-23

I am a college freshman who stands about 6'1", has dark brown hair and blue eyes. I am an avid reader and am looking for someone who is willing to discuss the deep art of tragic literature. I also enjoy combat sports and cage fight occasionally. I exercise often and like to stay in good shape. I enjoy the outdoors and would like to go camping more often. I am also an avid politic and follow governmental happenings with great interest. I am an atheist, and would prefer if my partner was not overly religious as it would inevitably spark a conflict. Must love to party (and by party I mean chase squirrels throughout random parks). Must love dogs, horses, and other traditional lunch meats you can think of. Must be taller than wide. Must have an IQ greater than shoe size. My Rossy *cough* um... I mean I am super special and need the right girl.

Ad For Anya

My dad said:

Looking for a Husband:
Husband sought for smart, beautiful daughter. Must be flexible and willing to be the brunt of much sarcastic humor. Must be very attentive, loving and willing to make whatever sacrifices necessary to keep spouse happy. Dumbasses and mean people need not apply. Would also be helpful if financially secure.

***********************************************************************************

My mom said (sticking with the olde English theme of Shakespeare):

What many men desire:
A lady wise, fair, and true. Quick wit and loyal of heart. Golden locks that frame her head like a halo, eyes that speak to you of deep affection. A heavenly picture. A kinder lady you will not find. A fool you would be to not chooseth this fair maiden.

Blog Assn #19: Parent-Written Personal Ad

Please post on the following by 8 PM Thursday night.

Your parent, nearing death like Portia's dad, as a last desperate action to help your life go well posts a personal ad in your behalf, attempting to maximize the chances that you end up with the right person. Write the personal ad your parent would compose.

Antonio

Antonio is obviously one of the key characters in this play. He seems to be the character that needs the most help. He is the character who likes to act selfishly and doesn’t seem to care if his views are wrong, he is still going to stick by them. He also seems to have a lot of self-pity. He is always is portrayed as very sad and possibly even depressed. In the first Act we can see that this depression may be due to love and Antonio’s unsuccessfulness with it. Even though Antonio wants to deny this, it does seem to be the root of his depression. I know that in present times the majority of our society would not accept the bias views that Antonio has towards Jewish people in particular Shylock. However, since in Shakespeare’s time there was a large population of Christians, and I would think that back then Christians had no problem blaming Jews for the death of Christ. So it makes me wonder what Shakespeare really wants us to think about these prejudiced views. Perhaps even Shakespeare had no problem with these views? I just wonder whether these views of Jews were actually commonly accepted back in this time period.

The Rays are still going down!!!!!!!

I think the most interesting character in The Merchant of Venice is Antonio. Shakespeare tries to show him as being one of the truest friends to Bassanio and that he is just trying to make his friend happy by taking responsibility for paying the loan to Shylock. He happens to be taking a major business risk that doesn't pay off and he is now bankrupt and in debt to Shylock. The tables have now turned on Antonio, because he is now broke and Bassanio, now in a relationship with the wealthy Portia, has become rich. Now with the change of wealth it is now up to Bassanio to save his friend Antonio who supported him when he had no money or credibility. Even though Antonio has treated Shylock poorly, Shakespeare still tries to get the point across that Antonio is a great friend and that he is loyal to his friends and puts his neck out for them.

Throughout the first act, Shakespeare seems to use some of the characters as sounding-boards in order to get his person ideas on political issues out there. In particular, Portia seems to be one of the characters that Shakespeare wants us to think about the most. When we think about Portia, Shakespeare wants us to think of weakness while at the same time thinking of purity of mind. While Shakespeare portrays Portia as a weaker woman, having all of the men do the work in the play, he does give her several character-defining lines. When the loan cannot be coerced from Shylock, Portia offers to pay triple to cover the cost. This shows that Shakespeare wants us to think that she’s weak because he has her just giving money away. However at the same time, he portrays Portia as a person of true good. She trusts fully and offers assistance with little ego involved. Shakespeare also wants the reader to realize that Portia is important not only because she is the center of the male attention but because of her character traits. By making her the most predominant of the three women introduced so far, Shakespeare is telling the reader ahead of time that something about the general demeanor of this character is important.

The Tragic Hero Antonio

In most of Shakespeare's plays a tragic hero is often central to the plot, whether it be Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, or Macbeth. The Merchant of Venice is no different. Antonio takes up the role as the tragic hero and through the definition of a tragic hero, they must have one deadly flaw. For Hamlet it was his honor to his father and his urge towards revenge and for Antonio it is his naivete. This naivete plays a constant role throughout this play and leads to his downfall, like all the Shakespearean tragic heroes before and after him. Antonio constantly loses his funds because he is extremely naive in his dealings with other people. A good example of this is when he begins to place all of his money in a transaction overseas which he probably knows little if anything about. Since this is his only investment, when he loses his money because of this he has none to rely on. “Thou know’st that all my fortunes are at sea; neither have I money nor commodity.” This is what causes him to take out the loan, costing him a pound of his own flesh. Since the loan is costing him that amount it is probably either from a horribly unreliable businessman and/or it is an emphasis on how horribly naive Antonio is. If Antonio were not as naive he would not have taken out the loan or have even been put in that position in the first place. His naivete is what Shakespeare is trying to emphasize to the readers because that is what he does with all of his tragic heroes.

Portia

I disagree with Cassie about women in terms of Shakespeare and his typical female characters. True, there were some damsels in distress, lacking strength (Ophelia springs to mind), but there were many very strong and witty women in Shakespeare (Juliet, Calpurnia, Lady Macbeth) and I think that Portia is another one of them.

That said, Portia is a free spirit, though bound by her father’s will. The irony of this situation, however, does not cause her to succumb to the terms of the will completely or forget her wants. Portia surprisingly adapts to the situation and ends up getting what she wants: Bassanio. Through all the suitors that want her hand in marriage, she keeps her eye on what would make her happy, while still abiding the will. I find this truly admirable: she remains secure in her dreams while still adhering to a will that could very well turn against her. Portia is resourceful and stubborn despite restraints.

More than just the will is restraining her, as well. Portia is a rich heiress, but falls in love with Bassanio, who is simply a well-to-do businessman. The expectation of Portia, though really never stated, is to marry anyone who can choose the correct casket (which I find very ironic: wedding versus funeral). Portia finds ways to bend the law and the will to her side (and this is more evident at the end of the story). When we first meet Portia, I think one’s first impression of her would be a spoiled child who is helplessly waiting to be wed. We are introduced to a somewhat and seemingly weak and hopeless woman who is bound to her dead father’s will, but later we find out how truly strong she is. Often in Shakespeare lovers who face adversity do not prevail in the end but rather find death (not that these women weren’t strong, but that societal influences were stronger). The fact that Portia and Bassanio are different proves that Portia is a powerful feminine figure who can easily take care of herself.

I believe that Shakespeare wants to portray Shylock as the antagonist in the story, The Merchant of Venice, who raises a lot of problems and creates a lot of controversy. Early in the story, Bassanio seeks a loan from Shylock. Shylock agrees to the loan with Bassanio. Once he agrees to the meeting, Shylock confesses his hatred for the Christian man. However, he continues to agree to give Bassanio the money and continues to go about his business. As he is figuring out the interest on Bassanio’s loan, he remembers all of the times Bassanio has cursed and soiled his name in the past. He goes on to say “…If a Christian wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by Christian example? Why, revenge. The villainy you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.”
I believe that Shakespeare is introducing Shylock this early in the story for a reason. He wants the reader to believe that Shylock conflicts Bassanio and are going to create conflicts later in the story. I think he wants the reader to see that name in the book and have the reader think, what conflict is Shylock going to create now? The way Shakespeare set up the way Shylock asked for a pound of flesh in return for his loan, it really portrays Shylock as a monster. What kind of a human being would do that? I believe this is exactly what Shakespeare wants the reader to think.

Portia

From the beginning, Portia is clearly portrayed as the heroine of the Merchant of Venice, especially compared to the very small roles of other women depicted, Nerissa and Jessica. Portia also has entire scenes dedicated to the finding of her husband, but she even appears to have more lines than the male protagonist Antonio. However, despite her prevalence in the play, Portia has a many-faceted character. At first, the reader is persuaded to sympathize with Portia and her situation. She is a victim of her father’s will, in which she has no voice in the choosing of her husband, but rather subject to fate and the wit of her suitors. Yet as the play progresses, Portia is revealed to be very self-centered and arrogant towards her prospective husbands. She has very little concern about the oaths they must take – a vow of celibacy if they do not choose the correct casement – and she has no sympathy once they are forced to retire. Now Portia, once betrothed to Bassiano, is very loyal. She does not hesitate in offering to pay twenty times to debt Antonio owes. In fact, due to his close relation to Bassiano, Portia feels obligated as if Antonio were her own husband. As a result, Shakespeare creates the portrait of a woman victim to circumstance, but who does not necessarily merit the sympathy of the reader. She also is very egotistical, but then again when very loyal when dedicated to a particular person.

Reasoning

Bassanio is a man who is not easily deceived. When he is looking at the three caskets he reads the inscriptions carefully before he makes the correct choice. He is able to look beyond outward appearances of grandeur to the real meaning. When talking about the lead casket he says “Thy paleness moves me more than eloquence; and here choose I.” (74). This quote shows that Bassanio is a clever, insightful man. Of course he is correct in choosing the lead casket, because he is a character who does not make rash decisions. He is also a man who does everything with all the energy and passion he has. When he chooses a casket he says “Joy be the consequence!” (74), which shows that he is not afraid of the consequences. This extends to his friendships as well. When he gets the letter from Antonio about the ships and how they crashed, he goes right away to see Antonio. Bassanio knows that this s a disaster and Antonio needs him, so he leaves Portia right away to go to Antonio, once again doing everything he can for his friend. Shakespeare is portraying Bassanio as a man who thinks things through, and who gives life his all. He wants to be there for his friends, and does everything that’s possible for them. His emotions are strong, as demonstrated by his love for Portia and how he will do anything to have her, including borrow money so he can appear rich. Bassanio is a true friend, and a man that makes wise decisions through careful reasoning.

True Strength

The last quality you’d expect a Shakespearian scarlet to have is strength, but that quality is Portia’s most prevalent. She has the strength to know that she doesn’t want to marry for wealth or status but for love, and she won’t let anyone stand in her way of satisfying that dream. She is a compassionate, caring woman who goes above and beyond her required actions and duties, especially being a woman. Her trait that I admire most is her intelligence to make smart, deeply thought out decisions. For with that intelligence is linked respect, and she has such an admirable respect for herself and women in general that I feel she is a great role model, and my favorite scarlet.
Portia’s strength, not only for herself but for others who need her, is so admirable and unique for that time period that I find her absolutely astonishing. Her prevalence and true leadership in that time period astound me. She has a vision of women becoming equal to men and she seems to want to start the movement towards this dream. She is smart enough to know that it is possible and she’s ambitious enough to make it happen.
While her qualities are dazzling and every woman should strive to be like her, Portia keeps herself distanced and quiet from those she doesn’t trust and tells very few of her plans or other such things. Her maid was one of few who knew of her desire and goal to marry for love, for Portia knew that she would encounter resentment and she didn’t want to deal with those who were to close-minded to accept her brilliance.

Just as Anya said, Portia is an extremely complicated character. She comes off as complicated because of her high level of intelligence. Along with being intelligent, Portia is independent which the reader is able to tell by her conversations with her servant assistant Nerissa.
Portia is introduced in the play as a woman who has to be married, but how her husband is being picked is unjust. When Portia is first portrayed, Shakespeare shows the reader her intelligence why making you feel bad for her. This is shown especially in Act I Scene ii, “The brain may devise laws for the blood, but a hot temper leaps o’er a cold decree. Such a hare is madness the youth-to skip o’er the meshes of good counsel the cripple. But this reasoning is not in the fashion to choose me a husband.” This passage shows exactly how intelligent Portia is. She understands that whatever she thinks, it is not going to help her find the man she wants, but instead she is locked in to her father’s wishes.
Shakespeare then makes the reader feel bad for her by stating, “O me, the word “choose!” I may neither choose whom I would nor refuse whom I dislike-so is the will of a living daughter curbed by the will of a dead father.” Shakespeare makes the reader feel like Portia has no choice over who she spends the rest of her life with. Shakespeare makes you feel like she is an extremely independent woman who is not going to be able to have her independence for much longer because of her forced marriage.

I think that Shakespeare wants us to think of Antonio as miserable tragic, who acts naively. Even though Antonio is referred to in the title of the play “the Merchant of Venice”, he comes across as a very disappointing character. It seems that Shakespeare want us to think of him as a hopeless depressive in the beginning of the play. The first lines of the play are him saying “In sooth, I know not why I am so sad.” All he does is mope and he doesn’t even know why. Shakespeare also wants us to think that he is unreasonable in his speculative business endeavors. When talking to Bassanio he states “Thou know’st that all my fortunes are at sea; neither have I money nor commodity.” He puts all of his worth in transaction that is taking place overseas, which proves to be his downfall. He also has too high of hopes in this risky business. It leads him take out a loan from Shylock, the price of which is a pound of his own flesh. One would think that with this as a price, and the unreliable nature of his funds, Antonia would not take out the loan. Yet, this hopeless character does it, all in the name of his intimately close friend Bassanio.

Miss Independent

Portia is a complicated character. Shakespeare initially has her come in the play as a fair princess who is being wooed by many suitors. This implies a girly nature, for she has not picked on yet. But further reading expands this limited view on who Portia is. She is a strong woman who makes wise, careful thought out decisions. She confides in her maid how she does not want to get married, unless this man is absolutely perfect – a dream I am almost sure every girl has. But this wealthy woman shows a tricky side in the scene with the Prince of Morocco. She portrays herself to him as a fragile woman, but the test for who will be her husband is enamored with gold. Literally. By showing this side or Portia, Shakespeare wants the reader to gain understand for how rebellious and sturdy this woman is. She will not go down without a fight. She has strong feelings of justice, as shown by her not rapidly picking a husband; she has sincere mercy for those less fortunate than she (shown later in the play); and she is as smart and witty as any man. It is these traits Shakespeare uses as tools to show the reader women can be independent, smart, and are typically far more complex than men give them credit for. I always feel empowered by most of the Shakespearean women, because they demonstrate such fortitude, it jumps off the page, and into my being. If Portia could say one thing to women, I think she would say, “You go, girl!”

Antonio the Tragic

Shakespeare presents a very perplexing character in that of Antonio who seems to be a shrewd business man that is dissatisfied with the success in the material world that he is found. From Shakespeare's discriptions of his moods and actions it almost seems that he is in love with someone that does not realize it or has turned him down. Shakespeare tries to make us hate Antonio, in my view, as he constantly has him moping about and being upset for no reason. He also constantly antagonizes Shylock and victimizes him just because he is Jewish. I am not sure how Shakespeare intended the anti Semiticism to be viewed at the time however. Either way he makes it overwhelmingly clear that Antonio is not really that much fun to be around. However, when digging deeper on Antonio as the story goes on it becomes apparent that he is depressed and a tragic genius. He is extremely arrogant in the ways of business as he has had so much success with his gambles at sea to the point that he is ready to bet his life on them, which he does to Shylock. But to put one's life on the line for a friend as he does in the name of a loan is not a normal thing to do, which leads me to say that he is indeed depressed. Though he claims not to be distraught over anything, I believe he is head over heels for Bassanio, which is why he would grant such an extravegant loan. He also wants Bassanio to go after Porscha, which shows that he really does love him based on his desire for his friend to be happy. I have read this play many times and it is only now coming to me that this is the case. The first time I read it I thought Shakespeare wanted to drive home the fact that Antonio is just an annoying bigot, but in reality he is a tortured soul who doesn;t care about material things in life. Only messing with Shylock provides him any joy.

Blog Assn #18: Antonio, Bassanio, Portia

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Tuesday, Oct. 28, 8 PM: What does Shakespeare want us to think about [pick just one:] Antonio, Bassanio, and Portia? Support your answer with arguments and evidence from the text.

Hate

I agree with the decision made by Ursinus in terms of the actions taken towards which hate speech to leave or erase. Hate, by definition, is to intensely or passionately feel extreme aversion for or extreme hostility toward someone or detest. I believe Ursinus made the right decision because one slogan was completely inappropriate and the other slogan was a form of free speech, the same exercise the Gay/Straight Alliance used by writing their opinions on the ground in front of Wismer. The slogan quoted by Leviticus, was just an opposition or rebuttal against the Gay/Straight Alliances views. Although, the second slogan posted in Reimart in response was completely inappropriate and uncalled for in my view. I believe it is a natural reaction to some people (not mine), but it is completely immature and unjust to post your views in a nasty words, using hate and other derogatory names. I believe what makes this slogan a hate crime, and not the first slogan, is that this slogan put people in danger. If I was in the Gay/Straight Alliance, I would feel endangered and I would fear for my own personal safety. The person who wrote the quote, “God hates fags” is obviously an author who is trying to put a group of people down and make them feel lower than him or herself. To me, this is a cowardly act, which makes the author of this a coward. I believe any kind of cowardly act like this is a hate crime because it takes people who are trying to unify one people together and the coward tries to rip this apart. To me, that is the definition of hate.

Chalkings

Ursinus can’t allow anything to be written on the sidewalks of our campus, there has to be a set of guidelines that we must all follow. Something that Ursinus should not allow is hate speech. There should be no writings that attack or single out someone or their views. There should be no threatening messages allowed, or messages that are offensive to groups or individuals. There should be no chalkings like the one that we talked about in class that stated that “God hates fags.” That statements is one that could clearly been seen as offensive and hateful. However, people should be allowed to voice their feelings and opinions. As long as their opinions are not hateful in any way than it should be allowed to be written. The chalking that quoted the bible verse from Leviticus would then be acceptable. It is from a text and in no way does it have any hate message in it, and the writer was still able to voice his or her opinion without saying anything that could be seen as offensive. Even if it is an opinion that is controversial, people are still entitled to their right to free speech. There are many things that the majority of people won’t agree with that others can still see as truth. Like when people write it is ok to be gay. Obviously not everyone is going to agree with this, but it should still be allowed to be written despite the controversy behind it because it is still not hateful nor offensive.

I strongly believe in the rights of gays and lesbians in America, therefore I tend to support their cause. Even though I am not homosexual, I believe that they have just as many rights as the next person to wed and live happy lives together. However, heterosexuals and homosexuals both have the same rights to free speech and this can lead to problems at times. When the chalking was done by the GSA and then countered by other organizations, there were some that were in line with free-speech and others that crossed the line and were outright inappropriate. Starting with the anti-homosexual comments, the most inappropriate quotes were those from Leviticus. Despite these being the most relaxed of the comments, they deserve to be erased because they misquote the bible. Leviticus is not about men lying with men, but rather men and boys. Leviticus states that the relationship between a man and a boy cannot be the same as that between a man and a woman. It says nothing about men laying with men. Because it is not a statement of truth, I would have this erased. This also goes for the rather lewd, “God Hates Fags” comment made. Yet the GSA was not without fault either. Many of the comments they made on the sidewalk were substantial food for thought. I thought one of the best was the Dr. Seuss quote near BWC. Yet some of the comments were just as annoyingly untrue as those done against homosexuals. The worst I bothered to read was the rather large chalking done near Olin that says, “We’re not the problem, YOU are.” To me, neither party is a problem. Since the chalking assumes my position on the issue and tells me I’m wrong, I have a problem with it being displayed.

Phillies are the best!!!!!!!!!

I do not think that there is anything wrong with the chalking that were written on the paths for national coming out day. However, I do feel that there were some instances where the writing were taken over the line. I feel that the college should erase everything that is intended to scare or intimidate those who are gay. I also think that the chalk writing should not have been left up for so long, even though it didn't bother me at all, but I think that it might have sent an unwanted message. It could have come off to people that were against gays, as too excessive and that they were taking it overboard. Personally I do not think that there is anything wrong with writing encorageing messages to gays to come out on Coming out day and that it is within their rights to express themselves. However, I feel that the college should not let any messages that seems to be intended to intimidate or scare the gay population remain. Go Phillies!!!

Editing Free Speech

Theoretically, free speech should include all types of speech, not discriminating against fighting words. I believe that to be totally free in what you say you must be permitted to say whatever you want to, whenever you want to, however you want to. That is free speech, but that is not what is being granted.

I do not condone the hateful responses to the GSA chalking. The phrase “God hates fags” is insulting and totally inappropriate according to our societal standards. It encourages hate, violence, and insecurity – nothing good is coming from that phrase. However the Bible passage is more subtle and less offensive, while still getting the point across. It was written to make people think, not place a direct attack on homosexuals.

That said, I think that GSA could be considered out of line too. One of the largest chalkings was the phrase “Equality over ignorance,” and I think that this could be construed as a hateful message as well. People who do not believe in homosexuality are being labeled as ignorant, and this too is offensive. I, personally, do not find anything wrong with that saying, but I would understand if some people did and were simply responding to it.

In regards to “free speech” in general: I believe that the right is limited (which doesn’t make it really “free,” but that is another issue). Free speech is wonderful, until it infringes on other people’s right to security. Accusatory words and offensive phrases have violent implications, and are therefore shredding away from a safe, civilized society. Rights sometime have to be limited in order to preserve societal order. Opinions can always be stated in a non-violent way, so limiting freedom of speech shouldn’t be considered “limiting,” but rather just “editing.”

People who speak their mind are always walking the fine line of 'Freedom of Speech'. I remember learning in government class that your rights end when you start infringing upon the rights of someone else. In the case of the Leviticus verse and the 'God hates Fags' writing, I believe Ursinus College did the right thing. They had 'God hates fags' removed but let the Leviticus verse.

The chalkings that were for Coming out day were within the boundaries of free speech. Nothing was hateful. They were only offering words of encouragement. But if they were to right something like 'Straight people go to hell' that should be erased. Once words start attacking someone or a group, they should be erased. That is why the Leviticus verse was ok but the other remark was not. The Leviticus verse states: 'you shall not lie with a male as with a female'. I believe this was alright because it was not hatefully attacking, it was stating someone’s point of view. Just like the GSA wrote things like 'its ok to be gay'. Not everyone agrees with it, but they are just stating what they think. However 'God hates fags' was obscene and hateful, attacking the people that thought otherwise.

Chalking and Free Speech

The incident here brings up some issues that have yet to be resolved. What chalking should be erased and which should be allowed to stay? The GSA chalked first, expressing their pride and encouraging others to be prideful as well. Their chalking was meant to be uplifting and inspirational to others, and while some were offended because of their beliefs, the chalking was not meant to be taken that way. The chalking by the anonymous group, however, was meant to be offensive. The passage from the bible is fine because it is not meant to be offensive; it is simply a quote expressing another belief. The more vulgar rebuttals were meant to offend and therefore were rightly erased. The people who did that chalking obviously knew they were doing something wrong or they would not have remained anonymous. If even the people who do the action realize that it is wrong and hateful, then there is obviously a responsibility by the school to erase those chalking.

The college should erase chalking that has the intention to offend and express hate. Disrespectful terms should not be allowed, and if it is determined that the chalker intended to offend than that chalking should be erased. Everyone has the right to express their opinion, but it should be done in a respectful way. It is likely that anything written will offend someone, simply because everyone has different opinions and beliefs. A chalking that offends one person should not be removed if it is not meant in an offensive way. A chalking that offends an entire group that is not meant to be offensive should also be removed, because unintentional hate speech is still hate speech. In general, if a chalking is meant to be offensive and has hateful overtones it should be erased, while those that are expressing an opinion in a respectful manner should be allowed to stay, which leads me to the belief that Ursinus did the right thing when they decided which chalkings to allow to stay.

Free Speech?

The chalkings on campus create an interesting situation: on the one hand GSA has taken the opportunity to voice gay pride, as is their right. On the other hand, we have anonymous chalkings written in retaliation to GSA, which may be considered as ‘hate’ speech. Yet, do the anonymous artists have that right as well? The first amendment under the Constitutional Bill of Rights states all citizens have the right to free speech. But herein lies the problem of political correctness that is so prominent in our country at the moment. Yes, all are entitled to free speech, until it beings to harm another person or group. So, in effect, are the ‘fighting words’ of anonymous artist wrong?

There will always be speech that may be found offensive by an individual, and the same can be said for a group, and therefore such speech cannot be removed from every situation. However, speech intended to express hate is where we begin to cross the line into inappropriate ‘hate speech.’ Speech to be found offensive is most often time accidental, but speech made with intention to express hate is not acceptable. Now, how to determine whether a statement is made with hateful intention, I do not know. But such speech, along with speech with hateful propositional content and speech associated with harm towards groups are criteria for hate speech in which action must be taken against. In my personal belief, if the college removed the more vulgar retaliation to GSA (which was the correct response), then the Bible verse too should have been removed, the though Bible verse is a much more appropriate response to the GSA chalkings.

Hate or Free Speech

Of all the chalking on the sidewalks I have seen, none have been offensive or hateful enough for me to believe they need to be removed. Some religious groups may feel that being gay is not right, and so for them they may feel slight anger about the writings but they should not feel offended because there is nothing written about God or even religion in general. Also, those who are against gay marriages cannot even be offended because there is nothing even implying a formal union of homosexual couples, simply sayings asking them to be able to love each other.
All of the sayings I have seen on our sidewalk are simply sayings of what are country is all about, being free and able to live your life how you want to. Not only that, but most of the sayings are simply encouraging fellow gays and lesbians not to be afraid to tell people, not to be afraid to use your voice and be diverse, another aspect of our countries pride. All of these opinions are based on only the chalking I have seen, and do hope that nothing offensive has been written.
While the college may get some complaints or questions about why they are there or why they are allowed, there is nothing wrong with a group expressing how they feel or making themselves known. The gay and lesbian community has as much of a right to express their opinion as any other group or club on campus. None of the sayings they have written are in any way offensive and they are simply writing what they feel, and how they feel should not be erased.

This is an extremely tricky situation and has huge implications either way it is decided. I believe that the school acted appropriately when dealing with the situation that arose. I want to say that any writings discriminatory to another group is not okay to have written on campus, and feel that is how it should be judged, but that it is okay to promote ones own views. I guess that is why it was acceptable to have a biblical view or if someone wrote "I love being straight!" rather than "God hates fags". But on the same note I feel that this could promote discrimination in the way that some people could argue for writing "I love being white!" or "White power!". The same could be said if a black power writing came up, though both invoke very different feelings. I suppose raceis a far more volatile issue than that of sexual orientation but who are we to qualify it as such? These issues have a tremendous grey area and I feel very uncomfortable dancing around offending people in this blog to the point that it is actually humorous. As those situations arise I'm tempted to argue against myself, as when promoting ones own group they are actually downplaying the groups of others. By this logic the GSA should not have been allowed to write their graffitti about being gay and those against it should not have been allowed to write their graffitti everywhere. This abridges the freedom of expression we all hold so dear, however, so I cannot see myself suggesting such actions. So, despite the obvious tension that it will bring about, I believe the school should allow the promotion of lifestyles, gay or straight, but not slandering of the other. I realize the implications if it comes to race but I can honestly not see a more reasonable compromise.

There is a very fine line between what is considered hate speech and what is considered freedom of speech. That is exemplified by the recent GSA chalkings. Freedom of Speech allows you to express your viewpoint on a certain situation, and that is exactly what the GSA did. They wanted people to become aware of their beliefs on homosexuality. The GSA stated their opinion in a way that is not hurtful or harmful to anyone.

However, when chalkings showed up stating “God Hates Fags” and a verse from Leviticus 18:22, “you shall not lie with a male as with a female,” a sense of hostility was sensed towards the gay community.

I believe the “God Hates Fags” chalking can be classified as hate speech. This messages was written in response to the GSA chalkings, it was not chalked to voice their opinions on gayness or homosexuality on their own time. I believe that chalking was made to feel homosexuals inferior; they were purposely made to harm people. That is what classifies that chalking as hate speech.

The college deemed the Leviticus verse as someone expressing their own religious views, so the chalkings are still present today. I agree with the college that this is just another person’s viewpoint, but I believe the person expressing their viewpoint in response to “Coming Out Day” is offensive and hateful. Even though that person was just expressing their freedom of speech, the message was still written to make homosexuals feel inferior.

One can say that these writings were just written out of freedom of speech, and they wanted to express their own viewpoint. This can be true, but the person should let the GSA know their opinions, not chalk their opinions anonymously. Your freedom of speech is taken away when you don’t put your name to your thoughts or opinions. This is exactly why these writings were hate speech, and not freedom of speech.

The Meaning of Freedom

Freedom of speech is a commodity mostly taken for granted in the Western World. Yet there are abuses of this free speech, causing pain to others. Ursinus College recently had one such experience.

When it comes to chalking, there are certain standards one must adhere to. Opinions may be shared via speech or chalking, but not to cause harm to others. When the GSA chalked pro-gay rights sayings in Olin courtyard, they did not mean to offend or take issue with anyone’s views or beliefs. They were merely encouraging gays to stand up for their beliefs. When “God loves gays!” was chalked up, some other people took issue with this saying and replied “God hates Fags!” What the original message meant, I think, was that religion should not make a difference in this homosexual or heterosexual decision. It is up to the individual. The reply, however, seems to attack a view point directly; there is not love or understanding in a phrase like that; there is no tolerance or acceptance. That is where the line lays.

The line for what should be erased and what should not lays in the intentions behind the words. Encouraging people to “come out” are words of help, kindness and tolerance, not meant to offend or anger anyone; a view many people share. The second chalking is angry and are fighting words. However, there is a happy medium. If the GSA and people of accepting beliefs are allowed to express their opinion, then to quote from the Bible is another person’s opinion. To express one’s views parallel to the views out there now is OK. I do not believe the Leviticus quote was meant to inspire anger, it was meant to express another perspective.

Yet the bottom line requires both sides to talk, and share their feelings and beliefs. Hate speech should be subdued because of the message it portrays, but if a belief is merely being shared, then it should be allowed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but displaying them is not always necessary.

Blog Assn #18: Fighting words and hate speech

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Sunday, Oct. 26, 8 PM.

Which chalkings -- if any -- should a college administration erase on campus sidewalks? Chalkings that constitute "fighting words" (Ursinus Student Handbook, p. 18)? If so, what are the criteria for "fighting words?" Hate speech? If so, what are the criteria for hate speech? (By criteria, I mean something like this: (a) speech found offensive by some individual; (b) speech found offensive by some group; (c) speech intended by the speaker to express hate; (d) speech with hateful propositional content; (e) speech historically associated with harm to certain groups; etc.)

Whether or not the United States is torturing prisoners is a subject mired with lies, deceit and overall confusion. However, whether or not the United States should be torturing prisoners is clear cut in my mind. I believe that torturing prisoners, whether it be for information extraction, punishment, or other reasons is wrong and what Montaigne would consider to be barbaric. Despite the popular opinion that torturing prisoners of conflict (not war because of the Geneva Convention) for information is the right thing to do, I believe that it is pointless. Considering the fact that many of the people captured are low profile soldiers, they are not going to know the information being requested of them. Also, even in the case of high profile targets, they have been trained not to say anything, even under the threat of death. America needs to look at the war as if it were fighting itself. The “insurgents” we are fighting are not barbarians. Montaigne cites the ancient Greeks recognizing this in the very beginning of his work. The people we are fighting are just as highly organized as our own armies, even though we may perceive their guerilla style of warfare as crude and uncivilized; it has so far stumped the US as to how to properly combat it. Just because the United States perceives the war between itself and the Middle East as an easy win, does not mean that the people are any less human. They should not be tortured because they either know nothing or have been trained to reveal nothing and they are human just like us. They deserve the same as our soldiers in prison.

Rays are going Down!!

It would be ridiculous to think that the United States has not done any acts of torture within the past few years for a variety of reasons. However, whether the torturing would be considered wrong would be another question. If there was a person that had information about a city in the United States that was going to be bombed or come under attack by some threat, and the person would not give the information to the U.S, I think it would be reasonable to get him to talk at any means necessary. Whether that means to torture him to get him to speak would in my opinion be okay, because it would be for the protection of U.S citizens and if it was not done lots of people would die.
However, I also think that there are means of torture that are wrong and should never be committed. If there was a prisoner of war that would not disclose information about where the enemy troops are, then I think that torture would be wrong in this case. In times of war it should not be expected that he give up the information and the United States soldiers know that their lives are at risk being in war and it is their job to fight. So any person that is in the army I would not consider to be completely innocent, unaware citizens unlike in the case of the citizens in the cities. It is a very controversial topic and I only think that torture should be allowed as a absolute last resort to get vital information.

Us and them

Torture although subjective can be considered wrongful on many terms, epically when you attempt to view it through the universal view that we were speculating about in class. This view emphasizes neutrality and a detached perspective of the actions on hand, freeing us from finger pointing and blowing away the could from our judgment that have been stirred by the actions of those whom we oppose. The barbarians from Brazil that were described in our passage took good care of their prisoners and offered them the best of service, down to the point where they cut them up and nibbled on their cadavers. Their treatment and respect of their captives, even though their captives were clearly their enemies, warranted the respect of the author. The Europeans however were described as being very barbaric by their use of torture. They used torture to exemplify their views and standards to any who opposed them, namely anyone they saw to be devious and barbarous. Even though they would view the practices of the Brazilians as wholly barbaric, the author found their actions to be ultimately less agreeable. What the United States is doing now could be easily tossed into this category of overexertion of power and beliefs. However, as a culture when we view our justification our cations make perfect sense. We are harming those who wish to harm others and do evil to our nation. We are protecting our country through our actions, which justify what we are doing to many. From the perspective view that we also discussed we can dismiss what we are doing as entirely warranted. However, I think that the torture is wrongful because we should lead by example, not through retaliation. I can even be shnazzy and say, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Although we can justify our actions with our perspective as a culture, as a universal whole what we are doing is not justifiable.

I think that the United States has in no doubt committed torture in the past decade or so. Torture, by definition means the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty. Besides the obvious past forms of torture in the past years like slavery and the torture used during the times of segregation, there are other forms of torture that comes to one’s mind. In the past decade and during the war overseas, the immediate example that comes to my mind is the torture United States troops endured on Iraqi prisoners. The US troops forced the Iraqi prisoners into involuntary homo-sexual acts and other embarrassing endeavors. If you refer to the definition at the top, that examples applies to this case directly,…for sheer cruelty.

Torture in any way is absolutely wrong. Whether it is on a much smaller scale like a bully taking a smaller child’s lunch money or on more of a grander scale like the United States troop, torture is torture. This is absolutely wrong because it can scar one’s mind and/or body for life. Anytime anyone can cause an effect on somebody’s life that much, it is a huge deal. I am going to compare torture to that of abortion or murder. In abortion or murder, you take one’s life. Depending on how detrimental somebody tortures a victim, it can take one’s life also. Virtually, they are the same thing. If one commits torture, then one commits murder.

Torture

There exists little doubt in my mind that the United States has been committing acts of torture for an uncountable amount of years to this present day. However, what I find intriguing about this particular blog assignment is the inclusion of the word ‘wrongful.’ Does that then imply that torture can be categorized, and if so, how? For example, would torture committed for the means of gaining information concerning national security be rightful, and torture for someone’s twisted idea of entertainment is wrongful? In my mind, torture of any kind is unnecessary and unacceptable. Intentionally causing a person excruciating pain for whatever means has been condemned by all represented nations during the Geneva Convention as Elizabeth has mentioned, and I personally find it morally repulsive. The need for the United States, or any other nation for that matter, to gain information does not justify acts of torture, nor does it ever. Therefore, I believe that all forms of torture are wrongful, those committed by the United States, and any other nation.

Wrongful Torture

The issue is not so much has the United States committed wrongful torture, but has it committed torture at all. All torture is wrongful, so to label it as such is unnecessary. The Geneva Convention forbids torture, and though there is an exception to this, it still states that “…persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity” (GCIV Article 5). So if there was any torture going on, it was legally and morally wrong. In the last several years the United States has committed torture. There is proof of this, and though some try to deny that any torture has been committed, it has been. Those who say wrongful torture has not been committed would argue that those who were tortured had information that we needed, or that it was necessary to keep order. These statements may be true, but that does not give the United States a right to torture. There are other ways to extract information and keep order, and there was no need to resort to torture. There is also the argument that other countries have tortured Americans, so it is okay for the United States to use torture. This statement is nonsensical. One group’s bad behavior does not sanction the United States to do the same. Torture is always wrongful, so any torture that the United States has done has been wrongful torture. There is irrefutable evidence of torture committed by the United States, and while it may not have been government approved it still happened, American citizens torturing others, which in turn means that the United States has committed wrongful torture.

I think there is absolutely no doubt that the US has committed acts of torture in the past decade. Some examples that were documented and created a huge stir were that of Guantanamo Bay and Prisoners in Iraq. Most recently there was a large uprising about 'water boarding', an act of interrogation/torture which simulates drowning. The government can hide information and destroy documents all they want, but most of the public has some idea of what is going on.

Torture is wrong. Period. The end. No exceptions. I thoroughly believe there is absolutely no circumstance in which it should be permissible. Dictionary.com says torture is "the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty". Based on this definition, I can't comprehend ever thinking something like this is ok. And I believe the US is taking such measures to got information. People can't be making all these stories up. Even if pictures and documents are destroyed or missing, they still existed.

Yeppp

In the last 7 years the US has committed multiple acts of torture, and some of them even being on US citizens. September 11, 2001 is where it all began, for we were the victims of a horrible act of terrorism, and with that came hurt and anger. We took that anger and fused it towards finding Al Quita, and trying to democratize Iraq.
However, in trying to democratize Iraq we have had to resort to dramatic measures such as mild warfare. In this warfare we have killed innocent people, we have killed innocent children. These sporadic, horrific acts have taken their toll on the families of the killed, and the country as a whole. The people live in constant fear for their lives, and this constitutes as torture to me. Not being able to live your life in peace, in constant terror that you or a loved one could be dead any second, it is a horrible way to live and we are torturing these people by making them feel this way.
Not only are we torturing the Iraqi people by fighting, we are torturing our own people by fighting. The families of those serving in Iraq have that constant worry that their brave soldier won’t come home, or that when he does come home he won’t be the same. Every day is just another day of praying that you will see them again. All of this worry, fear, and overbearing love for their soldier could make anyone crazy, crazy and tortured.

Torture or Not

In the past couple of years, the United States has taken part in the act of torture in order to extract information from prisoners captured in its current expedition into the Middle East to fight terrorism. While torture is a quick means to getting information, that information can not always be trusted because initially torture puts a person in a position that they will give up whatever information that they think that the torturer wants to hear even if it is false. The only plus side to torture is that the person is still alive so they can always be interrogated again. The key to the torturing situation is what kind of torture is taking place. Physical torture can often produce the quickest answers because of the physical pain, however these methods often lead to misinformation. Mental torture takes a much longer time but once a person is broken mentally and has no hope left, they are more likely to produce information that in correct. There is always a danger from getting information from an enemy, sometimes false information can be better than no information. It all depends on what is done with the information. While I do believe torture is wrong, it is still going to take place. People cannot keep away from torture because it is an easy way to get information and to pretend to make progress in a war. Therefore, while I believe that the United States has committed much wrongful torture in the past I accept the fact that there is nothing that I can personally do about it.

Torture

In the recent past, there have of course been many accounts of wrongful torture that the US has performed. For example, the famous cases of Dilawar and Habibullah are, in my opinion, obviously unnecessary torture.
I think that torture is sometimes required. If important information is needed and only an enemy has it, chances are that they will not willingly give that information unless motivated through torture. Also, if one prisoner, say, is tortured in front of the other prisoners they will be more likely to cooperate. I’m not saying that I find torture to be a good thing or to always be necessary. I would definitely rather be killed than tortured or see my friends tortured. However, I believe that there are some cases where torture is right: the prisoners (assuming this in a war setting) would have to be warned first, given options, and have something that will help end the conflict faster and easier. That said, if the circumstance doesn’t at least fit those requirements, I would consider torture wrongful. If the US tortured people without first cautioning them (“If you don’t tell us A, then B will happen to you), then it is wrongful torture. If they didn’t give them options (“You can tell us A, give us B, or endure torture”), then it is wrongful torture. If they are torturing them for no reason or a reason other than advancing the position of the US, then it is wrongful torture. I understand that it leaves plenty of grey area to be debated over, but I think that, speaking in general terms, this is what I would consider the difference between reasonable and wrongful torture.

Torture

Torture has been used by the United States in recent memories and it is completely unfathomable and wrong. In our American culture, we have a set standard against torture in any way, shape or form. Even our Conservative Party has a candidate running for office that was tortured and objects to its use in any situation. In our eyes there is no excuse for torture whatsoever and I found it interesting that the question referred to it as "wrongful" torture. It is very hard to explain my views on the issue because it is so deeply embedded into my being that I am against any form of torture, no matter what the stakes or the purpose. It seems to take away a key essence in what it means to be human and equal to one another, as the victim is being subjugated to something no living creature should. It could be argued against me that what if in order to save the entire planet from nuclear holocaust one has to torture someone for information. That is such a troubling case but I am forced to stand my ground as it is so imbedded in my character. If it came down to the world's safety at the expense of torture I would have to let the world die. I think there is just a mental line that one should not pass, or at least that I will not let myself pass, no matter what the cost. And in the case of the US using torture, what was gained from the suffering of those POWs? Was some major terrorist catastophe avoided that I am not aware of? To the best of my knowledge we have still not caught Osama bin Laden. So what are we left to stare at in the mirror at the end of the day? Someone who crossed the line between man and beast; someone who gained nothing in return of losing everything.

Torture

Torture, as Senator John McCain has made so very clear to us, is an awful and horrific act. The United States has been said to have been torturing various peoples at various times. Of course, we are not the only country to take part in this abominable act, but that does not make it OK. Torture is wrong, no matter what form it comes in, or where it comes from.

Torture comes in many forms, but it is always inflicted upon one (or more) individuals by another individual (or group). The torturing of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, the mass rape of women in 1992 with the Bosnian conflict. All these acts cause pain, embarrassment, and sometimes death to other human beings. The mistreatment of slaves, men beating women, women beating children, children beating animals. The ghastly antics of the Spanish Inquisition Court or Ferdinand and Isabella in 1478. They are all awful ways to convey a message.

Torture is an unnecessary way to get a point across. Information can be found out about other countries and terrorist groups without wrecking pain; they can simply ask, because most of the time, prisoners will not speak anyway. Conquering another land can be obtained via governmental control, not mass rape. A wife will listen to her husband, even if he does not hit her; in fact, she will be more likely to listen is he does not hit her, and the same goes for children and animals. “Enemies” of any institution can be discovered without acts of hostility towards individuals. Torture does not accomplish anything except rage and hate directed at a group or individual. It promotes conflict and solves nothing. Those who torture are in the wrong.

Although practiced for millennia, torture should not be a practice any person, group, or country accepts as a means of learning information, to prove a point, or send a message. It also gives political candidates something to bring up in every single speech, which is another form of torture for those listening.

Blog Assn #17: Torture

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Thursday, Oct. 23, 8 PM.

Some think the U.S. has performed wrongful torture in the last several years. Some think not. Who is right, and why?

What you think

I would have to agree with Cassie and Josh when they say what Montaigne is trying to say is that it, or life, is all open to ones interpretation. What really caught my eye is when Montaigne was trying to explain what is barbarous in the nation. In paragraph nine, he starts off by saying what he thinks. To be exact he says, “…I think there is nothing barbarous and savage in that nation, from what I have been told, except that each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice…” To me, the two words or phrases that stick out in that sentence are I think and from what I have been told. The way I interpreted it is that he is trying to say that there is no particular way to tell what barbarism is. Who is to say what is barbarous and what is not barbarous? There is no exact or definite answer. What also caught my attention is when Montaigne, in paragraph ten, said “These nations, then, seem to me barbarous in this sense…” Again, the key word or phrase in this sentence is, seem to me. This tells the reader, again, that there is no direct answer to that question of what is barbarous. I believe that the author, in this case Montaigne, is trying to say that one has to look at things through their own perspective and own views to make a thought or interpretation about it. People or researchers can present the reader with facts of things but only the actual reader can make their own opinion or judgment based on their interpretation.

Montaigne

What this author is really trying to say in his essay can be summed up in the quote, “Thus we should beware of clinging to vulgar opinions and judge things by reason’s way, not by popular say. The whole essay he talks about how groups of people may hold things in a different light than everyone else might. However, this author’s message can be broken down even further. It is not only how a group of people may find something, it is the individual. As Montaigne states in his quote, we cannot judge by popular say. This means that even in our culture, country, or even family. We all must on our own try and discover what we find to be our own personal views on any matter. Even groups such as our country or family may influence our decision and I believe that this something that each individual must be aware of. In order to find what we truly believe and how we view things in life, there must be no influences and by being aware of such influences it then helps us to become more aware individuals. In this essay the author talks often on the definition of the word barbarism, however, I do not believe that this is what the author is truly trying to get at. I think his message is more than just that. It is how that word comes to be defined, how people define things for themselves and how we as individuals can define our own words.

In Of Cannibals Montaigne is concerned with finding the definition of barbarism. However, throughout his essay, Montaigne realizes there is no universal definition of barbarism, but it depends upon the culture. Montaigne states, “except that each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in.” Montaigne believes that each culture and civilization is biased and believes their own religion, government, and manners are considered civilized and not barbaric. He gives examples that in one society, their actions seem completely wild, but to them it is completely normal, such as fighting naked and cannibalism.
Montaigne tries to rationalize what is barbaric and gives the opinion that whatever civilization has changed the most from the natural world is in fact the most barbaric, “Whereas really it is those that we have changed artificially and led astray from the common order that we should rather call wild.” This is the main reason why different cultures and civilizations find each other barbaric. Each culture evolved in a different way from one another, and developed different customs. This then shows that not one civilization or culture can be considered civilized. Throughout the essay, Montaigne is saying that because of every person’s bias of their culture barbarism cannot be defined. In fact, it would be biased to define one culture or civilization as barbaric, and something that can never be determined.

Montaigne questions the term “barbaric” in a universal setting. He finds that it is easy to label cultures and societies that are different from us as “barbaric,” but that the term isn’t appropriate without a true understanding of the culture. Even more than that, he finds that the term cannot be used if there is an understanding of the differences and why certain societies are the way they are. Montaigne takes cannibalism, a way of life that most people would deem barbaric, as an example. He describes their values, religion, family structure, and warfare. Their values, most would agree, are noble: to have “valor against the enemy and love for their wives.” It is obvious that family is important, especially when they consider all those that are of the same age as “brothers,” those younger as “children,” and those older as “fathers.” They have a religion which they regard as a path towards the right way of life, and they seek honor. It is true that they are a war faring people, but they see war as a fight for valor and basic necessities. Unlike most “civilized” people, they do not indulge. They remain simple and in touch with the natural way of life. Montaigne argues that they are indeed natural, and “civilizations” are what is wild. “Just as we call wild the fruits that Nature has produced by herself and in her normal course whereas really it is those that we have changed artificially and led astray from the common order, that we should rather call wild.” Similarly, we shouldn’t consider people who live off of the land and what is given to us naturally to be “wild” since “wild” strays from what is normal. Montaigne admits that “normal” is relative to different people. However he interprets what is “wild” in relation to what is “normal,” and since normal varies from culture to culture, declaring cannibalism to be “wild” or “barbaric” is unjust.

It's All in Your Point of View

A person's perspective on life is what causes him to judge a concept as good or evil, right or wrong, or civilized or barbaric. Obi-wan Kenobi gives one of the best examples and explanations of this in Star Wars when he is explaining to Luke Skywalker that from a certain point of view Darth Vader is not Luke's father and did indeed kill him, yet from another point of view Darth Vader is still Luke's father, Anakin Skywalker. Montaigne recognizes this point when he seeks to discover a true definition of barbarism. For example can cannibals be considered barbarians just because they eat their own species since they wait to do that until after death. Are people that torture any less barbaric. From either of these two groups point of view, their own actions are civilized and the others is barbaric. No culture is going to look at their own actions as barbaric because that is the way that they were raised and their actions are considered the norm for them in their lives. Each culture has ways that make it more or less barbaric than another. The current United States culture is filled with acts of violence against other people such as our torture or sending people to Guantanamo Bay to disappear. These actions are more barbaric than the actual thought of cannibalism from one point of view. From another they may seem perfectly okay and civilized. Perspective is the key element in determining barbarism and since there are so many perspectives, it becomes impossible to define. This point is what Montaigne was trying to bring up in his essay "Of Cannibals."

Montaigne, War, and CIE

In his essay “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne runs into a roadblock of sorts. When attempting to define barbarianism, he finds that it truly depends on the perspective of the culture. There can be no universal definition with given traits because each culture defines the terms using slightly different traits. Montaigne uses the example of cannibalism to show what he means. He says that in some ways, cannibals are less barbaric then what would be considered “civilized” cultures. The strongest argument Montaigne seems to make addresses the fact of torture. He says that cannibals might even be more civilized because they wait until a person is dead before they dissect and eat them. Meanwhile, some cultures torture people and cause them more pain than death could. This argument makes sense, especially considering some of the modern day practices that countries in our world exhibit. Most American citizens consider their country blameless in war. However, looking at the highly controversial War in Iraq, we caused more distress to the country than it could really handle. Our actions resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians for motives that are not even clear in the minds of most US citizens. This is quite a barbaric act, especially when you consider that the people we were attacking had not technically done anything to provoke such an attack from our country. I believe that this kind of barbaric act is what Montaigne means. Even though people may have some ideas of a different culture does not mean that everyone from that culture has the same set of ideas. This is the same idea we get stuck on in CIE. We try to define terms with examples of specific situations. More general definitions would work better because then we would not run into the problem Montaigne had of different people having irreconcilable ideas of the same term.

Chase Utley is the Man!!!

In the essay Of Cannibals, Michel de Montaigne explains how being a Barbarian is not a bad thing. He tries to make people see that these people are in some ways have a better and more civilized way of living than what people considered to be the civilized colonies. Montaigne explains that the when the Barbarians go to war it is never to increase the amount of land for themselves, when he says "They are not fighting for the conquest of new lands, for they still enjoy that natural abundance that provides thwm without toil and trouble with all necessary things in such profusion that they have no with to enlarge their boundaries." Montaigne also explain that the reason they eat humans is not for nutrition but "All this is done for the sole purpose of extorting from their lips some weak or base word... so as to gain the advantage of having terrified them and broken down their firmness." This means that the only reason they eat their enemies is to put fear into their them and to make them afraid of the Barbarians. Montaigne also says that in some ways the Barbarians are more civilized than the colonies that are thought to be civilized. "I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; and in tearing by tortures and the rack a body still full of feeling, in roasting a man bit by bit, in having him bitten and mangled by dogs and swine, than in roasting and eating him after he is dead." Meaning the Barbarians eat humans in a more civilized way when they could be more brutal, and that people in more civilized colonies torture people when they are alive. Montaigne is trying to get the point across that people should consider people to be Barbarians just since they do things that seem strange to someone from a different region in the world.

Interpreting te same thing many different ways

In his essay “Of Cannibals,” Michel de Montaigne tries to explain the idea of barbarianism and finds it impossible. For every culture has a different idea of whats barbaric and what would be considered uncivilized or primitive. While some general concepts may be considered barbaric, detailed qualities of the actions may help to make them unbarbaric in some cultures. “ Each man calls barbarianism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in,” (4). We live our day to day lives in our culture and with that comes the developing of that cultures beliefs and ideas.
Barbarianism seems to be a straightforward idea of horrible, innate type actions viewed that way by all. However, what can be viewed in one culture as barbaric can be viewed in another as somewhat acceptable or simply wrong instead of barbaric. Montaigne attempts to explain this diversity in his essay, and explain why this diversity forms. He talks of specific examples of barbarianism, and how in some cultures it is performed in a slightly different way and that is what makes it acceptable. One example is of a culture where the more wives a man has, the higher more respected status he has and in our culture that seems absolutely barbaric and inconceivable. Barbarianism is a loose term and can be easily interpreted many ways, in many different cultures.

In "Of Cannibals" by Michel de Montaigne, Montaigne describes the so-called "barbarian" in a very different light. Even if the Cannibals eat their enemies, he tells how they do it in a far nicer manner than they could have. He brings up a good point that they are much more civilized because they only chop up and eat the people AFTER they are dead, instead of torturing them while they are alive, like some of the more "civilized" colonies of the time.

Another aspect of the Cannibals that Montaigne is telling us is less barbaric than we are, is their warfare. He says it is “Wholly noble and generous….they are not fighting for the conquest of new lands.” The warfare of the civilized people is full of greed for land and riches.

This tells us how people are very judgmental in their opinions of what is "civilized" and what is not. It was very common in that time that if someone had different ideals or cultural behaviors, they were instantly pegged as barbarians. Yet, Montaigne is saying that when we look at it, they actually are less barbarous than we are. Their actions and lives are free from monetary corruption, and their lives are simpler. He states "So we may well call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity."

So barbaric

The main point being stressed by the essay is the personal bias we have for ourselves and customs, and that by using reason instead of ethnocentric tendencies to view others can yield surprising results. He talks about the foreign culture and how their traditions are entirely different than the ones that he is accustomed with. They drink warm drinks, fight naked, and eat their prisoners after taking good care of them. His instincts are to be appalled by this tradition, however after analyzing it through unbiased reason, he comes to a different conclusion. He reflects that this practice is less barbaric than the practices of his home land, where they torture the living and hurt their prisoners. Eventually, he comes to the conclusion that even though what they do sounds more scandalous, the so called "barbarians" are actually less barbaric than the society he is familiar with. He also points out how bias many culture are to any culture that differs from their own norms, and how skewed this can be as well. The Greeks refereed to any culture or country that wasn't their own as "barbaric," even if they didn't completely agree with this standpoint upon further analysis. The main point of this essay was cultural bias, and how our norms and values are incredibly subjective when comparing others to ourselves. Actions and customs that appear deviant at face value can actually be less hostile than expected when you use reason instead of bias to analyze them.

Judgement

Montaigne is trying to make a very specific point in Of Cannibals. He is telling the reader that while we look at customs we don’t understand as barbaric, when examined closely our own customs are often more barbaric than those of other groups. He says “So we may well call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves, who surpass them in every kind of barbarity.” (6). This quote exemplifies what Montaigne is saying. It is only upon contemplation and understanding of our own actions that we can call others barbaric, for we cannot call others barbaric without first understanding why they are and we are not. Or this understanding will cause people to realize why their culture and customs are barbaric, but either way this understanding is imperative to the labeling of people or actions as barbaric. Montaigne says “I am not sorry that we notice the barbarous horror of such acts, but I am heartily sorry that, judging their faults rightly, we should be so blind to our own.” (6). There is barbarism to every society and culture, but when you are a part of that society it is easy to become horrified at the acts of others while ignoring the barbarism going on around you. Montaigne would like people to first realize that there are barbaric acts in every society, and they need to be recognized by the members of that society before any other society is judged. When judging others people tend to overlook their own faults and Montaigne is saying that people should judge themselves and their society before judging others.

The True Nature of Cannibals

In Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals,” the definition of barbarism is thoroughly explored, and the author concludes in favor of a view very unlike what was held at the time. Greece: the country that consisted of seemingly “the perfect religion, the perfect government, the perfect and accomplished manners in all things” (3). Everything else, all other unknown cultures and peoples, are most obviously barbaric and inferior in all aspects of such a civilization, yes? According to the typical Grecian, yes, but not according to Montaigne. Montaigne, rather, develops very conflicting opinion throughout the essay that Greece itself may be the barbaric nation in comparison to every other culture. Montaigne proceeds to describe a certain society with admiration of its simplicity, “resoluteness in war and affection for their wives” (5). Montaigne continues to reveal that this particular culture actually eats prisoners of war, but herein lies what the most controversial part of the essay would be during the time period. Montaigne states that if Greece can so readily condemn fault in other cultures, it is ironic how blind Greece is to its own faults (6). However, the essay continues even further to humiliate Greece even further by charging the nation with “treachery, disloyalty, tyranny, and cruelty,” and goes as far to say that in comparison to the cultures Greece deems barbaric, Greece “surpass[es] them in every kind of barbarity” (6), in face of what would be deemed the most barbaric act of all: eating another human. As a result, Montaigne deals a sharp blow to the Grecian culture, perhaps in hopes of enlightening the Greek towards their seemingly conflicting nature in dealing with other societies, and the value and worth of the societies themselves not directly related to Greece.

Fall From the Top

"Of Cannibals" is an extremely interesting essay as it is a very open minded piece for its time period. Montaigne severely criticizes the elitism of the Greeks and their view that those who are not Greek are barbarians and seems to go to a much larger standard of all societies. Every society, no matter what accomplishments they have achieved, will believe that they are the greatest civilization and the rest are simply barabarians. Most of the work describes the habits and lives of the outsiders and how they are not so much barbaric or savages as they are just different. He finds beauty in logic in their way of life and even questions his own society when concerning issues such as execution and torture. He sees a simple dignity in the way they do battle and an appealing view of justice in the way they see life and death. He also points out the ignorance of the Greeks and those who hold that they are greater than another civilization. He contends that perhaps it is the Greeks who are the savages. This essay seems mainly to be that of acceptance and one against prejudice and arrogance. All great super powers in the world fall eventually and historically the "barbarians" have been the ones to do it. When Rome was sacked it was from a "barbaric people" and years later when the Soviet Union fell it was to a "primitive", in their view, Islamic people. So Montaigne seems to believe in the idea of knowing how deep the water is before you jump in. Truly learn about a people before judging them and act based on knowledge. Remember that every society has redeeming and beautiful qualities and that it is unfair to judge any civilization entierely on its negative aspects, such as cannibalism.

Who are the Barbarians?

Barbarian has become a standard word in most languages. We can thank the Greeks for that, for anyone who was not Greek was a barbarian. Which meant they were uncivilized, not Greek, and inferior to all Greeks. In Michel de Montaigne’s Of Cannibals, he addresses this illusion of civilization. What he trying to say is that Western Civilization is far more barbarous than the “barbarians” outside Western culture, and barbarianism is in the eye of the beholder.

Montaigne begins by saying our beliefs should come through our own experiences, not through what others have experienced. For those opinions are always biased, ethnocentric, and exaggerated. He then goes on to describe a people who are considered barbarians, but are, in fact, more civilized than Westerners in many ways. These people have a straight forward sense of what is important: “valor against the enemy and love for their wives” (Montaigne, 5). They fight well, they build well, and they have their own form of government. Overall, these people are much easier to understand than Westerners, and are in no need of “being civilized” because they surpass western culture in many ways.

He then points out how they view us as having strange ideas. An example would be the king and why so many strong men (the Swiss Guard) surround him. This idea is barbarian to them, yet civilized to us. Therefore, depending on your point of view, barbarianism may be different, according to the culture one was raised in.

Whether we are the barbarians, or they are, has never been settled. But it is safe to say that each culture has its own unique idea of what constitutes as civilized. I think Montaigne has some excellent ideas and very good points; points and ideas we could all learn from.

Blog Assn #16: What is Montaigne trying to say?

Please post about the following topic to the blog by Sunday, October 19, 8 PM.

What is Montaigne trying to say in his essay, "Of Cannibals"?

When observing the skyline of both the text authored by Giorgio Vasari and the assortment of Renaissance works, it becomes apparent that the people of the time period really wanted to instate a change in the way that people looked at the world. Vasari recognizes this as well and somewhat judges the quality of a renaissance artist based on the work they did to change the way people thought about their art-form. Looking at the pieces of art, we see that the early artists of the Renaissance were working to show even deities in a more realistic light. As the works of the Renaissance progress, Jesus and other holy figures lose the golden coronas that surrounded their heads in previous works along with their perfect skin complexion. Instead, the art shows the artists caring more about humanizing holy figures and eventually, not even bothering to show holy figures. Instead, works were done such as Da Vinci’s journal and slides 17 and 18. These works were done strictly with the intent of creating art and showing the true aspect of the world around the artist. Not to be confused with the much later movement of realism, but the Renaissance shows that the artists wanted to change the way people viewed God and the world. Rather than living for stories in holy scripture, the artists painted and sculpted as they saw the world since this was their perspective of what was important. As Vasari notes, the first artists of the Renaissance attempted to do such, and their efforts were noble, but it was not till later that the form was broken and the artists truly brought about the change in the way people looked at the world through art. Rather than deifying stories and characters, the human form took on a much more central role in the art and the common man became much more important to the artists of the Renaissance.

Important to Author

I would say that one very big aspect of this author’s writing is religion. From the start the author has talked about religion inspiring various well known artists. He goes back to the biblical times and how different parts of the bible must have inspired different artists. He even went back to times of a more powerful Greek empire and how even back then gods inspired their different sculptures. Perfection is also discussed. It is because of god that these artists want to try and achieve perfection in their pieces, especially when they are doing a piece that is inspired by an event that is written about in the bible. However, at the same time the author is trying to reach perfection not only for religious pieces but all pieces in general. The author goes through the histories of art and how the progress of art later leads to a closer perfection. The author states that as art goes on in history different aspects of it become improved. Art is no longer colorless, it has become much more vibrant. There is also much more detail to things now and more shapes than there used to be in art. Now there is also more organization to pieces and there are actual meanings and purposes that are driving artists to come up with these extraordinary pieces. All of these different things have helped art to become closer to some sort of perfection.

Religion

The people of this time were a very religious people. This fact is expressed in their art. Renaissance art often depicts religious settings or events as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ as seen in the School of Pisa and the Masaccio. Religious influence is especially evident when one looks at the roof of the Sistine Chapel. The sheer magnitude of the cost of the painting is evidence of the importance of religious paintings. Many of the other paintings depict Angel like images interacting with the people. The people are also often dressed in Roman clothes, as the Renaissance period sought to bring back the old ways. Many of the scenes depict Jesus and his disciples such as in the Adoration of the Magi. Overall, it seems that the people of the Renaissance period were most focused on the like, death, and resurrection of Jesus as a focus of their religious beliefs. These religious beliefs affected the art that was not specifically about religious acts. In the paintings of justice and injustice, one can see angels on the side of justice as well as people having plentiful lives. On the side of injustice, one can see people dying on what seems to be a very distasteful terrain that is reminiscent of hell. This exemplifies their affinity for religious beliefs in terms of right and wrong. Since these images are seen on many important buildings and structures, it is easy to see that Christianity was the most important thing in the lives of people in that era.

Dodgers are going down!!!!! Lets Go Phillies!!

It apperars to me that the Vasari and the Renaissance artists both care about god and religious values. In the slides, almost all of the pictures are of religous moments and especially the crusifiction of Jesus Christ. Even in the picture of the king and queen, the king is larger than all of the warriors underneath him which shows that he is on higher platform that normal humans. In the slide of Abraham and Isaac (Competition Panel) there are angels that are flying above them which give the sense that they are in heaven in the presence of god. Also in slide number seven it looks to be the angels handing Abraham the ten commandments and then Abraham giving the commandment to the people at the bottom of the hill.
Vasari also takes god and religion as a high priority. Within the second paragraph, he talks about how "Now the matarial in which God worked to fashion the first man was a lump of clay." I'm not quite sure, but I do recall remembering a quote very similar that was in the book of Genisis. Also in the beginninng of the Life of Leonardo Da Vinci, Vasari says "A single person is marvellously endowed by heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired, and indeed everything he does clearly comes from god rather than from human art." Vasari holds Da Vinci on a higher platform than all other artists and says that he was gifted by god with the gift of art and thats why his art is so much better than any other human. Vasari also says that Da Vinci's art was "So wonderfully inspired by the grace of god," which credits most of his art to god. LETS GO PHILLIES!

Based on this reading, and my knowledge from past art history courses, I will say that the authors and artists of the Renaissance most cared about reaching for perfection and divinity in their art. Vasari comments greatly on how 3rd period artists and he is constantly commending them for achieving perfection in their art. He describes the sculpting process as “of removing from and adding to material that was imperfect”.

Religion was greatly important in those times. Instead of creating figures with real human emotions [they are not seen until Humanism kicks in], all the figures are flawless, with rippling muscles and god-like faces. These flawless figures represent how people were trying to signify that humans were created in the likeness of God. Thusly, despite the reality of the human body, sculptures aimed to create the form human.

Almost all of the pictures in the slides have religious themes, whether they be Christian or Greek mythology. Religion was immeasurably important to the people in the Renaissance time. This can be contrasted to modern times, an art where imperfections are valued for the uniqueness they add to a piece of art. Small cracks in sculptures give character, brushstrokes in paintings create movement and life. Everything in those times were smooth, pristine, and made to look untouched by human hands.

Perfection and Divinity

The Renaissance artists appear two main areas of concern. Most importantly is the objective of perfection. Perfection in art is considered as the best representation of both the physical and emotional aspects of the subject. Throughout the “Lives of the Artists,” Vasari frequently mentions the goal of perfection, limiting this adjective to very few accomplished artists, Da Vinci being one. His work is described as “nothing could be more inspired or perfect”(258), while pieces by other artists are praised but deemed “extremely sound even if imperfect” (88). Interestingly, perfection is not limited to subjects of purely artistic nature, but of the scientific realm as well. For example, Da Vinci’s work in observing the heavens is praised, but more so his work with both horse and human anatomy.

Another point of emphasis among Renaissance artists is divinity. The first page of the prelude immediately states that the ultimate source of art comes from “Almighty God,” who “fashioned the first forms of painting and sculpture in the sublime grace of created things” (25). God, after all, did create the first man out of clay. The theme of the divine continues as descriptions of Da Vinci’s artwork almost always include the depiction of a saint or the Virgin. One of Da Vinci’s most important pieces of work is the Last Supper. Taking a look at the artwork provided in the PowerPoint, there are also several instances in which the divine is depicted. For example, on the doors of Florence Baptistery the attempted sacrifice of Issac by his father Abraham appears, and the Holy Trinity combines both the artistic and scientific aspects of Renaissance art, in which particular emphasis is placed on the angles in the painting, along with the powerful image of God holding his son’s cross.

Religious Art

Vasari and the Renaissance artists cared most about portraying the artwork of God. As Vasari relates sculpture to how God created man: “He fashioned the first forms of painting and sculpture in the sublime grace of created things. It is undeniable that from man, as a perfect model, statues and piece of sculpture and the challenges of pose and contour were first derived; and for the first paintings whatever they many have been, the ideas of softness and of unity and the clashing harmony made by light and shadow were derived from the same source.” As artists devoted to their faith, they wanted to be as “perfect” as God was in his creation. Just as He did, sculptures will take away and add clay to their piece until it is suitable to their tastes. Painters consider color. Sculptures consider movement. Painters and sculptures alike consider form, movement, facial expressions, and if the theme of their work is being expressed. “By adding and taking away, they bring their rough models and sketches to the final perfection for which they are striving.” Not only do they try to follow God’s example, for Vasari considers God the first artist, but they also try to create a realistic view of the Bible or religious history. As can be seen in the slideshow of Renaissance art, all of the pieces are of something meaningful to their culture and to their religion, which went hand in hand during this time period. They wanted to bring to life what was most important to them: their religion.