Wednesday, February 23, 2011


Comparison Between the self-burning of Mohamed Bouazizi and “The Burning Monk.”

Both did it, to show and to make their cause noticeable and heard. The Monk was originally thought to have done it for religious reasons, but some Buddhist scholars believe that it was also for political reasons; thus making them both political movements.
One difference is that the monk had others who "helped" him; for they, other monks, poured the gasoline upon him, on his request. Mohamed did it himself, but his friend, another fruit vendor, was standing close by. The basis of their "self-burnings" were caused by different things. The Monk did it for he wanted the freedom of religion and he claimed that the government was demolishing his religion. On the another hand, Mohamed did it against the government, the ruler, because he was refused the right to talk to the government. His fruit scale had been taken again (happened repeatedly before) and he just wanted it back, but they wouldn't even allow him in the gates of the government building. They killed themselves for they both were enraged at the government, but for different reasons. One wanted the right of religion and the other wanted the no search and seizure (amendments from American Constitution).

My thoughts on the topic:
I think this was extreme, I wish there was another way to grab a whole country's attention. I personally think that it was sad that the burning of a person was needed to spark a revolution. Literary, a spark started the revolution and ended a life for a revolution of a county.

Here is a poem that conveys my feeling on a the topic:
"I'm having one of those days,
Where everything seems wrong.
The day seems to drag on,
And the tears struggle to stop.

One of those nights,
Where I feel so alone.
I feel empty right to the bone,
All I want to do is cry.

One of those memories,
I have to hang on to.
That one image of you,
Drilled into my head.

One of those thoughts,
Where all you ask is why.
Why did you have to die,
Leaving me to hurt forever. " - Caitlyn

Yet there is another part of me that feels like this...
A Political Litany
"From a kingdom that bullies, and hectors, and swears,
we send up to heaven our wishes and prayers
that we, disunited, may freemen be still" -
Philip Freneau

This shows that even though some died, the after affects helped many people.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

The White Man's Burden & Imperialism

Response to Kiplings "The White Man's Burden":
1. Determine what Kipling means by "the White Man's Burden"?
White man's burden, has actually been haded to some dictionaries as a noun. It's meaning was derived from Kipling's poem. According to it means, "the alleged duty of the white race to care for subject peoples of other races in its colonial possessions." He shows "the white man's burden" sort of as a responsibility of the "white" race to protect the other races, but not their own, for he writes, "Go, bind your sons to exile to serve your captives' needs."
2. Does Kipling justify imperialism? How so?
I think he sort does justify imperialism, for he shows it as one place helping another to have progress. Kipling describes it as a country putting others in front of its-self. Yet he shows another sort of view, too. His word choice displays how it is wrong and a sad, horrible thing to force people into a different culture. Kipling writes these things, "to veil the threat of horror," and "your new-caught sullen peoples," doesn't this paint a horrible fear in your mind? He writes with words of sadness, but his message seems to rejoice for progress is to come.
3. Why might such a justification might be so appealing?
It shows that even though the "captives" may see it as one way, it could be for the better. They new country might bring advancements and supplies. I guess what I am saying is that he shows how it could be taken as a kindly sort of gesture or one just to show great power and superiority.