Thursday, December 11, 2008

Traitor Versus Whistle Blower in On The Waterfront

Characters in the film On The Waterfront have a wide range of definitions for traitors and whistle blowers, and their differing opinions on this topic lead to the main conflict of the film.
By the end of the film, Terry Molloy believes that a traitor is someone who acts in their own selfish interests. He thinks that a whistleblower, on the other hand, is someone who wants to benefit a majority of the people involved. Therefore, he believes that a whistleblower would be willing to risk their own lives for the sake of this majority. A traitor would never make such a sacrifice and would rather see others hurt for his sake. Based on this definition, Terry would classify himself as a whistle blower and a crusader for justice on the waterfront. It’s obvious that Terry is not standing up for the workers of the waterfront for selfish reasons, because Terry had opportunities to benefit from not testifying against Johnny Friendly. For example, he could have easily taken the job Charlie offered him in the taxi and chose to stay loyal to the mob—a choice that would undoubtedly have led to an easy life for Terry. However, Terry selflessly placed the futures of the dockworkers above his own future. Additionally, Terry proves himself to be a crusader because he is willing to risk his life for the dockworkers’ sakes. He knows that the mob will want to kill him if he testifies in court, and he does it anyhow. Johnny Friendly and the members of the mob have very different ideas about what a whistle blower is and what a traitor is. In fact, Johnny Friendly doesn’t even see a distinction between the two, because he believes that his mob’s rule should always be followed. Friendly doesn’t believe in justice or truth—if he did he wouldn’t have killed people like Joey and Doogan in the first place. Therefore, according to Friendly, anyone who is disloyal to his mob for any reason—even to restore justice or truth—is a traitor. In Friendly’s eyes, Terry is obviously a traitor, because he wants to turn the mob in to the police. However, Friendly also sees Terry’s brother Charlie as a traitor, not because he was going to testify, but because he disobeyed Friendly’s orders by not killing Terry. This opinion of Friendly’s shows us that Friendly truly felt that everyone must obey his commands or be considered disloyal.

I agree with Terry’s ideas, and I think that a whistle blower is someone who tells the truth when doing so will be good for the largest group of people. On the other hand, a traitor is someone who tells the truth (or a lie) for his own benefit or to deliberately hurt someone else. Therefore, I believe that the difference between the two really lies in the person’s motivation. For example, if a person caught someone stealing and wanted to turn him or her in to help the store and to try to make society more honest, then I think this person would be a whistle blower. However, if a person turned someone in because they would be given a reward from the police or because they wanted to see the criminal get in trouble, then I think this person would be a traitor.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Angela's Ashes: Post 3

Young Frank McCourt’s life has taken more turns for the worse in the most recent section of Angela’s Ashes. His younger twin brothers, Eugene and Oliver, die one after the other, which causes his parents a lot of grief. Frankie and his younger brother Malachy begin to attend Leamy’s National School, and his family moves twice to try to escape the memories of Eugene and Oliver that plague them. Also, Frankie’s mother gives birth to a new brother for Frankie, named Michael.

The McCourts continue to face prejudice in Ireland. Frankie is made fun of at school for being from the United States. Upon discovering that Frankie and his brother Malachy are from America, one boy asks them whether they are cowboys or gangsters. When Frankie gets in a fight with the boy, the headmaster of the school says, “You little hooligan…Is that the kind of behavior you brought from America?” (79). Then he punishes him by forcing him to say, “I’m a bad Yank” (79). Frankie is already a quiet and reserved boy who is often overshadowed by his brother, so this makes him feel even worse and decreases his confidence in school. Mr. McCourt also continues to face prejudice for being from the North of Ireland, and is turned down from job opportunities when employers hear his Northern accent. Mr. McCourt copes with this discrimination much differently from Frankie, though: instead of submitting to others’ opinions and letting others get the better of him, Mr. McCourt maintains his pride in his Northern roots. Mrs. McCourt even suggests that he disguise his accent to get a job, but Mr. McCourt refuses and “says he’ll never sink that low” (94).

Although some degree of pride can help people in the McCourts’ situation maintain their dignity, it seems that Mr. McCourt is taking his pride too far. He is so intent on not disgracing himself that he becomes unreasonable and stubborn. For example, Frankie tells the reader, “Even if Dad came he wouldn’t be much use because he never carries anything, parcels, bags, packages. If you carry such things you lose your dignity. That’s what he says” (98). His pride also hurts his family and their efforts to escape from their poverty, because he believes that the family disgraces themselves when they ask for help from charity or pick coal up from the streets. If Mr. McCourt wasn’t as opposed to getting help, their family might have a better chance of improving their very poor living situation.

Because Frankie is still a young boy, he doesn’t have that many major ethical choices to make in his life. However, one decision that Frankie had to make recently in the book came when his father was out drinking in pubs again. Mrs. McCourt had sent Frankie along with his father in an effort to prevent Mr. McCourt from spending all night drinking at the pub. Once at the pub, Mr. McCourt tells Frankie to go home, but Frankie knows that if he does as his father says, it is very likely that his father will be drinking all night long—just the situation Mrs. McCourt wanted to prevent. Frankie says that his father said, “Don’t be disobedient. Go home to your poor mother. I said, No, and he said I was a bad boy and God would be displeased” (83). Despite opposition from his father, Frankie quietly insists on doing the right thing, and finally succeeds in getting his father home early in the evening. This example shows that Frankie had a very clear sense of right and wrong and wasn’t easily influenced by others’ opinions. Even his father, who he admired a lot, couldn’t get Frankie to do what Frankie believed was the wrong thing. Also, Frankie risks making his father mad by staying in the pub, but he stays anyhow, because he knows that motivating his father to come home early from the pub will benefit the entire family. Letting Mr. McCourt stay in the pub would only benefit Mr. McCourt. Clearly, Frankie is concerned with what he can do to help his entire family, rather than just one person. This idea is also supported with countless examples of Frankie making sacrifices to help his family—he frequently runs errands for his mother, collects coal on the street so they can cook dinner, and takes care of his brothers.

Work Cited: McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

*I wanted to underline all the "Angela's Ashes" titles in this post, but blogspot wouldn't let me.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Society Vs. Family

Characters in Arthur Miller’s play All My Sons are divided into two sides: those who believe actions should benefit family, and those who believe actions should benefit society. Joe and Kate Keller belong to the former group, and base their decisions off what will help their family most. Joe in particular has a strong belief that being able to pass something on to his family justifies hurting society. He acts on this belief when he ships the cracked cylinder heads to the army: he knows that this action will hurt others in society, but he does it anyhow, because it will help his family. When he escapes punishment for this crime by blaming it on his partner, he again sacrifices society for family, because he harms someone else while upholding his own family and business. Joe sum up his belief that his family’s needs trump his society’s needs when he is desperately trying to explain to a furious Chris why he chose to ship the bad parts. Joe says, “Chris, I did it for you, it was a chance and I took it for you. I’m sixty-one years old, when would I have another chance to make something for you?” (70). Kate agrees with Joe on this issue. Additionally, she strongly believes that actions of a family affect only that family and do not matter to the rest of society, and she thus justifies valuing family over society. For example, Kate believes that Larry is still alive, and that because Larry is alive, Joe’s crime is erased and does not matter to anyone else. This is part of the reason that Kate clings so adamantly to her denial of her son’s death—Larry alive means Joe innocent to her. On the other side of the argument are Chris and Annie. Chris’s views are opposite from his father’s, because Chris is deeply ashamed that his father would ship out broken parts for his family’s sake, without regard to his impact on society. This difference between Joe and Chris causes a lot of conflict in the play, because Chris is furious with his father when he discovers Joe’s guilt, feels ashamed to benefit from the business that killed pilots, and wants Joe pay for his crime. Chris summarizes his point of view at the end of the play by telling Kate “You can be better! Once and for all there’s a universe of people outside and you’re responsible to it…” (84). This proclamation clearly shows that Chris feels that society’s needs should be prioritized above those of his family’s. Annie’s opinions are similar to Chris’s on this issue, and she was very ashamed of her father when she still thought that he was guilty. Her shame and anger at her father are so extreme that she doesn’t even write him, and this action shows her placing more importance on society’s needs than on her family bonds. When Ann says about her father, “It’s wrong to pity a man like that. Father or no father, there’s only one way to look at him. He knowingly shipped out parts that would crash an airplane” (31), her severed ties with her father are very apparent.

In my opinion, society should be prioritized over one’s family, because everybody is a member of society. Therefore, if an action benefits the entire society, it benefits the family in that society a bit, too. Society depends on people to give up personal wants or needs so that we can all live together: this is the concept of a social contract. If this idea was not obeyed, everyone would do only what benefited them and those very close to them. Though it seems that this could make people happy, in reality it would destroy everyone, because everyone’s wants would clash and harm each other. For example, if everyone obeyed like Joe Keller does in All My Sons and killed others’ sons for their own sons’ sake, nobody’s sons would survive. For this reason, I agree with Ann and Chris that society is more important than individual families, and I disagree with Joe and Kate.


Work Cited:

Miller, Arthur. All My Sons. New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1947.

*I wanted to underline all the "All My Sons" in the post but couldn't.