Monday, September 15, 2014
Sunday, September 7, 2014
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Monday, March 3, 2014
"A Modest Proposal" Relevancy Post
"A Modest Proposal" is a satirical pamphlet written by satirist Jonathan Swift. Its aim was to criticize English tyranny, the wealthy, and landlords, and to expose their sins to the poor to show them the preposterous actions taken against them. While ultimately it did not galvanize the impoverished to take action, "A Modest Proposal" is still considered a relevant piece today, that can be connected to multiple countries around the world, not just Ireland in the 18th century.
One quotation that really stands out in Swift's pamphlet is "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." (pg. 397 The Malcontents). This quote stands out because it applies as a metaphor for so much of the misfortunes that modern day poor have to face. Back in Swift's time, landlords would charge excessive rates for renting tenement flats, and so the poor were almost always slightly in debt. Swift uses irony in his pamphlet to say that because the landlords have already "devoured", as in finished eating the money, life, and energy of the parents, they have the right to "eat" the children as well. This leads to a vicious cycle as the children are forced to be kept in debt, and their descendants, creating a vicious cycle with no escape. In modern times, the same greed can be seen in the practices of bankers. In an op-ed written for the New York Times by Paul Krugman called "Eating the Irish", Krugman links the landlords in Swift's time to modern day bankers. There was an economic miracle in Ireland that led to a speculative frenzy, financed mainly by money borrowed by the Irish banks from foreign ones. Eventually, the economy crashed and the banks faced huge losses. Because the corrupt, puppet Irish government was controlled by British interests, and much of the money lent to the Irish banks came from English coffers, the Irish government stepped in and shouldered the debt, making it a public obligation. The sharp increase in taxes hurt the poor, as well as the government-instituted spending cuts. Thus, today's Ireland, is a very similar situation to the Ireland of the 16th century, with the poor only getting poorer, not because they caused the spending cuts or debt, but because of wealthy private interests that ruined the economy. Now the less fortunate citizens of Ireland have to clean up the mess the wealthy made.
Point about outsourcing raw materials from Ireland, manufacturing in England, then selling globally to other countries without giving any commission/payment to Irish who provide the materials, which most of the time are the poor farmers and laborers. Link to the comeback of textile plants, where automation is increasing productivity and boosting domestic manufacturing instead of overseas manufacturing. Automation and modern technology decreases cost of manufacturing at home (in the US) rather than manufacturing overseas, even though labor costs are cheaper overseas.
On another note, this quote can also be interpreted a different way. Swift criticizes the Irish government for being corrupt and basically puppets of the English counterpart in London, so "landlords" could also refer to the government. This is because the English were outsourcing Irish raw materials, producing them in England, and selling them internationally as "British" goods. The Irish didn't even see a pence for providing the materials, which coincidentally were mostly provided by the poor farmers and laborers. While the Irish government has the power to stop this, it is simply a puppet government under the British. As long as the Irish politicians are bribed or threatened, they won't oppose the largest imperial power at that time. Thus, the poor had no way of earning money by harvesting these raw materials. Thus, generation after generation of Irish farmers and laborers are unable to escape their situation. Hence the irony in "landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." Today, India faces similar problems. Coincidentally, India contains around 40% of the world's malnourished population today, similar to the hungry Irish poor in the 1700s. The government has provided numerous services and programs to solve this issue, but there is still a high number of malnourished people in India. The question is, why? In fact, it is because some of the programs are corrupt and inefficient. The Public Distribution System (PDS) in India is a plan that distributes foodstuffs like grain and wheat to rural areas where poverty is more prevalent. However, much of the grain is siphoned off to black markets or sold in the market at a profit. The total value of corruption in the PDS is around 358 crore a year, which is approximately 57 million US dollars! The corruption is widespread in the PDS and the government has done nothing to really stop it from happening. This is similar to the portrayal of the English government in Swift's pamphlet, as he says that the Irish government is corrupt, due to the bribery and graft that the English government is paying the Irish government to maintain a pro-British regime in Ireland.
In conclusion, "A Modest Proposal" is definitely still relevant in today's society, particularly in modern day Ireland and India. Swift's criticisms of landlords are metaphors of private banking practices in modern day Ireland, as well as metaphors for the corruption going on at a political level, as the government shoulders the private debt to make it a public one. The corruption metaphor of the landlords is even furthered in modern day India, as the programs the Indian government are implementing to solve malnutrition not only worsens the problem, but also helps the wrong people by putting corrupt dollars in the hands of corrupt officials, instead of food in the bowls of the poor.
One quotation that really stands out in Swift's pamphlet is "I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." (pg. 397 The Malcontents). This quote stands out because it applies as a metaphor for so much of the misfortunes that modern day poor have to face. Back in Swift's time, landlords would charge excessive rates for renting tenement flats, and so the poor were almost always slightly in debt. Swift uses irony in his pamphlet to say that because the landlords have already "devoured", as in finished eating the money, life, and energy of the parents, they have the right to "eat" the children as well. This leads to a vicious cycle as the children are forced to be kept in debt, and their descendants, creating a vicious cycle with no escape. In modern times, the same greed can be seen in the practices of bankers. In an op-ed written for the New York Times by Paul Krugman called "Eating the Irish", Krugman links the landlords in Swift's time to modern day bankers. There was an economic miracle in Ireland that led to a speculative frenzy, financed mainly by money borrowed by the Irish banks from foreign ones. Eventually, the economy crashed and the banks faced huge losses. Because the corrupt, puppet Irish government was controlled by British interests, and much of the money lent to the Irish banks came from English coffers, the Irish government stepped in and shouldered the debt, making it a public obligation. The sharp increase in taxes hurt the poor, as well as the government-instituted spending cuts. Thus, today's Ireland, is a very similar situation to the Ireland of the 16th century, with the poor only getting poorer, not because they caused the spending cuts or debt, but because of wealthy private interests that ruined the economy. Now the less fortunate citizens of Ireland have to clean up the mess the wealthy made.
Point about outsourcing raw materials from Ireland, manufacturing in England, then selling globally to other countries without giving any commission/payment to Irish who provide the materials, which most of the time are the poor farmers and laborers. Link to the comeback of textile plants, where automation is increasing productivity and boosting domestic manufacturing instead of overseas manufacturing. Automation and modern technology decreases cost of manufacturing at home (in the US) rather than manufacturing overseas, even though labor costs are cheaper overseas.
On another note, this quote can also be interpreted a different way. Swift criticizes the Irish government for being corrupt and basically puppets of the English counterpart in London, so "landlords" could also refer to the government. This is because the English were outsourcing Irish raw materials, producing them in England, and selling them internationally as "British" goods. The Irish didn't even see a pence for providing the materials, which coincidentally were mostly provided by the poor farmers and laborers. While the Irish government has the power to stop this, it is simply a puppet government under the British. As long as the Irish politicians are bribed or threatened, they won't oppose the largest imperial power at that time. Thus, the poor had no way of earning money by harvesting these raw materials. Thus, generation after generation of Irish farmers and laborers are unable to escape their situation. Hence the irony in "landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children." Today, India faces similar problems. Coincidentally, India contains around 40% of the world's malnourished population today, similar to the hungry Irish poor in the 1700s. The government has provided numerous services and programs to solve this issue, but there is still a high number of malnourished people in India. The question is, why? In fact, it is because some of the programs are corrupt and inefficient. The Public Distribution System (PDS) in India is a plan that distributes foodstuffs like grain and wheat to rural areas where poverty is more prevalent. However, much of the grain is siphoned off to black markets or sold in the market at a profit. The total value of corruption in the PDS is around 358 crore a year, which is approximately 57 million US dollars! The corruption is widespread in the PDS and the government has done nothing to really stop it from happening. This is similar to the portrayal of the English government in Swift's pamphlet, as he says that the Irish government is corrupt, due to the bribery and graft that the English government is paying the Irish government to maintain a pro-British regime in Ireland.
In conclusion, "A Modest Proposal" is definitely still relevant in today's society, particularly in modern day Ireland and India. Swift's criticisms of landlords are metaphors of private banking practices in modern day Ireland, as well as metaphors for the corruption going on at a political level, as the government shoulders the private debt to make it a public one. The corruption metaphor of the landlords is even furthered in modern day India, as the programs the Indian government are implementing to solve malnutrition not only worsens the problem, but also helps the wrong people by putting corrupt dollars in the hands of corrupt officials, instead of food in the bowls of the poor.
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Learning Reflection
It's been a long time since the beginning of this course and I have enjoyed the entire journey. From the first essay about Joseph Campbell and The Dark Knight, I learned to make sure I integrate quotations, make a strong claim and organize my paragraphs in a coherent order. The next unit was about Grendel from the original Beowulf as well as the novel written by John Gardner. With that argument essay, I met the expectations for quote integration, showing I had improved since The Dark Knight essay. Finally, in our last unit, we became experts on our respective monsters and wrote a narrative from the perspective of that monster. That was my most favorite assignment because it let my imagination go wild and I could, in effect, write about the aftermath of Fenrir's imprisonment and the events leading up towards Ragnarok. Even though the word limit was a bit to little, I think I still managed to convey the irony and effect of a short story to my readers.
I think the narrative really made me realize why monsters are so fascinating: it is because they are different. We always think about the heroes and how they accomplish their feats, but nobody really thinks about the monster, or tells the story of the monster from its point of view. The audience could be, in effect, missing important points because all of us only focus on the point of view of the hero, and ignore the monster. This difference really adds to the fascination of the monster because we are unfamiliar with its point of view and its perspective. It really fascinated me to read about Grendel and Beowulf's battle in Grendel by John Gardner because it provided a new perspective of a story that is ages old. After reading all the short stories, watching The Dark Knight and reading all those analytical texts on the nature of a monster, I think a monster is someone or something that is bent on some kind of destruction. Fenrir, the Norse wolf, was a archetypal destruction monster, as well as the Joker, who was bent on destroying society to prove that everyone is as crazy as he is. The only thing that differs between monsters is the medium they act through. For example, Fenrir acts through the physical medium, by physically destroying the things around him. At the same time, his destruction affects other mediums, like society. The Joker destroys through the social medium, and that affects the physical medium, for example, when he kills so many people to prove his point.
I think the narrative really made me realize why monsters are so fascinating: it is because they are different. We always think about the heroes and how they accomplish their feats, but nobody really thinks about the monster, or tells the story of the monster from its point of view. The audience could be, in effect, missing important points because all of us only focus on the point of view of the hero, and ignore the monster. This difference really adds to the fascination of the monster because we are unfamiliar with its point of view and its perspective. It really fascinated me to read about Grendel and Beowulf's battle in Grendel by John Gardner because it provided a new perspective of a story that is ages old. After reading all the short stories, watching The Dark Knight and reading all those analytical texts on the nature of a monster, I think a monster is someone or something that is bent on some kind of destruction. Fenrir, the Norse wolf, was a archetypal destruction monster, as well as the Joker, who was bent on destroying society to prove that everyone is as crazy as he is. The only thing that differs between monsters is the medium they act through. For example, Fenrir acts through the physical medium, by physically destroying the things around him. At the same time, his destruction affects other mediums, like society. The Joker destroys through the social medium, and that affects the physical medium, for example, when he kills so many people to prove his point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)