Touissant vs. Calhoun

Among other differences, I think the main characteristic which distinguishes Touissant from Calhoun is their experience as slaves. Touissant, referred to as “Old Touissant,” is motivated to join the Haitian revolution after a lifetime of slavery from which he was never liberated. However, Calhoun was liberated while still young and seems to take his freedom for granted. He became a member of the Republic almost by accident and remained ignorant of the way the slaves in Africa are treated on the slave ship until he witnessed it himself. However, I sense that Johnson sympathizes more with Calhoun than James sympathizes with Touissant because while Touissant’s experience did not prevent him from making a fatal mistake, Calhoun grew and became a better person from his experience on the Republic.

Calhoun/Toussaint

Toussaint and Calhoun are both the mediators in each of their respective texts. They are also the protagonists in their story. One major difference is Toussaint is an actual person and Calhoun is completely fictionalized. However, at times it is easier for the reader to relate to Calhoun than Toussaint. Toussiant seems more like a myth than Calhoun is although Calhoun's character is not based on a real person. Both Calhoun and Toussaint are stuck between different worlds. Calhoun is stuck between the fellow members of the crew who happen to be white and the allmuseri on board who are black. Calhoun is black yet he is not african. Yet, the slaves on board the ship trust him more than they would any white man. Toussaint is trying to lead the slaves in San Domingo to freedom yet he also feels ties toward the french. In fact Toussaint considers himself french. Toussaint and Calhoun have to decide where their loyalties lie. They are both in positions of power. Toussaint seized his power while Calhoun was more passive about how he got his power.
It is also essential to look at the identities of these characters. First of all, each has a personal identity. However, Calhoun and Toussaint also both have a national somewhat ethnic identity. The events that occur in the world around them greatly influence who they are. At times their ethnicity forces them to make difficult choices. Calhoun has to choose between the crew or betraying the allmuseri. One gets the sense that Calhoun and Toussaint are in worlds that they don't always have control over. This is not only because of their race but also in the sense of social class and wealth. In San Domingo there are different categories of whites, mulattoes and black slaves. There is stife among all the social classes. In Calhoun's case the ship that he is on is controlled by rich, white merchants. Falcon, who is white is at the whim of these men as is Calhoun. Calhoun and Toussaint are both strong characters who are greatly affected by the social and racial conflicts of their times.

Calhoun versus Touissant

Calhoun can mediate the black with the free whites because he shares characteristics of both. He knows what it is like to be a slave, to be poor, and also looked down upon but at the same time he knows what it is like to be free, and he was never treated as poorly as the Alamusserai. Now that he is free he has made money and a better life for himself. Because he can relate to both groups in some way or another, he can be a crucial and persuasive person. Because each group can relate to him, they use him to communicate with the other, knowing the other group knowing they may listen to him, someone they can connect with, than a person who they can not connect with at all.

Touissant is also a mediator between two opposing groups in very similar ways to Calhoun. He can relate to the French because he considers himself French and he is free , but he also was a slave for a long period of time, so he can relate to them as well. He has been placed in and faced with the challenges of being enslaved, and then becoming free. He can relate to both groups therefore he can be a middle groups for communication between the two groups. 

Both Calhoun and Touissant become leaders, whether it be by choice like Touissant, or more by chance, like Calhoun. They also are both similar because they do not see themselves as African. Calhoun sees himself as an American, while Touissant sees himself as French. This is an important distinction in both men's actions and leadership. Despite Touissant trying to help the slaves and people he was once like, he does not see himself as one of them. By not seeing themselves as African or like the people they are helping, they set themselves apart from them, and perhaps therefore do not act and lead to their fullest, because whether they win or lose their battles, it does not effect them as much as it does the slaves.

I think the notion that specific historical events mold people into who they ultimately become is very intriguing.  Instead of people simply being born into or accidently appear as great leaders or mediators they are forged by the situations and trials they face during their lives.  While I believe this notion to be completely valid in that people cannot be great leaders without adverse situations, people do certainly posses certain characteristics that enable them to seize a given opportunity and exhibit their skills to some greater end.  Calhoun and Toussaint were both thrust into a situation where they were able to act as mediators between black and white interests as it were, but they were also able to mediate between the rich and poor, social lines that were usually drawn by color at this point in history.  

Toussaint and Calhoun

A major difference separating these two characters is the books that they are depicted in. The Black Jacobins is an historical novel whereas in The Middle Passage, Johnson has the freedom to do what he wishes with Calhoun. Both men are ex-slaves that have profited from an education and identify themselves with a certain nationality. Calhoun sees himself as an American while Toussaint identifies himself with the French. For James, he sees Toussaint’s allegiance to the French as one of his major flaws, ultimately causing him to fail. Further, Toussaint seems to be more proactive and loyal to one side while Calhoun’s fluctuation of allegiance demonstrates passivity in his character.

I think that James seems to be more sympathetic than Johnson in his treatment of the main character. Toussaint is treated as an icon or hero, who takes his freedom and leads a rebellion, while Calhoun is portrayed as a more down-to-earth character with more flaws and weaknesses. Eventually, however, Calhoun seems to reconcile his situation while Toussaint fails desperately trying. Note that Calhoun had less on his plate than Toussaint, who had to struggle with the masses of Haiti, the mulatto class, and the French. Since they have similar leadership qualities, Calhoun succeeds due to his insignificant amount of responsibility compared to Toussaint. Given less to deal with, perhaps Toussaint would have succeeded as well.

Middle Passage/ Black Jacobins

Johnson and James shape the characters of their books based on the historical events going on around them. In Johnson's Middle Passage Calhoun's outlook is changed by the capture and torture of the Allmuseri on board. Although Toussaint was not a fictional character like Calhoun James still shapes Toussaint based on his surroundings. Both Toussaint and Calhoun are similar because they both rise to leadership positions when it is necessary. Both men are also decently well educated despite the fact that many others in their positions were not. The difference between them is that Calhoun is not proactive he does not rise to leadership because he knows it is whats best, he rises to leadership because he is almost forced to he is responding to the situation he is in.
It seems that James sympathizes more with Toussaint then Johnson does with Calhoun. Toussaint although he was a real person is made out to really be the hero from the beginning. On the other hand Johnson points out all of Calhoun's problems from the beginning. Both characters are so called "mediators" between two worlds. In the end though it is Calhoun who is able to reconcile the dialectic situation he is in. He recognizes both worlds and tries to work within them and in the end is able to survive. Toussaint on the other hand is unwilling to compromise and will only settle for what he wants and in turn ends up dying in a dungeon

Calhoun vs. Toussaint

As I have seen in many of the previous posts, I too believe that both Calhoun and Toussaint are a sort of middle man in situations of conflict. However, as I believe Megan stated, they handle their situations very differently as she says “that Calhoun does not really side with or fight with either group, while Toussaint becomes passionately involved in the fighting”.

I feel that this stems from one major difference: loyalty. While Toussaint is “devoted to France,” Calhoun generally switches sides depending on convenience. He agrees to help kill Falcon and proceeds to confess the entire plan to him, he is on both the side of the Allmuseri and the crew (James 203). It is the mobility through different worlds that is responsible for Calhoun’s ultimate survival while Toussaint’s undying passion leads to his destruction. In response to these choices: loyalty or treachery, C.L.R. James appears to be more compassionate to his main character than Charles Johnson, as we briefly discussed last Thursday. Toussaint is presented as a hero while Calhoun appears feeble and defeated when we leave him.

Due to these two outcomes it becomes evident, at least for me personally, that neither character was able to successfully reconcile the dialectical situations in which they found themselves. It almost appears that each possessed what the other was lacking and, if there was a harmonious balance of double identity and passion, their situations may have turned out differently.

A close reading of C.L.R James non-fictional narrative The Black Jacobins and Charles Johnson's Middle Passage would seem to imply that there is a particular equation for the revolutionary protagonist. Both James' Toussaint and Johnson's Calhoun suffer through similar circumstances, possess an uncanny combination of similar qualities, and strive towards a similar goal: the reconciliation of the dichotomy between conflicting worlds and forces. However, there exists one primary difference between the two characters that ultimately leads to Calhoun's success and to Toussaint's failure.

Clearly, Calhoun and Toussaint possess striking similarities in both personality and in circumstance. Neither, for example, initiates the respective revolution that he eventually champions: Calhoun is a castaway turned laborer on an American slave-ship, and Toussaint is a loyal slave who actually defends his master’s plantation before joining the rebel forces. Secondly, both men recognize that while their respective revolutions are in some ways unique and singular, the outcomes of each rebellion are inevitably tied to the global treatment of the black-white race conflict. Finally, and most significantly, both Calhoun and Toussaint endure, to some degree, the “slave experience.”

That Calhoun and Toussaint were both enslaved is significant not only because it provides a source of common ground, but also because it illuminates the major difference between the two. Because the terms of Calhoun’s slavery and release from bondage were so different from those of Toussaint, only Calhoun is able to reconcile the dialectical situation he finds himself in. Whereas Toussaint, after many years of oppression, fought to secure his own liberty, Calhoun is handed his freedom at a young, innocent age. The Haitian protagonist is traumatized by his experiences, overcome with the anxiety of being re-enslaved, and, unlike Calhoun, is never able to escape the trappings of his slave history. On the other hand, Calhoun, raised in a society that is beginning to promote black-white empathy, is far removed from the threat of enslavement. In the end, it is this personal difference between Calhoun and Toussaint that enables one to succeed in mediating the conflicting forces, and that leads the other to die for trying.

I think that Calhoun and Toussaint are similar in the sense that they were put in similar situations, but I think that they differ greatly in how they handled those situations. Both Calhoun and Toussaint were placed in situations where they had to deal with groups who were in opposition, but a major difference is that Calhoun does not really side with or fight with either group, while Toussaint becomes passionately involved in the fighting. Calhoun becomes caught in the middle of the fighting that breaks out on the ship and wavers between siding with the captain, the crew, or the Almusseri. While Toussaint may have occasionally wavered in what he wanted to gain from fighting, nonetheless he was always involved somehow in the struggle for progress. Unlike Toussaint, Calhoun only become involved at the very end of his tale, when he was finally forced to confront Papa. Toussaint and Calhoun come from similar backgrounds, both having been former slaves who were lucky enough to have somewhat kind masters who saw the value of educating them. Both of them also have to deal with many prejudices in their lives that result from their backgrounds.
At the end of their struggles, I don't think that either of them really successfully reconciles the dialectical situation that they find themselves in. I think that Toussaint may have been closer to reconciliation than Calhoun though because throughout his dialectical struggle he had a cause that he was fighting for. Although he was thwarted before he could completely resolve his dialectical situation, I think that he made major steps during his life toward reconciling it. I think that because Calhoun is shown as a more ambiguous figure he does not come as close to reconciling his dialectical situation.

Toussaint vs. Calhoun

There are a few specific similarities and differences between Johnson’s Calhoun and James’s Toussaint. Both men are ex-slaves who received the benefits of education. They both find themselves mediating between conflicting forces and worlds and in positions of leadership. However, I would suggest that Calhoun falls into this position through a series of accidents and because he cannot trust anyone on the Republic. It is a matter of personal survival. He treats with the Almusseri and the white men on the slave ship in order to stay alive. Toussaint, on the other hand, seems to have made a more deliberate decision to step into the role of leader and consequently took up the task of moderating between the numerous factions of San Domingo. He is also portrayed as unselfish, seeing his role as a sacrifice to a greater good for his people and his island.
Of the two authors, I believe that James is more sympathetic to his character, though perhaps sympathetic is the wrong word. Despite any flaws that Toussaint might have, James tends to portray him as a well-intentioned, powerful and deeply-caring leader. I think there might be some reverence on the part of James for Toussaint. While Toussaint comes to an inglorious end historically, had James been writing fiction, I think perhaps that he would have ended the story differently. On the other hand, Johnson has no reverence for Calhoun and instead of sympathy might only spare him a little pity. Calhoun is not nicely portrayed by his author and the only saving part of the character is a stubborn spark of humanity under all the filth and hurt and shame that Calhoun carries around. The author does drag him out of the sea at the end but only as a broken man.
In regard to whether or not the individual characters are capable or reconciling the dialectical situation they find themselves in, I would suggest that Toussaint is incapable of such a feat based on the sheer difference and number of factions he is dealing with, while Calhoun is partially capable of reconciling the situation for himself. As leader, Toussaint had to balance the fears and desires of the ex-slave class, the mulattoes, the small whites, the big whites, France, Britain and Spain. It was impossible for one man to reconcile all of these factions with one another and so he was forced to play politics and to do his best to further what he considered the good of the island through the support or repression of the various groups. He would not succeed in creating a lasting peace between these factions. Calhoun on the other hand had fewer groups to reconcile. He played all sides of the situation in order to further his own end, namely, getting himself back to New Orleans. I suppose that one could see the take over of the Almusseri as a type of reconciliation but the whites on the boat did not stop plotting and eventually the sea became the great decider of fates. While neither of these characters lacked the ability and skill to treat with many parties, I believe the situation was simply too complicated for either of them to work out through their own power.

Middle Passage vs Black Jacobins

In both books, the men are, at some point, slaves. Both of them obtain freedom, but in different ways. Calhoun is given his freedom by his dying master, whereas Toussaint takes charge and takes his freedom. Because Calhoun is simply given his freedom, he does not know what to do with it. He wanders aimlessly, gets himself into trouble with debts, and eventually finds his way on a ship. Though he assimilates into the ship's culture, he does not ever truly belong. The whites still seem him as black, and thus put him to work like they would a slave. Also, the Allmuseri do not trust him because he is in league with the shipmates and a free man. He does not belong anywhere.

Toussaint, on the other hand, is portrayed as an iconic figure because he stands up for himself and leads his people in a rebellion. He's smart and becomes a powerful force, thus his character is more sympathetic than the flawed character of Calhoun. But, in the end, Calhoun achieves reconciliation, as he repays his debts (in a way) and reunites with Isadora, freeing himself from the guilt he felt when he left her. Everyone lives happily ever after. Toussaint, on the other hand, is not reconciled, because he dies before he can reach that place. This, in a way, makes him even more iconic and a sympathetic character, because he gave so much, yet never got to see the full fruits of his labor.

Can Any Form of Violence be Considered Just?

Violence, in my opinion, is completely backward, barbaric, and an unintelligent approach to resolving disputes. Call me an idealist, but it saddens me to think that in this day and age we continue to live in a world where war and violence are still resorted to and viewed as the most viable ways to resolve issues and bring about peace. This is the 21st century and we’re still fighting other nations in armed combat like the ancient Romans did thousands of years ago instead of resolving our issues peacefully by talking with one another and coming up with nonviolent solutions to our problems. Man has advanced a great deal since ancient times; we have eradicated many practices considered barbaric or inhumane, such as sacrifices and torture, yet war and violence are still widely accepted. Several other students on the blog have put forth the notion that violence breeds violence, and I happen to agree with this idea as well. My views on violence tend to lean more towards the “Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”/peaceful resistance school of thought. Violence doesn’t accomplish anything. In fact, I believe it stagnates progress in most instances and leads to violent retaliation and resent. Take WWI for example. It started with the death of one man (Archduke Franz Ferdinand), which eventually led to the deaths of nearly 20 million people by the end of the war. It also ended up spurring a great deal of hostility within Germany in the war’s aftermath, which led to its even more catastrophic sequel, WWII.

Saying that violence will resolve an issue or bring about peace is like saying that the more people you hurt or kill, the more peace it will bring in the end. This is a rather illogical way of thinking because peace (at least I believe) can only be achieved through peaceful measures. Violence is and never should be (except in a few instances, as I will explain) the answer. It is unjustifiable in most cases. The only instance where I believe violence is justifiable is when a person’s life is being threatened through physical force or violence. In a scenario where a person is being physically attacked and their life is in grave danger, I believe it is justifiable to resort to violence – but only insofar as violence being used as a mechanism to defend one’s life. Under this reasoning I would sympathize with the Allmeseri, simply because their lives and well-being were being threatened and infringed upon. Crossing the middle passage was a matter of life and death for many Africans who unwillingly embarked on the journey. The Africans taken into captivity and forced onto slave ships had their well-being compromised physically either directly through violence inflicted upon them by their captors, or indirectly by their captors who provided them with inhumane living quarters where death due to disease or unsanitary living conditions was commonplace. Although it is not the best way to get things accomplished, violence is sometimes necessary if it means defending one’s life against the life-threatening violence of others. In my opinion, the Allmeseri resorted to violence only because they saw no other way to protect their well-being through peaceful measures, so I can identify with their choice to resort to violence in the end, although I am a firm believer in avoiding violence at all costs.

Violence

I would have to agree with Johnson that I do not support violence. I believe that there are other ways to deal with a situation. On the other hand I have never been put in a situation like the Allmuseri. I sympathised with the Allmuseri because they were so desperate and after being stolen from their homes and treated like animals they were out of any other options. I can't say that if I had to watch my friends and family suffer, and be tortured that Iwouldn't have done the same thing that the Allmuseri people had done. That being said, by killing the crew the Allmuseri were in a way behaving just as badly as they had been treated. While I would say that violence should be a last resort I think in some cases it is both necessary and justifiable. The current war in Iraq has undoubtedly reached a point of total chaos but I think that many would argue that it was necessary for the war to occur. After being attacked on our own land I think that many people found it justifiable for the United States to defend itself. If there is no way to find some sort of necessity for ebing engaged in this current war then Is uppose you would also have to say that thousands of U.S. soldiers have given their lives for nothing, and that is not somethign I agree with.

Violence

I personally do not believe that violence solves problems, but people chose violence when they do not know any other way to solve a conflict. We are exposed to violence is many different situations and concepts which may lead people to believe that it is a good solution to conflict. I feel that the Allmuseri did not know any other way to gain control and power, because those who had power over them (the white sailors) used  violence to exert their force and power. I believe that in certain situations, such as with the Almuserri when a group does not know how to gain power they will use violence to show their "strength" and that they are serious abou what they are trying to do. In cases such as war, violence is sometimes seen as the last resort or solution. If a group of people will not listen and change, then violence may scare them into it, however this is usually not the case, instead they fight back and the violence continues. When violence begins, people tend to oppose it and fight with more violence. In war, violence does not just affect those in conflict, but other harmless and uninvolved people. I believe violence could be used as a threat to opposing force but that it should not harm anyone, just scare them. Sometimes it may be the last attempt at their cause, but I believe the violence gets taken too far in most situations, such as today with the war in Iraq. For these last resorts of urgent and important change, violence could be necessary and justifiable if it only presented a threat and stopped there, but violence on a large scales always seem to be met with more violence, and they just keep fighting until one side can not fight any longer. I wish that there were other alternatives to violence to get people to change, but I feel that we may never find one.

- Lauren Wencus

On Violence

Violence. What are my feelings about violence? What do I know about violence? This is such a difficult concept to grapple with, I almost do not know where to start. Perhaps one should begin with a basic definition of violence. As I see it, violence is the use of physical force upon another so as to pursue one’s own ends in the face of conflict. But this definition begs the question: does it logically follow that violence should be chosen as a means for solving disputes? As many have noted on this blog, violence breeds violence. Violence breeds hate. When violence is alive on a large scale, this hate can be passed on to infect younger generations.
The thing that I find most revolting about violence is that it is cowardly. Rhetoric and propaganda try to teach us otherwise. Growing up we learn of the strength and courage of the soldiers and warriors of history. The truth of the matter is this: violence is the easy way out. My personal belief is that it takes more strength to oppose violence that it does to propagate it. Given the situation, anyone can force his or her will upon another. Nonviolence is difficult yet essential if humanity wishes to hold itself to some standard of respect and dignity.
Now some may refute this belief citing that violence is sometimes needed for self-defense or for the defense of the helpless. There may be some merit in this objection. Every person should be safe in one’s own home and have the right to protect his or her family. However, imagine a world were the word violence has lost its meaning. Whenever the issue arises, we could all make it our job to convince just one person that nonviolence is the way. Then, if those people go out and do the same, think about the domino effect of peace that could follow. As fast as violence spreads, so too does peace. It is our job as human people to choose the path that we feel is best for all.

“Peace is the only battle worth waging.”

-Albert Camus

Naturally, I am instinctively opposed to violence. Before taking violent action, all other possibilities must be explored and entertained. Are there forms of violence that are justified? Ghandi would say no. Were the Allmuseri justified in there actions? Was it acceptable to fight the Nazis? Intuitively most people would say yes to both questions. How can we know when violence is justified? Who gets to decide this? Are there lines to be drawn to designate which is justified and which is not? I would think that the acceptance of such lines would not be unanimous. I don’t think it is possible for such a “rulebook” to exist. For starters, we could say that violence is occasionally required though never, or seldom, just. Saying violence is required means that it is essential for survival. It’s a difficult topic, something that many people have wrestled with throughout history. Should it be taken on a case by case basis? Obviously, something must be done when oppression becomes inhumanely brutal and cruel. Is this something violence? Perhaps.

Violence is an expressive behavior that can be traced back to the earliest years of civilization, that has maintained a consistent presence over the years in nearly every culture, and whose theme permeates our history books as well as our myths, stories, and legends. Its manifestation exists on a spectrum, meaning that there are actions, such as the foul of “unnecessary roughness” in a football game, that are considered mildly violent, and actions, such as murder, that are deemed universally as extremely violent. Some acts of violence, such as the behavior used in self-defense, are accepted by our society. Other acts of violence, such as atrocities of 9/11, are so violent that they have been labeled inhumane.

In the Middle Passage, Charles Johnson asserts that all acts of violence, regardless of their degree, should be opposed. While I cannot go so far as to condemn the type of violence present in a competitive sports match, I certainly condemn most other manifestations of violence. Violence, without a doubt, is a vicious cycle. When a child grows up in a physically or verbally abusive household, statistics show that the child will most likely become violent in his or her future relationships. On a grander scale, diplomacy that reacts to bombs with bombs of its own lacks foresight and only engenders greater destruction.

It was recently announced that the campus police force at Stonehill College would be required to carry firearms. I must admit that when I heard this I was a bit unsettled. Though we are told to be wary of our comfort, and of our inclination to suppose that Stonehill is “too small” and “too safe” to be subject to the same horrors that struck Virginia Tech last spring, I still believe that this step is drastic and unnecessary. Quite frankly, I feel that there is no place for firearms on a college campus, even in the “secure” hands of our prudent and well-trained campus police. Call me naïve, but I’m not yet convinced that the possession of guns could deter or alleviate problems among the student population of Stonehill College.

To conclude, I agree with Charles Johnson that violence must be avoided at all costs. Some of the greatest leaders, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, and Ghandi, just to name a few, are characterized by their adoption of this same vision, and all of the worst leaders are among those who have rejected it. I would rather strive for the ideal, subject myself to being labeled an idealist, and align myself with the peacemakers than settle for the fear and pain generated by the violence of the peacebreakers.

I disagree with Johnson that we can make a blanket judgement that will condemn all forms of violence as being unjustifiable. Because there is a good possibility that there may be situations that will occur that Johnson never considered when he made his judgement, it is possible that there can be an alternative argument. I think that because we do not live in a perfect world, there are situations that may arise where violence is justifiable and possibly even necessary. I think that it is naive to flat out say that violence should never be a person's response to a situation. I think that the decision of the Allmuseri to react violently against the awful situation that they were put in was better than to remain enslaved in horrifying conditions. Although the result of this action was their eventual death, we can look at this not as a direct result of their use of violence but as a result of Johnson's attitude toward the use of violence. I think the fate they would have suffered had they not rebelled would have been worse than death. When people are placed in an intolerable situation with no other alternative than violence, they are justified in having to resort, unfortunately, to violence. There are few things that have been accomplished in history without the use of violence as a catalyst for change, and while this is unfortunate, where would we be without these changes? I'm not trying to say that if we lived in a world where there was an agreement among everyone that violence was not the way to solve problems that we should still be resorting to violence, its just that in the world we live in people should not be punished to resorting to a basic level of human nature.

Is Violence Ever Justifiable?

Violence is rarely an effective means of solving conflicts. However, not to sound cynical but violence is an intrinsic part of human nature. As long as there is greed, corruption and war then violence will exist. War is horrible yet it occurs constantly. Ideally, violence should not exist in this world but evil breeds violence. It is incredibly naive to believe that violence should never be utilized. Typically when one violent act is committed then it will spiral into many more and it becomes like a cycle. The escalation of violence is extremely harmful for all those involved and affected by it. By no means do I condone violence but I feel in certain circumstances it is necessary. As long as peoples from different nations come in contact with one another then violence is inescapable. It is never really justifiable only unavoidable in certain situations. Even peacable nations have to resort to violence; a nation can only turn the other cheek for so long. Violence can be necessary in cases of self defense. Say if your family or livelihood is threatened, then you have every right to fight for and protect yourself or your family.
Truly evil acts are committed when people are bystanders and do nothing about the atrocious actions of others. During the holocaust many people sat back and did nothing as Jewish people were being taken away. Since they weren't being targeted then they felt it was not their problem. Eventually, more and more people were taken away until no one was left to stand up to the Nazis. Violence is very complicated because no one should ever want to use it but sometimes we are left with no other option.
I do sympathize with the Allmuseri to an extent. They were forced into a harsh environment against their will. They were also basically deprived of their humanity. It does make sense that they would want to react violently. In a way their violent retaliation was a result of their environment and the conditions they were living in. It was something that would inevitably happen if they were given the opportunity. The Allmuseri lost a part of themselves when they did engage in violence and they essentially brought themselves down to the "white man's" level by doing so. This goes to show that violence never breeds anything positive.

W.W. you D. ?

I think that the situation that the Allmuseri were in were much different than other situations of violence, lets say the war in Iraq. In the present time we live in a world were violence is only warranted in very limited circumstances. That's why there is laws and courts and trials. I think that the Allmuseri, on the ship lived in a very different existence. They where taken from their homes against their will, some killed, forced to live in subhuman conditions through no fault of their own. So while I don't think that Mother Teresa or Ghandi would have fought back, I say that they were warranted. The only way to save their lives was so fight back, there was no law or justice to protect them like there is now in America. But I don't think they were a tribe of Ghandi's because, as the most extreme and pure form of a pacifist he would have never have responded with violence. But most of us are not Ghandi.

In the case of the war in Iraq this is a much different case. The Allmuseri were 100% in the right. They were being tortured to death, only to be sold into slavery. In Iraq INNOCENT people are dying because of our presence there. The Iraq people are not more safe, suicide bombers can attack at any time. We went into that country without permission and without any sort of REAL threat to the United States. So while by no means was Saddam Hussien a good person, but there was no immediate threat that warranted our invasion. There is a big difference in protecting your life from immediate danger and the Bush administration using the fear caused by 9/11 in the American people to go into Iraq.

Violence Breeds Violence

I'm not a pacifist by any means, but at the same time I don't encourage violence at all. Violence without a cause is inexcusable, especially when there is another solution that can be had without having to resort to violence.

I sympathize with the Allmuseri to an extent. They were taken from thei homeland and made into slaves against their will. They were treated like property and were beaten when they disobeyed or refused to work. I support their revolt insofar as it was what they had to do to survive. I would have done the same if put in their place. But, I also would have given sympathy to those who laid down their arms and surrendered, or those who were not a threat, like Calhoun. Otherwise, the Allmuseri would become just as bad as Falcon and other slave-owners. Violence for the sake of violence is unjustifiable, I think, even in these extreme conditions.

Violence is necessary if, when looking at the big picture, it prevents further violence. If one man must be harmed in order to save the lives of others, I'm all for it. For instance, a man holding people hostage; if he must be taken out in order to save others, go for it. Self-defense is another. If a man approaches me on the street late at night with a knife, I will defend myself to the death. My first option would be to run or call for help, but if the man actually attacks and my life is at stake, I will do whatever's in my power to stay alive, even if it means harming, or even killing him. I'd expect anyone to do the same. War is another form of violence that is often questioned whether it's right or wrong. But for now I will leave that alone, since it is convoluted with politics, and I rarely touch politics.

Writing Prompt 3: Violence

What are your feelings on violence? Do you sympathize with the Allmuseri? Are there ever situations where violence is necessary or justifiable?

I strongly dislike/disapprove of violence on the ideological level. I prefer to think that there is always another way of solving a problem. However, I cannot deny that in certain situations where a person is fighting for their life or to protect a love one that I would sympathize with their struggle. I could not look that person in the face and tell them that they shouldn’t have fought to save themself. I would also like to accept the ideas of my Catholic religion which holds that violence of any sort is harmful; however, as exemplified by that selfsame religion, even those who preach pacifism are affected by and engage in violence.
In Johnson’s book I certainly feel for the Allmuseri, but as is often the case, no group of people is ever completely saintly. When we, as the reader, get to see the true personalities of this tribe we realize that they possess all the vices of any other people. Thus, while I can understand their willingness to resort to violence in order to stop the violence being perpetrated on them, I am not surprised that they, as the new oppressor, are soon overturned through internal rivalries and the sea.
As to situations in which violence might be necessary or justifiable, I believe this is covered in my first paragraph. Although I would add that whoever behaves violently, whether for justified reasons or not, will most likely find themselves hurt by the cycle in violence that they participate in. Violence begets more violence and cannot be stopped by a final act of violence, but rather by a commitment to intervening acts of peace.

Is Violence Justifiable?

Violence is absolutely justifiable if it means gaining freedom from enslavement. I think what Johnson opposes in The Middle Passage is unnecessary violence for the purpose of revenge. As evidence, the Republic sinks after the Almusseri mercilessly kill nearly all of the crew needed to keep the ship afloat. The slave revolt relates to diametric forces and the balance needed to allow these forces to coexist in society. Violence is needed as a means of defense for one group to protect itself from being subdued by the other, but violence should never be used as a means to needlessly subdue another class or force them into slavery.

WWJD?

when i was younger and much more impressionable i used to wear my wwjd bracelet with pride. what would jesus do? he would turn the other cheek, right? unfortunately this is very difficult for people to do especially in times when they are wronged.

personally, i'm more of an eye for an eye type of gal. but i wouldn't recommend this outlook in terms of using violence as "the answer." i think there is no right or wrong answer. i think personal boundaries must be established. i think its taking the easy way out to say that violence should only be used when necessary. is violence necessary? absolutely not, but certain situations deem it to be the most efficient way to attain resolution. so in essence if a bitch needs to be slapped then by all means...

i hardly know much about buddhism. however, i do believe in karma. so if anything should restrain an individual from doing something stupid such as using violence that should be their motivation.

in all seriousness though, after watching Burn i know for sure that violence should never be approached on impulse cause thats just foolish. along with that, its absolutely imperative to think of the consequences. when all is said and done, i think its all about following your instincts.


.tatiana.

The Individual's Role in Society

Although individuals within a given society should be guaranteed certain personal liberties and rights, individuals (in my opinion) also have a moral or ethical duty to contribute positively to the society in which they live. Each individual in a given community should play his/her individual role, but should bear in mind that their individual role and actions have significant effects on the lives of everyone else living within the same community. This is why an individual should strive to ensure that their actions will have positive effects on their community (as opposed to negative ones), so that the collective good of the community may benefit.

In the ever increasing globalized world we live in today, people need to realize that their actions (whether good or bad) will eventually come back to haunt them. A person may think that their choice to drive a large gas-guzzling SUV is a personal one that only impacts their own personal finances. In reality, driving a large gas guzzling SUV can contribute to pollution in a third world nation half a world away and can thus have major repercussions for individuals living in these nations. Driving a large SUV can make the lives of the people living in these third-world nations worse than they were before by increasing pollution, which contributes to the debt and poverty in these countries by heightening costs associated with pollution such as lower crop intake brought about by drought, death and sickness associated with extreme weather events (such as tsunamis and cyclones), and the increase of diseases that become more resilient in warmer climates.

People need to learn that their personal actions, no matter how minute and insignificant they may seem, can have a major impact on others within the community. It’s kind of like the butterfly effect theory that claims that a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan can cause a tornado in some other area of the world. Local actions can have major implications on the global stage, so it is extremely important for individuals within society to police themselves and try to do the right thing more often than the selfish thing so that society as a whole will benefit and function more efficiently.

Individual vs. Community

I feel that the individual definitely should have a significant role in the community. Without such roles, the community would have a tough time existing. I think that one of our country's flaws is that its ideals are based mostly on individualism. If you look at a college campus, for example, with its great sense of community and camaraderie, it becomes evident that the community is prior in importance to the individual. While you shouldn't be selfless and be taken advantage of, I think you should be willing to give at least something back for the sake of the whole. Our country, the "United" States, should have more of a balance between self and community. I feel the collective good should get more attention, though we shouldn't abandon our identities for the good of the whole. It's a balance that is hard to manage, but living in such an individualistic society could eventually be a cause of our demise.

Individual Liberties vs. Collective Good

I think that as citizens of the United States we all have a certain responsibility to everyone around us. And while I totally uphold the need for individual liberties, we don't live in an anarchical state. Not to get too much into the idea of the "social contract" but as citizens we are suppose to abide by the laws, vote, pay taxes and so on. The government in return is suppose to protect our liberties. But beyond all this I think there is benefits in the collective good. As citizen of the United States we pay taxes, a lot of which go to public education, welfare and other programs that benefit people who are less fortunate than all of us. And I think that as members of a state we have this responsibility to everybody else. It should be our duty to not only, abide by the rules, but also help those that are less fortunate than we are. And I think that through this, and through the "common good" we are in return benefiting ourselves. I mean I obviously I wouldn't take it as far as communism, but thinking in a democratic sense we have a duty to help our fellow American.

To take it a step further I think there is something to the common good of everyone, in the entire world. Especially in the Untied States where we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. And we (myself included) continue to live a life of excess with computers and fast food and video games. While there are people around the world without food or shelter. And I am not saying we have the obligation to go broke ourselves, but I think that as members of the human race we owe something back to the world we live in. There are so many global issues, AIDS, global warming, etc. that affect us all and there is going to have to be some sort of global effort to solve them. But maybe that's just the liberal in my speaking.

Note To Self

No person is an island. The fact that people live within organized society is enough to prove that man finds it more beneficial to work with others, rather than against them. Because of this, it follows that the concept of "self" hangs in a direct balance with that of the whole. It is a given that the drive for individual self preservation is innate within the human person; but the self is no more important than the well-being of the whole. Anything that is good or bad for the whole will prove to ultimatly trickle down and effect the individual. Therefore, as important as it is for one to recognize him or herself as an individual, it is equally important to understand the relationship the self has to the whole.
This understanding becomes even more important as globalization continues to make the world smaller. Isolationism is not longer an option. We now live in a place where a very small group of people can effect a staggering number of people with nothing more than the flip of a switch. Let's just hope we can all get along....

The Individual vs. The Community

An individual should have the best interest of the community as a whole in mind. This doesn't necessarily mean in the forefront of one's mind at all times but, at the very least, in the back. Most decisions, even if they are personal, affect the community, whether it be family or the nation, in some way. Because of this, it is unquestionably selfish to act soley on personal desires constantly.



For example, Calhoun's choice to stow away on the Republic affects Isadora's fate. Similarly, using a more modern example, a student's decision to cheat to better his/her own grade compromises the integrity of the institution to which they belong.



It is obviously unreasonable to expect that every individual decision or choice can accomodate both personal and collective perspectives. The balance, then, relies on individuals striving to make most or, at the least, the choices that affect others the most, with the good of the whole in mind. In addition, certain choices are exempt from this logic - primarily ones concerning survival or immediate kin. The Allmursi demonstrate this when they forfeit their "oneness" with the world to take over the Republic and attempt to regain their freedom.

In America great emphasis has always been placed on the individual. Our nation was founded on individualistic, pragmatic principles. As America has evolved from the colonial era more clout has been given to the collective society. With waves of immigration and more diversity among United States citizens individual differences and attributes have become more pronounced. It is becoming blatantly clear that if this country is to better itself, then the role of the "community" will need to become stronger. As a country it is imperative to balance the needs/wants of the individual in respect to the nation at large.
It is increasingly difficult to figure out where to draw the line between individual liberties and the powers of government. In our society there are always going to be people who need more than others. Whose role is it to provide for those who happen to be less fortunate? Ideally, everyone should have what they desire but this is not always the case. Sometimes the individual has to step up and sacrifice a part of their identity for the sake of others. For example, most people loathe paying taxes because it is essentially a portion of their earnings. However, taxes are necessary in order to provide services and benefits to those who really need them. In society, there definitely needs to be a balance between those who give and those who take. It is not always easy to determine these boundaries. Communities consist of individuals working together toward a common goal. Individual rights are important but society could not function without some form of unification. If everyone decided to branch off in opposing directions then nothing would ever be accomplished. A well-known philosopher once stated "no man is an island, entire of itself." I think this is true because no matter how seemingly independent an individual claims to be, there are so many outside factors that influence his/her identity. Each person plays a role in shaping the community. In a sense everyone's actions are connected; this was evident in The Middle Passage with the crew and slaves aboard the ship. Their destinies were intertwined and there was nothing they could do about it. The community depends on individuals and vice versa. Essentially, individuals should maintain their identity yet also unite for the betterment of the community.

The Individual in his Community

The United States is a vast and culturally diverse community comprised of many smaller, more homogeneous communities, and so when an individual makes a contribution it is usually toward their more immediate community. Also, most individuals do not have such a heart of gold that they perform service through voluntary unprofitable acts of kindness such as feeding the homeless. (Although everyone should, I guess). Instead, the United States is an individualistic nation grounded firmly in the belief that everybody has the freedom to pursue his or her own goals. I think that the individual mostly contributes to his or her community inadvertently or through absolute necessity. For example, an individual’s biggest financial contribution to his or her community is through the payment of taxes, a generous yet non-optional act of charity. The other most important way an individual contributes to his or her community is through his or her career. Every job, no matter how seemingly insignificant, functions to uphold the larger social and economic scheme upon which the nation is built. And a career is the best way by which the individual can balance the needs of their community and their own personal desires, since ideally, a person’s career is based on what they like to do.

Apart from economic contributions, though, an individual of course also has moral obligations to his or her community, and in this light, the nation is more united that it is in economic terms. Because the United States is an individualistic nation, it is difficult to conceive a community within the nation that would be united in achieving a common goal. However, the events which occur on the Republic reveal that common threads weaves throughout every community, not matter how diverse. This relates to The Middle Passage, and Calhoun’s eventually taking responsibility for Baleka’s upbringing. Calhoun, who is once selfish and resistant to marriage and family, realizes through the hardships he experiences with the Almusseri that he is inexplicably but inevitably tied to the individuals who surround him, and no matter how different the tribe’s culture, there are values which consistently pervade every community, such as caring for and nurturing its children. In effect, each individual is free to pursue his own personal and economic endeavors, but by taking the effort to raise his kids properly, he is also working toward a goal in which the entire nation is invested.

The Ripple Effect

When I was younger, I once asked my father why it was wrong to steal from the store. After all, the store had lots of things- things that I didn’t have, and things that I really wanted. He explained, in very simple terms, one of my first lessons in economics. When things are stolen from a store, they do not simply disappear from the shelves. Eventually, they must be paid for. So when store items are stolen by a few, everyone else must pay for the stolen goods through raised prices.

I could not tell you whether this is a real business practice or not. Regardless, my father taught me an invaluable lesson about my relationship to the larger world. I began to realize that my individual actions affected not only those people close to me, but also those people whom I had never met. If my actions were a pebble thrown into a pond, the effects of my actions would be the endless series of ripples that spread long after the pebble had sunk. My one action could extend far beyond my reach and my control.

In the book the Middle Passage by Charles Johnson, and in our general studies of the Middle Passage, this same idea of individual actions impinging on the wellness of the larger community can be observed. In retrospect, we are able to see how each person choosing to contribute to the slave trade assisted in the expansion and preservation of the entire system. Today, in our local communities, in our states, and in our nation, it may be difficult to perceive firsthand how we as individuals help to balance (or unbalance) the greater whole. Yet, it remains true that this enormous power is vested in each of us. In our local communities, we obey laws so that we can live together safely and happily. Imagine what would happen if everyone wanted to drive 70 mph in residential areas. How would our children play outside? Would we even bother to keep our yards aesthetically pleasing?

It is clear, through the aforesaid examples and by many others, that no action is isolated. No matter how insignificant we may believe ourselves to be, each of us is an active participant in a community. Our ability to moderate our own individual needs and desires with our civic and social responsibilities, therefore, is directly related to the wellness and sustenance of a larger whole.

Individual & Community

While the definition of an individual is solid and does not change, the definition of a community can include a much broader range, whether it be something small such as your family, to something as large as your country. What each individual contributes to a community varies on what type of community they are in. However, no matter what community, the individual has a role they should fulfill. This role includes being knowledgeable of their community and what it does, its issues, knowing its rules or laws, and obeying them, caring for the well being of those in the community, and being able to take a stand, even in the smallest efforts when they feel something in their community is flawed or handled wrong. By taking part in these roles, individuals should be able to handle and care for what takes place in their community. In some communities the role of an individual is much greater than the role the play in a much large community. As a country we constantly are faced with the struggle of balancing the wants and needs of the "self" with the maintenance and betterment of the "whole". Despite every attempt without our country to balance these two very different things, we have yet to find a solution, or even a compromise. People are never happy with what society presents to them as a balance between the two. I feel that we will constantly struggle to balance the needs and wants between the two because they constantly change.

Lauren Wencus

The Individual in the Community

I believe the role of the individual in his/her community is to first take care of oneself and make sure one's own problems are under control. Of one has their individual concerns taken care of then the community need not worry about that individual. If someone fails to take care of himself then others will be forced to intervene and the community as a whole suffers. For instance, a football team is a community. If the star quarterback is unable to deal with his personal and professional issues, then his performance on the field suffers, and thus, the performance of the team suffers. But, if everyone on the team works hard, does their job, and does not bring personal problems to the game (or practice), then the team benefits. So it is with a community.

This applies to a country (or state, or town) as well. Taxes, for example, are hated by most, but without them there would be no way to pay for street repairs, police, or any other public service. This ideology could apply to voting too. So many people think their vote is small and insignificany, but if everyone thought that way, then we would get nowhere, and the country does not function properly. If everyone sacrifices just a little, the country will benefit as a result. Have you ever heard the expression 'you only get what you give'? Well in this case, you get a lot more than what you give.

I think that the role of the individual is to act in a way which will benefit the community as a whole. The individual should not focus solely on what they need for themselves, but should look at what the community as a whole needs to function. While the individual should act in a way which will benefit the community, this does not mean that he has no free will. It is up to the individual to decide which way they are best suited to add to the community. I think that in our country sometimes we value the importance of individual needs/wants over the needs/wants of the whole. Our country has an every man for himself kind of mentality that subjugates what good can be gained from addressing the needs and wants of the country as a whole. Unless this mentality changes, we are going to continue to be a country with a lot of social problems.

Individual vs. Community or Country

I feel that I need to preface my opinions with the admission that I have never made a study of politics or of sociology and consequently am not entirely sure how my purely abstract ideas would work out in practical situations. It is quite possible that to model a community on these ideas would be to dissolve society as we know it. That being said, it is my opinion that the role of the individual in a community is, first, to do no harm to one’s neighbors. More specifically, the individual, regardless of their station in life, should avoid a parasitic existence. Additionally, if the individual is simply trying to keep his/her self financially “afloat” they should not live in a manner that pulls other struggling individuals down with them (ex. stealing). If, on the other hand, and individual has the good fortune to be wealthy or at least economically stable, it is in their best interest to assist the less fortunate. Their investment in their community and the people in it will make the entire community a better place. I am certainly not proposing a system of equal division of wealth; however, I believe it behooves the wealthy individual to support the well-being of the community as a means of looking after their own interests.


On the level of a country, the ideas that work in a small community can no longer effectively govern the behavior of so many people. For this reason I believe the US (as a collective people) has entrusted to a government (as civil servant) the regulation and protection of the individual’s rights and freedoms. Though couched in more specific language, the US has a general rule that an individual may enjoy his/her liberty up to the extent that they interfere/encroach on another individual’s freedoms. We also maintain checks on our own government to ensure that it does not abuse the power trusted to it. The pendulum still swings, though, between investing the government with additional power over the individual and removing that power back to the masses. In addition, the individual is required by the government to support in some way the functioning of society as a whole (namely through taxes). The balance between individual and greater society is fickle and subject to external influences, prevailing opinions, economic prosperity etc.

self vs. the whole

how do we balance the needs/wants of the self with the maintenance and betterment of the whole? my answer: synergy. it is all about the combined effort. it is about cooperation, strategy, sometimes a little sacrifice.

example: you know the saying there is no i in team? true statement. clearly we [athletes] have the urge to be glory hogs, but if the entire team was compiled of these type of players there would be chaos. it would totally be the every man for himself scenario. every man for himself equals complete disregard for the "whole." so why can't we just work together?


.tatiana.