Why do I have to do what others do?

Why do I have to do what others do?

            Yesterday, at the institute where I work, a colleague told me that we had to do something for celebrating ‘Halloween’. It was the director idea and this consisted of dressing up the children, going around the block, and knocking the houses’ doors to ask for sweets. Unlike me, children were really excited when they were told about it. But I was not very enthusiastic because I could not find the meaning of doing it. In fact, this is not a celebration that belongs to our culture. Children like dressing up and having fun and that is great. I like dressing up, too. However, they do not have any idea about its meaning, why people celebrate it, their believes, and all the things it implies. So, what bothers me too much is the way in which merchants want to impose ‘Halloween’. What matters is the sale, the money they can earn by making that other countries adopt this kind of celebration.

            Coming back to my students and my great outing, I have been thinking about which reaction people will have when we knock at the door asking for...sweets? Naturally, we are not used to this, so I think that if somebody knocks at my door and asks me for candies, I would just say: ‘Sorry, I haven’t got any...’

Çalra

Invasion!

            The business of animal traffic has increased all over the years. Hardly ever, these animals get to their destines, and many times they are released in a place that is not their natural habitat. This is what happened in La Pampa and Tierra del Fuego provinces in these days. Yesterday, I saw in the news that these provinces have been invaded by squirrels and beavers respectively. The problem is that these species are dwelling in a place to which they do not belong, and so, they do not have a natural predator. In consequence, they destroy the entire environment, making use and abuse of the natural resources and continue reproducing themselves. And here comes the main question: What do we have to do? A zoologist explained that the squirrel hunting is prohibited and the beaver hunting is not. But, at the same time, there is no a clear law about it. So, is it correct to kill these animals to save the environment? But, are they guilty of the men actions and their intervention in other habitats? Or, is it possible to give them back to their autochthonous territory? Well, it is not because they have adapted to this new habitat. The polemic is open and the alternatives are not so many. 

Çalra

Dying just for others’ pleasure

War is the enemy of life. It is as simple as that.War is terrible. It kills people with hunger, diseases; with bullets and bombs. But, basically, it kills with lies. From the oldest times, war has been a very important mean for kings and presidents to conquer other lands, to acquire the power they needed to dominate every single corner of the planet. But everything is a lie. Some men were obliged to enroll in the army, some were not. In fact, those who choose to be part of an army thought, and some still think, that they fight for their country, for their people. Actually, they fight for their rulers’ pleasure. They promised freedom, recognition, heroism. However, nothing of that comes. Soldiers just obtain suffering and death for reward.

It reminds me of a poem written by Wilfred Owen called ‘Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’, which describes the First World War and says:

‘...and watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

his hanging face (...)

 If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood,

come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs (...)

incurable sores on innocent tongues.

 My friend you would not tell with such high zest

 to children ardent for some desperate glory,

the old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori’

This last phrase could be roughly translated as "It is sweet and fitting to die for one's country." I believe this poem expresses everything a soldier can feel when finally he confronts the war.

Çalra

Are Gypsies twilight citizens?

   This article was published by the BBC History Magazine and is about social tension and media tension sorrounding Gypsies  in Britain. They are a minority in that country but the controversial issues about them has outweighted the size as a group.

   The British Government is discussing plans to deal with illegal settlement and antisocial behavior. Besides, there is a debate on how this group can improve their way of living.  But, the main conflict here is how the majority, in “settle” society has perceived their nomandic style of life.

   For most people, this group is the result of failure and social inadequacy, which means that they are viewed with hostility by the majority of the British citizens. For other people, Gypsies failed to “modernise”. The welfare state, based on taxation and insurance left this minority group unable to pay their way because they don’t have a permanent job.

   Some government representatives thought that the solution for their situation was to convince Gypsies to give up nomadic life. However, they resisted to such change and with the support of Civil Right movements the gained the provision of sites to live in. This controversial subject made many people be against this kind of support.

   In sum, some British citizens may agree on nomadic  behavior  some others may not, the thing is that Gypsies, for the time being, seems to be twilight citizens in Great Britain.

Victoria

What happened men? Did you mix the tapes?

 

I have never left the cinema so disappointed as I did last Saturday. My boyfriend and I went to the cinema to see the new movie starred by Brad Pitt and Sean Penn, ‘The tree of Life’. The film is based on images with very few words and in some moments – I would say, most of them – it mixes with universe and nature scenes. From one moment to another, the film goes to the dinosaurs era and you completely forget that the movie is about a marriage in a certain time in the past whose middle son died, who knows why. For a while, we thought we were watching Discovery Channel! Suddenly, it comes back to this family, with three children, a rigorous father and a lovely mother. And the past scenes are mixed with the present time of one of the sons, who now is an adult and remembers his dead brother.

At the end of a film you expect some people to applaud. Also, we can expect people to come out from the cinema talking enthusiastically about the good film they have just seen. However, this time the people were in a deep silence like trying to straighten out the story. Some were laughing and could not believe how awful and confused the film was!

Anyway, two days after this ‘experience’, I looked for information about the film on the internet and when I found it I thought, ‘Why didn’t I read this before?’. The film was described as a ‘poem’. What is more, the director always makes this kind of movies in which God, life, nature, evolution and just few words added to the scenes are mixed, all together to bring out some concept of the human being. So, if you like this kind of cinema, I recommend you to go. But, if you do not like, I suggest you choose another film because you will probably feel bitterly disappointed as I felt.

Çalra

The scarlet “A”: Is it really an old tale?

Nathaniel Hawthorne published his first novel in 1850, when he was 46 and believed he never could earn his living by writing. However, The Scarlet Letter made him a rich man and turned into a classic of American literature. The story is set in the Puritan New England of the seventeenth century. It is the tragic story of a woman´s shame and the cruel treatment she suffers at the hands of the Puritan society. But it is, mainly, a criticism of intolerance and ignorance when based on dogmatism and cruelty.

The major conflict of the novel may be summarized: a settler in New England, Hester Prynne, has waited two years for her aging husband to join her; when he arrives from Europe, finds her in a pillory (a wooden frame, with holes for the head and hands, which people were locked into in the past as a punishment) with a baby in her arms; she is wearing a scarlet letter “A” (for “Adulterer”) embroidered on her breast; anyway, sworn to keep secret the identity of both –her husband and her lover– Hester slowly wins the respect of society by her charitable acts and her moral strength.

This book depicts, as well, one of the main features that Renaissance writers like Hawthorne poured on their works: the tendency to look for a close communion between man and nature, and the belief that God could be found in it, or perhaps that God is actually it. In fact, it is clear in the book the opposition civilization versus wilderness, as a metaphor of repression and hypocrisy versus freedom and honesty. A rosebush next to a prison door, as well as the appearance of a meteor are also symbols of the ability of nature to overshadow man’s activities.

Although many years have passed since the time in which this story is set in, we can learn through it to what extent dogmatism and fanaticism may turn human’s souls into evil and against  the principles that, paradoxically, most religions have established as their moral codes. Within a different context, we could fit it in our times: the Vatican blesses missiles, and the outbreaks of many conflicts and wars were by religious causes; “holy wars” they are called, what is an oxymoron. Hawthorne shows us, yet today, that individuals themselves can oppose it, and can win the battle.

Blue Worm