|
Post by linnie on Aug 27, 2012 4:33:19 GMT -5
We read a story titled "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut Jr. In the story line, handicapped general comes and shoots Harrison for rebel against government. But there is something unusual to this situation, handicapped general doesn't wear any handicaps even though she is fast and smart enough. Why isn't she wearing one of handicaps unlike others?
This is kind of tricky idea, but here is what I think. Even though everyone is equal, there should be a leader to lead the city or a nation. Obviously, leaders should have ability to lead others and have other great skills that are better than others. So handicapped general didn't wear one of the handicaps to rule the country. If she is equal to other citizens, than how can she lead a country without any great ability?
|
|
|
Post by ExtremelyExtremeExtremist on Aug 27, 2012 9:50:52 GMT -5
The reason why Handicapper General doesn't wear any handicaps deals with the regime. And to me, it is not because of the leader; it has something to do with individual's greed preceded by the regime.
I concluded that United States in a story "Harrison Bergeron" lost its democratic roots and became a communist country, which gives a slogan "everyone is equal". People are not discriminated by their social rank and government officials who have properties share those with everyone.
But contrary to what the slogan is, there are no successful records of communism. Actually, government officials "stole" other's properties and said that: "it is for everyone; we will share your properties with others". As a result, government officials and other people with high social status were the ones who lived well, and poor people were the ones who suffered.
The Constitution of United States promises that citizens are equal under the law, but this is different from communism. American equality is not derived from the union of people; it is from the individual. It seems like Kurt Vonnegut combined American freedom and communism, and then changed the standard of equality (note that Vonnegut used black comedy).
So here's what I think what happened to United States: In the near future, American citizens are dissatisfied of the law "everyone is equal" and overthrew the government. They chose the new leader, who planned that everyone must be equal (in communist style). But later on, they concerned about the physical and mental equality. So, the leader made a new rule that everyone must put on thier handicaps. This means that the leader and government officials themselves must put in on too. But they don't want to put it on (technically, who likes to degrade yourself for people with low social status?) and made the communist regime.
This story can also be connected with George Orwell's "Animal Farm". In the story, animals hated mankind's control, caused a rebellion, and formed their own communist regime. They made a slogan "everyone is equal" and made a rule animals shouldn't do. But as time went on, the leader was tired of the rule and changed it little by little, which made the leader become like a mankind (in other words, a dictator).
|
|
|
Post by |Ruchira| on Aug 27, 2012 11:35:46 GMT -5
Wow, didn't notice that! That is a good question you ask and I do agree with you. I think that even though everybody is equal, somebody needs to watch over everything and make sure everybody is following the laws.
|
|
|
Post by brandonina on Aug 27, 2012 22:01:36 GMT -5
Well, I see that your post is related with the idea of communism though I'm not fully aware of what it really is. So, I think the point that author is emphasizing is that the society can never seek perfect, idealistic "equality." The idea of "equality" isn't quite convincing because it only deals with beauty and intelligence. At the same time, the government is the one who makes the law so they themselves aren't equal. So, perhaps, if society is fully "equal", it would be corrupt. I wish the leaders wear the most life-threatening handicaps!! I feel sorry for those handicapped people.
|
|
|
Post by yeajinchoi on Aug 28, 2012 3:14:27 GMT -5
While reading the story I was curious about the same thing. Why doesn't Handicapper General wear any handicaps? For the most part, I agree with Daniel. I believe that it mostly comes from her greed to have more power over others. As a leader I'm sure that H-G felt the need for herself to be better than the rest and one way for her to be better was to be free of all handicaps. Also as a leader, she deserves more privileges than others. A person who makes laws and enforces them on the citizens cannot be "equal-ed" to everyone else. In some parts, I wonder why she became a leader in the first place. I feel like it could be because she wanted to be the best. So she became the ruler and gave everyone handicaps making her the most intelligent, beautiful, and strongest person.
|
|
sorn
Full Member
Posts: 126
|
Post by sorn on Aug 28, 2012 5:15:45 GMT -5
for me personally, I think that the leader should be someone who can become a "role-model" for the whole nation. The handicapped general should be the one who has to wear those handicaps to show to the citizens that she is "loyalty" and "has faith" in the law. By not wearing those handicaps like other people in the society might make people loose faith in the leader. If the citizens themselves loose faith in their leader, how could the leader rule the whole nation without any conflicts between the government and the people under "their control"? Cause I think that there is always going to be someone who will think of attacking the government such as a uprising or rebellion just like what Harrison Bergeron did. I also agree with Daniel about the idea of "individual's greed preceded by the regime". I think by not wearing the handicaps made the leader felt better about herself and felt like she is higher than everyone else. We can also see this example everyday, especially in movies. I once watched a movie and their were a female who wasn't good looking so she became friends with ugly girls at school to make herself feel better. Also to make other people view her as "good look person". I also think that this situation might be the reason why the leader in the story decided to change the law. Who knows, in the next 50 years our world might become like the story of "Harrison Bergeron"!
|
|
|
Post by sazad100 on Aug 28, 2012 6:10:20 GMT -5
I agree with Brandon. The government is a communist one. H-G wants to make everybody equal and keep herself the leader. By making everybody wear handicaps H-G can make sure that nobody can be better than her and can continue her reign for a long time. This is why i think she doesn't wear any handicaps.
|
|
|
Post by KevinW on Aug 28, 2012 7:31:28 GMT -5
Who's going to watch over the watchers? And who's is going to watch over those who watch over the watchers? And who are going to watch over those who watch over those who watch over the watchers?
Bleh. If everyone had truly been equal, then all it should take is a single person who casts off the handicaps to effectively take over the world. The Handicapper General seems to be that tyrant. Harrison must be her political enemy - communist party members do have a tendency to accidentally fire armor-piercing ammunition at each other.
|
|
|
Post by esther on Aug 29, 2012 9:56:12 GMT -5
In order for a society to run, there must be a leader. If the leader wants everybody to be equal, everybody should be equal but the leader. The leader needs to be different than other people. If the leader is equal like everybody else, nobody would be able to rule the people because there would no longer be anybody else who is powerful than the others. Also, the handicapped general will no longer be a leader to the society. So I think that it is right for the handicapped general to not wear any handicaps for the society.
|
|
|
Post by KevinW on Aug 30, 2012 2:30:17 GMT -5
You're right in saying that if a leader thinks exactly like everyone else, there would be no leadership, but there are several problems with this.
1. Anarchy. Works, doesn't it? If everyone thought of simple things and lived a simple life, would it work? There's no government in anarchy.
2. Tyrant. HG is so much more powerful than everyone else if she were better than everyone without a handicap. She's also the one with the gun. - Who'll stop her if she decides to kill everyone? - Who'll protect the law and uphold rights? - Couldn't HG just let some people not wear handicaps just so that they would be loyal to her? - What's there to stop the rest of the people from becoming slaves?
|
|
|
Post by brandonina on Aug 30, 2012 6:49:11 GMT -5
Well, yes, Kevin, Esther, and Lin are all right by saying that there should be a leader in some way in order to run the country. I also think that way. However, I was just trying to point out that there can never be an ideal "equal" society where everybody is completely equal. I believe this is a part message that the author was trying to make. Well, imagine that you are the citizens in the story, (though we might not be able to think that much), wouldn't you be angry if you realize the fact that the leaders aren't wearing handicaps? That's why people start to rebel and try to ruin their society. They start to think they should and deserve to be better than others. Think about it, leaders are mostly the ones who carry out actions first so that the citizens can follow them. So shouldn't they wear handicaps also? It wouldn't work the way it is, but I just hope it does. Well, that's what I think. There should be a leader, of course, but the society would remain quiet unfair and constantly cause corruption.
That's why communism doesn't work? I think!
|
|
|
Post by lukejoo1092 on Aug 30, 2012 6:53:34 GMT -5
That is a bit contradictory, but the general is after all a flat character. We don't know that much about her. Even Hazel for example didn't have weights on her becuase she was the average. Or at least the author didn't point that out. Remember that at the beginning, Hazel mentioned about how she could be a good general. Then maybe the general was a person similar to Hazel, don't you think? The general might have had an average intelligence, average strength, average skills and so on. Then she wouldn't need handicaps because she is already equal.
|
|
|
Post by brandonina on Aug 30, 2012 7:05:46 GMT -5
Haha, well Luke, you are absolutely right. I think those posts on the top are assumptions. If you wrote this post earlier, people might have gotten confused. But, well, I think if general is an average-intelligent person, she would have done something much crazier and destroy the whole city. (exaggeration)
|
|
jisu25
Junior Member
Posts: 95
|
Post by jisu25 on Aug 30, 2012 7:21:30 GMT -5
I think that the handicapped general is unfair because it is like as if the government of the future are trying to make only one person in power which would be just like dictatorship. I mean why does all people beside her need to to be handicapped just because if they have a better face or have a stronger strength than others.
|
|
|
Post by elisalee on Aug 30, 2012 7:48:28 GMT -5
My idea is similar to esther's. I think that generals or leaders should have some privilege to control people. If she had handicaps , would she be able to shoot Harrison and the ballerina? I don't think she would've kill them easily like she did. Or maybe, she could've had normal strength just like Hazel, but she tried hard to become a general. Although you're not as smart as intelligent people, you could become same like them by trying hard. If you try hard to achieve something, there is nothing that is impossible to achieve.
|
|