Pre-reading #3
comment here on Montaigne's "Of Cannibals."
posted by erdecker @ 2:56 PM
12 comments
JM AP English Government
A resource for John Marshall's Advanced Placement English and Government class. Woo-hoo!
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
About Me
- Name: erdecker
- Location: Lanesboro, Minnesota, United States
Enchanted April at Roc Rep Jan 2016 (Sound Design). Donnybrook's Dilemma Murder Mystery Jan 10 (Donnybrook actor). Valentine's Murder Mystery at Plummer House Feb 13 (actor). Ole and Lena in Love at Rochester Sons of Norway March 19 (Director).
12 Comments:
In the last line of Montaigne's essay, Montaigne says that we may call them barbarians, but that we (his "civilized" society) are more barbarous than they are. I would tend to disagree with this statement somewhat. I would say that the level of barbarity is not different for all the races, but that mankind has a violent, savage streak that shows itself at certain times. This essay reminded me of Pocahontas 2, when Pocahontas goes to England and tells the English that they are more savage than the Native Americans when the English kill a bear for fun.
I thought that "Of Cannibals" was a very interesting observation of a culture otherwise left unexamined. Cannibals are usually thought of negatively, as our culture states that it's wrong to eat human flesh. But Montaigne thinks this is all in perspective to our cultures own beliefs. Comparing this to other cultures is also very noteworthy, as other groups also practice cannibalism, though for various reasons. It almost makes one want to side with the author.
I agree with the overarching idea in Montaigne's "Of Cannibals" that civilized people cannot condemn others as savage. However, the idea of cannibalism is still barbaric within our modern paradigm. He proves his point well through examples of reasonable situations where cannibalism was culturally accepted. Overall, I believe this pre-reading agrees well with the idea that no one person can judge others without first understanding the paradigms involved and remaining open to persuasion.
One point I like in Montaigne's essay was that, "men call that barbarism which is not common to them." He also states that there are things that we have altered, but otherwise, in the wild we would have called savage. Still, what I like the most was the idea that however much we change things from nature, "she (mother earth)makes our vain and frivolous enterprises wonderfully ashamed." What I perceive this as is that no matter how much we try to change things, we will be overlooked by natural changes that occur.
I found it ironic that Montaigne seems to be supporting cannibalism or at least the natural world over the civilized world. I think it wasn’t that he actually supported torture and eating other humans both live and dead but he used the persona of a person who would support his claim that there are down sides to a civilized society that the natural society doesn’t have. He is also addressing the condemnation of the Native Americans found in the new world because of their different societal beliefs. He is showing that in reality the Natives are probably better people than the Europeans. This is supported by his paragraph that begins, “These nations…” He goes on to say that the natives are better judges that the "smarter" Europeans.
I thought it was interesting that Montaigne compared the behavior of the the natives to that of many civilized societies. He gives examples of torture and cannibalism within many civilized societies. His own society buried men to their middles and shot at them with arrows. Overall, it really gets his point across that, in many ways, the natives are no more barbarous than the civilized people.
I found Montaigne's essay was really interesting. I thought that Montaigne was pointing out that there is barbarism in everyone, by using the Europeans and the Brazilian natives ways as examples. I guess the question his essay poses is that which is more barbarous? Cannibalism or the way that Europeans act? Or is it even possible to deem one more barbarous?
There was one sentence that stuck out to me in particular: "As indeed we have no other aim of truth and reason than the example and idea of the opinions and customs of the country we live in." I agree that we take the culture instilled in us through various media to be what is right, but I also somewhat disagree. I have to admit that there are some things that this culture does and accepts that I don't agree with. I think Montaigne was on the right track with this, but that one also must factor in variances in the way our society views things (differences in religious teachings, for example).
I thought that Montaigne was really ahead of his time when writing his essay. While most of his counterparts automatically assumed that the inhabitants of the New World were less civilized than those of the "Old World" Montaigne introduces the idea that maybe it is all a matter of perspective "men call that barbarism which is not common to them." Who is to say what is civilized and what is not?
After reading Montaigne's essay, I got the message of that there is barbarism in everyone and that it may be all in perspective, but after reading the other posts, I get these different perspectives; like Emilie's post for example, she said, "I would say that the level of barbarity is not different for all races..." and comparing/connecting it with other students post like Katie Haddock's last sentence, "...the natives are no more barbarous than the civilized people" and I was looking at the word MORE which made me think of the levels of barbarity that Emilie was talking about. Also the same situation with Eura's post, "...assumed that the inhabitants of the New World were LESS civilized than those of the 'Old World'." I don't remember where I was going with this, but I do find it interesting...
I thought it was interesting that Montaigne saw the natural world in such a great light. I couldn't help but compare it to Hobbes' viewpoint that a state of nature is a hostile, war-like environment. So who was right? I guess cannibalism seems a little unpleasant to me, but my judgement has been "bastardized" by art and civilization, so I can't say for sure. However, being a civilized person, I have to say that I think Montaigne's proposal was slightly ridiculous.
I do agree with Montaigne that the "civilized world" is barbaric, we torture and kill people for thinking differently than us and we torture/kill animals for fun. Although I do not think that the "natural society" is a great deal better. Some parts seem nice (like no traffic, no political superiority, no treason, falsehood, etc.), but "no apparel but natural," no knowledge of letters or numbers, no occupation but idle are not ideas that are appealing to me. One could argue that being raised in a society that has bastardized nature has corrupted my tastes, but I'm proud of that bastardization of nature, and will most likely continue it.
Post a Comment
<< Home