Category: Uncategorized

In the introduction of the novel, Demons, Fyodor Dostoevsky gives a fictional account of a radical group that opposes the Russian government and church narrated by Mr. Govorov. Because Dostoevsky uses a third party narrater, he is able to more effectively introduce each character in the novel and in turn create a more complex and sophisticated narrative.

Mr. Govorov recounts the relationship between Stepan Trofimovich and Varvara Petrovna. By using a different character who is affiliated with both Trofimovich and Petrovna, Dostoevsky is able to give an accurate depiction of their relationship without allowing emotional biases cloud the true nature of their friendship. On pages 14 and 15, Govorov tells the story of how Trofimovich would write letters to Petrovna, even when they were living under the same roof. Through the use of a third party narrater, the audience is able to fully grasp the unique relationship between Trofimorich and Petrovna. However, if the story was recounted by either Trofimovich or Petrovna, it would be much more difficult to understand each character and why they act the way they do. Having this extra information on the characters gives the audience a more in depth understanding of the novel as a whole and helps make this novel more elaborate.

The audience is also presented with other characters in section VIII on page 28 and 29. Govorov not only gives a recount of their life stories, but explains how the other characters interact with them and describes their feelings towards one another. If the author did not use this third party narration, the audience would not have seen these further connection amongst the characters. With these further insights, the audience can more fully understand the actions of each member and therefore understand the novel more clearly. This narration is vital for the audience’s understanding of the work as a whole and is how Dostoevsky was able to create such a complex narrative.

In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the main protagonist Winston joins the “Brotherhood,” or a secret society that commands its members to murder, commit suicide, or harm innocents in order to weaken and ultimately destroy the Party. Because of the violence involved with the resistance, and the minimal results that come from it, the “Brotherhood,” is not an effective resistance to the Party, or totalitarianism as a whole.

In this novel, when Winston meets with O’Brien, another member of the Brotherhood, O’Brien asks him a series of questions about how far he would go for the sake of the Brotherhood. One question he asked was, “If, for example, it would somehow serve our interests to throw sulfuric acid in a child’s face-are you prepared to do that?” This question is so cruel and unnecessary that it makes me question the Brohterhood’s true intentions. The phrase, “you can’t fight fire with fire,” comes to mind. Why resist a controlling regime that uses violence and fear tactics by fostering an even more destructive and dangerous environment? Instead of liberating the people suppressed by the Party, all the Brotherhood is doing is putting these innocent people’s lives in danger. The supposed actions of the Brotherhood should not be acceptable and is not an appropriate means of resistance.

Also, the lack of information provided to Winston makes me question the legitimacy of the Brotherhood. O’Brien describes them as the “dead” generation, with which their only purpose is to serve the Brotherhood, get caught by the Party, and die. This only sounds vague and seems like an inefficient way of resistance. Most resistance units biggest goal is to resist without getting caught. Adding to that, Winston receives almost no information about the Brotherhood, for secrecy purposes, but how could Winston be sure it’s not just a ploy? This reason is most likely the reason for such little results, and why it most likely will take years and years to ever accomplish its goal. Without a controlled group of members, with an active communication line, and a clear action plan to accomplish their goal of destroying the Party, the Brotherhood can never truly reach a perfect form of resistance.

For my essay, I plan on writing on Whitaker Chambers, Witness. In his memoir, he discusses the huge case of Alger Hiss, in which he played a vital role. I want to debate that because this case was so popular, and how he wrote his memoir in a more self-focused style, he didn’t create the most effective piece for resisting totalitarianism. He focused too much on his own personal struggle with Communism and his own relationship with Alger Hiss, instead of resisting totalitarianism as a whole. Instead of resisting the Communist party, all Chambers did was resist Hiss.

Enthymeme thesis: In the memoir, Witness, Whitaker Chambers writes about his own personal struggle with Communism, and his part in the very publicized trial of Alger Hiss. Because of his more self-focused writing style and the publicity of the Alger Hiss trial, Chambers memoir was not the most effective resistance to totalitarianism. Chambers did not resist the Communist party as a whole, but only the figurehead Alger Hiss.

Two passages:

• Chapter 7, section 9, pages 303-308
  • Focuses on friendship too much (personal relationship)
  • Humanizes Hiss, people sympathetic towards him
  • Those focused on the case only focused on their relationship

• Chapter 12 pages 615-618 – Chambers decides to become a true witness
  • Focuses too much on his own conversion to Catholicism
  • Focuses too much on his decision to become a “witness”
  • Too self involved- pity him as individual, not as a survivor of Communism
• Chapter 11, section 29, pages 570-585
  • Focusing on a specific case does not lead to an effective stance against totalitarianism
  • Case focusing on Hiss as an individual rather than a case against toaltitarianism

• Bibliographic sources:
  • Compare to Ji Xianlin’s The Cowshed
  • Tanenhaus, Sam. Whittaker Chambers : A Biography. First ed., Random House, 1997.
  • Baehr, Peter. “The Informers: Hannah Arendts Appraisal of Whittaker Chambers and the Ex-Communists.” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, vol. 1, no. 1, Feb. 2014, pp. 35–66., doi:10.1080/23254823.2014.909734.
  • https://www.nola.com/news/crime_police/article_6dd5dd29-da51-52ad-b290-87fa3ad6457d.html

• Sections:
  • Use of memoir as writing style
  • Focus on one specific case study
  • Comparison to The Cowshed

In the memoir Cowshed, Ji Xianlin writes a chapter at the end of the novel called “Further Reflections.” In this chapter, Xianlin raises many important questions revolving around the Cultural Revolution, and if the ramifications of the revolution have been dealt with properly. By bringing up these questions, and providing solutions, the author is able to effectively conclude his memoir with reasonable hopes for the future.

One of the questions Xianlin raises is, “Is the Cultural Revolution a thing of the past?” I think this is a very important questions that not only limits itself to the Cultural Revolution, but extends itself to all great tragedies in our history. Like many catastrophes that appear in history, once the aftermath has been taken care of, people slowly start to forget that it ever happened. On page 140, Xianlin even goes as far as to describing the Cultural Revolution as a “fairy tale” for youths because of the lack of education on the subject. I know in my senior year history class, when we learned about the cultural revolution, I didn’t even come close to learning about the gruesome conditions people had to live in. Xianlin’s memoir definitely helps relieve the many gaps left by those who are unwilling to talk about the Cultural Revolution, but he is correct when asserting that the youths of China need to be educated on this manner because it is not, in fact, a thing in the past, but an integral part of Chinese history that affects its people of today, too. Also, if the Cultural Revolution is not taught to todays youths, the same mistake could be made again.

Another important question that Xianlin proposes is “have the victims of the revolution given voice to their bitterness?” This is followed by an evident “no.” This plays into the reason why todays youths know so little about the revolution: no one wants to talk about the horrible things they had to go through. One man was even quoted saying, “It used to be said that ‘the scholar can be killed, but he cannot be humiliated.’ The Cultural Revolution proved that not only can he be killed but he can also be humiliated.” He is definitely not the only one who feels this way. Even the author felt humiliated and states that he should have just killed himself because he believes his whole life is a humiliation. Survivors of the revolution need to be exposed to “true unity and harmony” in their community before they will be willing to share their stories. This makes sense, but that means that people will have to learn to be more open to others and the resentments towards each other need to be slowly healed. That is the only way people will start to open up about their lives and the youths will finally be able to learn about their countries history.

In this week’s readings from The Black Book of Communism, the authors mainly discuss the tactics used during the reign of Mao to keep the prisoners in order. The authors reveal how Chinese camps would starve and emotionally disturb the prisoners until they beg to be placed in labor camps. By shining light onto these horrific crimes, the authors are able to effectively expose totalitarianism as the cruel and harsh regime that it is.

One of the most infamous camps during the Maoism period was the laogai. It was known for its prolific death rates, terrible living conditions, and intense forced labor. The most cruel part about the laogai in my opinion, however, is the fact that “until the 1960s, 95% of all prisoners in the laogai were kept in the juiye,” which was another prison camp, with slightly better conditions (pg 500). This highlights the never ending nightmare of totalitarianism, and how once it is implemented, it takes over everything surrounding it. Once you entered the laogai, there was no chance you could live life as a free man/woman ever again. Maoism is a very extreme case of totalitarianism, but it proves just how all-encompassing it is, and how it can destroy a nation.

The fear tactics used inside the Chinese camps were so brutal that it forced prisoners to plead guilty. Two of the main tactics cited were reverse-psychology and starvation. The first tactic was very intriguing to me because it proves just how deep the mentality of Maoism was instilled in everyone. By admitting he was also in the wrong, the guard showed his absolute loyalty to the cause, instead of just blindly following orders. We also see this devotion in witness by Alger Hiss. Whitaker Chambers asserts, “For I cannot hate even an enemy… who shares with me the conviction that that life is not worth living for which a man is not prepared to die at any moment.” This proves how devote each member of a totalitarian regime really is, and how they are truly willing to die for the cause. This conviction is terrifying because it shows how even the members are being abused and manipulated, exposing the terror the regime can instill.

The second tactic used is a bit more gruesome. The prison camps would withhold food from the prisoners. Jean Pasqualini recalls how the guards would give them enough food in order to survive, but not enough to not be hungry. Prisoners were weak, and abused, badly enough to beg to be placed in labor camps. This is not only physical abuse, but psychological. Pasqualini said it made all the prisoners crazy, how hungry they were. Although totalitarianism does not get discussed as often as the Holocaust does, this regime has been on going, and has caused pain to millions and The Black Book of Communism has effectively delivered this message.

Week 2

In sections 13 through 15 in Witness, Whitaker Chambers dives into the complicated case of Alger Hiss. From highlighting the corruption within the government to dissecting the web of lies that Hiss and his associates created, Chambers is able to effectively deliver a clear and controversial view of how the totalitarian ideology of Communism had become an epidemic that spread all throughout America during that time.

The Alger Hiss case was a huge controversy in the last 1940s. Mostly because this case exposed how Communism had infiltrated the government on such a wide scale. Many government officials were not happy with these accusations, and in turn attempted to demonize Chambers. On page 500, Chambers explains the situation in manner that suggests many people of high authority wanted to disprove his case against Hiss in order to keep the respect of the people. The fact that so many people were attempting to discredit Chamber’s testimony even further proves how rooted Communism was in society. The attempt to damage Chamber’s reputation and isolate him from the general public exposes the totalitarian views of the Communist party, and damages the parties reputation.

Also, along with the odds stacked against him, Chambers had to deal with all the lies being thrown at him during the trial. In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt explains how a society must become atomized in order to be brought together with such a strong bond. Because the Communist party had brought together all these people who were initially isolated in their everyday lives, they were so strongly connected that they were willing to lie, even in a court room. Chambers quotes Daniel Hiss’ testimony (pg 502)as a complete lie, and how Hiss refused to acknowledge he knew Chambers at all. Committing perjury is a serious crime and when someone is able to do it so carelessly shows how strong the bond is between the members in the Communist party. This is not the only time the author illustrates the deep bonds of the Communist party. On page 23, Chambers describes how Miss Hutchins waited for hours to see Chamber’s brother in law for hours, because in some way, the Communist party had discovered that she was connected to the Chambers and may be able to find where he was hiding out. These scenarios are critical when digesting the whole picture of Communism, and how it completely ruled over the lives of people inside the party.

Week 1

For the first week of class, the reading that most struck me was the novel, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, and Repression. Many different discussions points were debated in the first fifteen pages and some of them brought up individual questions of their own that made me think. One example of a question raised by the text is, What should be weighed first: natural laws or official institutions? On page three in the second paragraph, the author asserts that the crimes of Communism were carried out under the regimes official institutions. Therefore, one could argue that Communism did not commit any crimes. Although almost 100 million deaths occurred under the Communism’s regime, were they illegal? My opinion is that natural laws should always come first over official institutions because each person deserves their individual rights and should never have to live in fear. Of course, the argument could be made that without institutions, there would be anarchy and we would need institutions in order to have natural laws. There must be a perfect combination of both in order for there the be order and individual happiness, but too much of either one could be catastrophic.

Another example, on page one, in the last paragraph, the author lists out several different war crimes that have occurred throughout history. The last war crime he states is, “Even Switzerland has recently been embroiled in a scandal in its role in administering gold stolen by the Nazis from exterminated Jews,” but then the author adds, “although the country’s behavior is not on the same level as genocide.” This ending line made me question to what extent a country should be held accountable for the actions. While Switzerland did not carry out these horrific crimes, should being complicit with these actions make Switzerland just as responsible? The author seemed to say no, by the phrasing of the statement, but I’ve always believed that someone who sees a crime and doesn’t report it should be just as responsible. However, Switzerland did not commit any types of crimes against humanity that Germany did, so why should they be held just as accountable?

These conflicting questions have given me insight as to what topics will be discussed in class, and how it will challenge me and force me to understand both sides of an argument. I am looking forward to debating more in depth topics throughout the semester!