I think that the central question is how one should live in a Mennonite community, given the circumstances of the world such as wars or pop culture. I have no idea what the exact answer is, but I think that the answer might be that you should live by the "rules" and "laws" that were laid out before you.
On page 3 of Peace Shall Destroy Many, you have Thom Wiens calling those that are flying the airplanes overhead in what is World War II "heathens." Throughout the book, we see Thom basically saying, "War is bad." This is something that was forced upon him, not something he could figure out on his own. Also throughout the book, we see Thom having an internal conflict of whether or not to join the military. In Chapter 5, Joseph is talking to Thom. On page 75, Joseph says, "Thom, you personally are hemmed in - physically - you lose all perspective." During one point of the book, Thom sees a Canadian recruitment poster. And when Thom is working at the Block farm, Elizabeth tells Thom to leave the community. On page 285, Thom punches Herb, the first time that he has ever punched anyone. It is the first time that he has done something "un-Mennonite." There may be a lot of "signs" and a lot of people telling him to, basically, think for himself and to leave the community, but the book is left open, making the reader wonder if Thom chose to stay in the community or join the military. As far as we know, he could have stayed in the community and drowned in beliefs that were forced upon him.
In Katya, towards the beginning of the book, you have Katya holding a piece of wool and saying a prayer to God, something her father had taught her to do when she gets angry because it is not "Mennonite-like" to get angry. Throughout the book, we see Katya doing things that are "Mennonite-like" and those that are not (such as throwing a cup down a well). But throughout the book, we see Katya following her religion, not getting into trouble.
In A Complicated Kindness, you have pop culture that is brought into a Mennonite family. On page 5 in the last paragraph, Nomi says,"...a ban on the media, dancing, smoking, temperate climates, movies, drinking, rock 'n' roll... That was Menno all over. Thanks a lot, Menno." She mentions this, because, at least in the past, all of this stuff was banned. No Mennonite was allowed to do any of these things. Towards the beginning of the book, she mentions the family having gotten a TV because someone they knew was going to be on a show. She basically said that Menno Simons would have a cow. She also mentions Queen and Pink Floyd. In Mennonite tradition, none of this would be allowed. Towards the end of the book, she says that her mother left her husband so that he wouldn't have to choose between her and his religion.
So, in the end, it seems like all Mennonites are not supposed to watch TV, listen to music (well, music that is not soft religious music), or anything else. It seems like they are supposed to live in the 1400s rather than the 2000s.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Canadian Poets
One thing that the Canadian poets in A Cappella have in common is that they write about family, religion, or nature. In a couple of Sarah Klassen's poems, she talks about her mother while Patrick Friesen writes about his father.
In some of the poems, instead of writing it in the first-person, these poems are written in the second or the third-person. I think that with the different uses of the person, you might learn or catch something new than if it had been written in the first-person.
In a couple of the poems (one written by Audrey Poetker-Thiessen and another by Leonard Neufeldt), italics are used on a few of the words. For some of the poems (by Audrey Poetket-Thiessen and Di Brandt), there were no titles on these poems.
In some of the poems, instead of writing it in the first-person, these poems are written in the second or the third-person. I think that with the different uses of the person, you might learn or catch something new than if it had been written in the first-person.
In a couple of the poems (one written by Audrey Poetker-Thiessen and another by Leonard Neufeldt), italics are used on a few of the words. For some of the poems (by Audrey Poetket-Thiessen and Di Brandt), there were no titles on these poems.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Responding to Ann's Post-9/11 Comment
On April 13 in class, Ann had made a comment about post-9/11 and how Mennonites said something to the effect of, "They did it to us. Let's stay the victims."
In my opinion, the Mennonites do not get to keep the name of victim. You just perpetuate the cycle. You are guilty because you, with your pacifist ways, will be allowing the enemies to terrorize the United States again and again, possibly giving us another 9/11.
The reason we had gone to war in the first place was to stop the terrorists. I have told my parents constantly that if we did not go to war, we could have had a million 9/11s by now. You are probably thinking that the war should be over by now. But there has been no relief in terrorists! The numbers are still most likely huge, possibly even larger than before!
If you want to look at how long a war has been going on, look at World War II. World War II had already been happening for a few years before we were forced to join. And it still took another five or six years after we joined the war for it to be over. So you're looking at probably a decade! Sure, the tenth year anniversary of being in war is coming this September, but wars take years. They are not over in one day. If all wars were over in one day, that would be either a miracle or just plain weird.
As I was saying, Mennonites do not get to keep the name of victim. I think that they would take on the name of enemy. Because Mennonites are pacifists, and they would most likely stand aside and let another 9/11 happen without fighting to try to stop it from happening.
In my opinion, the Mennonites do not get to keep the name of victim. You just perpetuate the cycle. You are guilty because you, with your pacifist ways, will be allowing the enemies to terrorize the United States again and again, possibly giving us another 9/11.
The reason we had gone to war in the first place was to stop the terrorists. I have told my parents constantly that if we did not go to war, we could have had a million 9/11s by now. You are probably thinking that the war should be over by now. But there has been no relief in terrorists! The numbers are still most likely huge, possibly even larger than before!
If you want to look at how long a war has been going on, look at World War II. World War II had already been happening for a few years before we were forced to join. And it still took another five or six years after we joined the war for it to be over. So you're looking at probably a decade! Sure, the tenth year anniversary of being in war is coming this September, but wars take years. They are not over in one day. If all wars were over in one day, that would be either a miracle or just plain weird.
As I was saying, Mennonites do not get to keep the name of victim. I think that they would take on the name of enemy. Because Mennonites are pacifists, and they would most likely stand aside and let another 9/11 happen without fighting to try to stop it from happening.
Miriam Toews's A Complicated Kindness
In A Complicated Kindness by Miriam Toews, Nomi Nickel's mother had left the family about three years before "Nomi's memoir" was written. On page 144, "Nomi" writes, "...my mom leaving town to spare my dad the pain of having to choose between the church or her..." This leads to my question: If you only had one choice, would you choose your religion or the person you love (specifically someone of a different religion)?
I think that if the Bible says you have to marry someone in your religion, then it is idiotic. If it does not say it and people just think it says that, then the people are either blind or idiotic.
What if the Bible does say that you have to marry within your religion? I think that it is wrong. Let's say you choose religion over the person you love. After the both of you break-up, you never fall in love again. This would be the total "soulmate" thing. Are you supposed be sad for the rest of your life, never falling in love because you chose your religion over your soulmate?
I personally would say screw the religion. If nobody in my religion likes the fact that I am in love with someone of a different religion, then they don't have to talk to me, just so long as I am happy with the person I love.
If you fall in love with someone that is in your religion, then okay. But what if you fall in love with someone outside of your religion? Do you choose your religion and be sad for the rest of your life? Or do you choose the person you love, be happy, and say "screw the religion?"
Jimmy Jack from Translations: "Do you know the Greek word endogamein? It means to marry within the tribe. And the word exogamein means to marry outside the tribe."
I think that if the Bible says you have to marry someone in your religion, then it is idiotic. If it does not say it and people just think it says that, then the people are either blind or idiotic.
What if the Bible does say that you have to marry within your religion? I think that it is wrong. Let's say you choose religion over the person you love. After the both of you break-up, you never fall in love again. This would be the total "soulmate" thing. Are you supposed be sad for the rest of your life, never falling in love because you chose your religion over your soulmate?
I personally would say screw the religion. If nobody in my religion likes the fact that I am in love with someone of a different religion, then they don't have to talk to me, just so long as I am happy with the person I love.
If you fall in love with someone that is in your religion, then okay. But what if you fall in love with someone outside of your religion? Do you choose your religion and be sad for the rest of your life? Or do you choose the person you love, be happy, and say "screw the religion?"
Jimmy Jack from Translations: "Do you know the Greek word endogamein? It means to marry within the tribe. And the word exogamein means to marry outside the tribe."
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Sandra Birdsell's Katya
Katya by Sandra Birdsell was a bit long in my opinion. In the first half of the book, there was not really much dialogue going on. If there was dialogue, it would only be one or two sentences before going back into the descriptions. In the second half of the book, there is clearly much more dialogue than the first half.
In the book, there was a word or two I knew from taking German. The word that was mentioned was "Oma." "Oma" is also used in Germany. It is another word for "großmutter." Both of these words mean "grandma/grandmother." The same can be said for "Opa" which is also used in Germany, the same word for "großvater," and means "grandpa/grandmother."
In the front of the book is the newspaper clipping. If someone was to only glimpse at it and not realize that the book is fiction, the reader may think that the clipping is true. It gives the who, what, where, when, and how. Unfortunately, such news in the newspapers were probably very common during those days.
On page 134, Franz Pauls says, "If there should be a war, then I, for one, will be among the first to volunteer. I'll willingly go wherever I'm sent and do what I'm given to do." This is similar to Joseph in Peace Shall Destroy Many by Rudy Wiebe. Franz says that he will serve if there is a war and Joseph is serving. Joseph is not on the front lines carrying a weapon, but serving in the Medical Reserves. Another similarity between Franz and Joseph is that both of them are in Mennonite communities. Bringing up the topic of serving in the military (no matter if you are only in the medical department or on the front lines) in such a community is basically a big "no-no." My reasoning for it being a no-no is because you are in a pacifist community. Even bringing up the military is asking for you to be shot. By pacifists! If you bring up that, then Mennonite pacifists will think that you are crazy.
In the book, there was a word or two I knew from taking German. The word that was mentioned was "Oma." "Oma" is also used in Germany. It is another word for "großmutter." Both of these words mean "grandma/grandmother." The same can be said for "Opa" which is also used in Germany, the same word for "großvater," and means "grandpa/grandmother."
In the front of the book is the newspaper clipping. If someone was to only glimpse at it and not realize that the book is fiction, the reader may think that the clipping is true. It gives the who, what, where, when, and how. Unfortunately, such news in the newspapers were probably very common during those days.
On page 134, Franz Pauls says, "If there should be a war, then I, for one, will be among the first to volunteer. I'll willingly go wherever I'm sent and do what I'm given to do." This is similar to Joseph in Peace Shall Destroy Many by Rudy Wiebe. Franz says that he will serve if there is a war and Joseph is serving. Joseph is not on the front lines carrying a weapon, but serving in the Medical Reserves. Another similarity between Franz and Joseph is that both of them are in Mennonite communities. Bringing up the topic of serving in the military (no matter if you are only in the medical department or on the front lines) in such a community is basically a big "no-no." My reasoning for it being a no-no is because you are in a pacifist community. Even bringing up the military is asking for you to be shot. By pacifists! If you bring up that, then Mennonite pacifists will think that you are crazy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)