- This topic has 67 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“My intellectual friends of those days, between the wars used to say to me: ‘Why on earth do you waste your talents feeding wild birds with dead rabbits?’ Was this a man’s work today? They urged that I was an intelligent fellow: I must be serious. ‘To arms!’ they cried. ‘Down with the Fascists, and Long Uve the People!’ Thus, as we have seen, everybody was to fly to anns, and shoot the people. It was useless to tell them that I would rather shoot rabbits than people.”
T. H. White, The Goshawk (1951)
How does this quote from “The Goshawk” exemplify the entire novel of “A Once and Future King”? Is it a true statement? or a false statement? Why? Use examples from the entire novel.
The speaker in The Goshawk sounds very similar to King Arthur in The Once and Future King. While other kings are busy fighting wars and trying to expand their kingdoms, King Arthur is trying to figure out if “might for right” and a code of chivalry would work as a system of law. Early in the novel we see Arthur questioning whether “might is right”. “Power of thr body decises everything in the end, and only might is right.” (White 45) Eventually we see the founding of the Round Table, a group of knights similar to that of policemen or military. I believe that this quote is a true statement because it exemplifies some governments today. Some countries have very cruel rulers and dictators and put their citizen’s talents to use by “feeding wild birds with dead rabbits”. Do you think violence is acceptable as “might for right”?
It is correct that shooting the rabbits instead of humans, in a way, has to do with parts of The Once and Future King. While, just how @j0sephc said,” Might is Right” violence can be thought differently in multiple scenarios; for instance, shooting rabbits for food would be different than for shooting humans to kill. Arthur showed later on that he lied to himself during the Round Table thinking that Might was Right, but he took it in a different way. The way that some communistic countries and dictators misuse that quote is shivering, and I feel that In our normal lives might is not used for right. Do you think that even in your own life, you can see that might isn’t used for right?
violence is only acceptable to an extent for me because when you use violence for right it is usually for something, as in, getting back, or some type of revengeful presence. If you are putting violence as the Might in this quote, which I assume you are, it is an impossibility for something like violence to be used for right because you will always be hurting someone even if it is for good or bad.
There are many examples of might not being used for right. Many rulers, upon getting to a position of power, get even more power hungry. Take Napoleon for example, he had much of Europe already conquered, but he needed more. He wanted the entire world as his, and we all know how well that turned out for him. Is there an example where might is used for right?
King Arthur’s over-arching theme of his life was to use “Might for right,” a moral instilled in him by his tutor, Merlyn the magician. The man in The Goshawk who said “I would rather shoot rabbits than people” seems quite similar to our King Arthur, as they both prefer to keep as many people living as possible, and avoid war and battle at all costs. If the quote stands alone it becomes a cry of war to overthrow a fascist government, which is an instance in which Might is used for Right. The speaker, however, opposes the idea of a war, battle, or any event that consists of human bloodshed. Does the quote from The Goshawk contradict “Might for Right?”
@j0sephc
Its’s a cheeky christian answer but it is still true; Jesus used might for right. He came down from heaven, endured beatings, abuse, and shame, and didn’t call down the might of his angels to free him. This is the ultimate example of might used for right. Is this the only example in history of might used for right?Way back when, during the Old Testament times, God used Joshua to wipe out sinful civilizations. In a sense, yes, might was used for right, but it depends on how you look at it. If you had a biblical world view you might agree that “might has been used for right”, however if you had a different world view you may think differently. You might think that Joshua and his armies murdered a bunch of innocent people for no reason. Do you think that someone can hold a position of power without going mad with it?
The speaker in The Goshawk sounds very similar to King Arthur in The Once and Future King when he says “.. I would rather shoot rabbits than people.” in that both persons do not prefer or like killing. Ever since The Sword of the Stone, when Merlyn tells Arthur that the only time the use of force is justified is for self-defense, Arthur has been trying to figure out for himself what he believes and what works in regards to fighting and wars. It is around the end of that first section of The Once and Future King that he comes up with the idea ‘Might for Right.’ Basically, what this means is that using your power for good and righteousness is okay, but using your might and power for anything unrighteous and is completely unacceptable. In his kingdom, Arthur’s ideas are practiced and changes are made from previous kingdoms. Arthur instills kindness and patience into his trusted knights as well as chivalry and the knights try to live by ‘Might for Right.’ Although it is obvious Arthur would rather kill only when he absolutely has to, war is still present in the novel but is described as inexcusable barbarism and a pointless and ugly tragedy. My question: In today’s culture do you think it’s okay for America to go to war if the reason for us joining is righteous but not personal?
@j0sephc
I do believe that someone can hold a position of power without turning into some maniacal, power-hungry goon. Just look at George Washington. Despite the fact that alot of people wanted him to run for another term, he stepped down from the most powerful position in the united States. Do you think its hard for people in power to step down?Similarities arise as one compares the speaker of The Goshawk when compare to King Arthur. The same hatred the Arthur instilled in his way of life, can be for shown in the quote, “I would rather shoot rabbits than people.” One who reads The Once and Future King takes away the overall message T. H. White brings to the table. Might being used for Right never seemed to work out in the life of Arthur. It seemed to back-stab hi in the end. Arthur and the speaker both have a goal i mind. Avoid war. Yet, after reading the life of King Arthur , it is much harder than one would think. It is a magnificent statement, and can be true to a point, yet gets much trickier near the roots. Do you agree with Merlyn’s comment, “The use of force is only justified in self-defense?”
The man speaking in Goshawk wants peace in the world and not violence, King Arthur was the same exact way. Arthur wanted use might for right and bring peace to his kingdom. He believed the creation of the round table would bring stability to his nation by having the Knights of the Round Table stop all the wealthy nobles from using their might against the people. I believe the statement to be true because there are people who attempt to use might for right. The U.S.A. is like the Round Table. It tries to stop forces who use might for wrong doings with its own might. The U.S.A.’s intentions for going to war are good, but it costs the lives of many people and sometimes does not bring peace, which is King Arthur’s main goal. My question is how can might be used for right without violence or inflicting pain on people?
I believe it is right because people today are willing to help others. There are many organizations today that respond to natural disasters, give food to the hungry, and provide shoes for children. These things don’t have to be our problems, but these organizations want to make it theirs and help people who are in need. The U.S. is the same way. They make another country’s problem theirs and try to help. From trying to stop terrorism with war or to help stop disease with The Red Cross the U.S. is willing to help. My question: is the U.S. setting a good example for the world by getting in to the affairs of other countries?
This quote from The Goshawk represents the life of King Arthur. Always trying to stop war and bloodshed and cruelty in his kingdom, he decides that Might should be used for right- not killing people. “…people ought not to be killed, ought they? It is better to be alive” (White 246).This statement is true because human beings have a personality and a soul and also why should we have to kill our own kind? Killing each other is just worse for the population as a whole. And, do you know how fast rabbits reproduce? Not as fast as humans, that’s for sure. So, my question is can Might for Right be put into effect without using violence? And, in response to @kulekat11 ‘s question: I do agree with Merlyn’s statement that force can only be justified by self defense. Why should we be trying to force people to do things in the first place? It only causes more war and bloodshed just look at World War II. Because Hitler tried to force everyone into his new standard of human beings– war broke out. Have you ever tried to defend yourself in a situation like that? In response to @hannahwelsh ‘s question: No, I do not think that going to war for righteous reasons is an okay reason to go to war. America, in my opinion, should just mind their own business when it comes to world affairs. We have legalized gay marriage now and you don’t see any countries declaring war on our unrighteousness. Is there any good reason to go to war?
@j0sephc
Answering your question, “Is there an example where might is used for right?”
Since the definition of might is great and impressive power or strength, especially of a nation, large organization, or natural force, I diffidently think there are many examples. One could be Soldiers using weapons to help persecuted Christians escape their captors. Another could be a boy defending someone who couldn’t defend them-self. One more could be someone using their position of authority to do righteous things. It all comes down to the motive for using your might. What are some instances when might has not been used for right?@j0sephc it is acceptable in that way because it is being used for the correct reasons, however, it shouldn’t get out of hand or be used as an excuse for other violent acts.
I believe that this is a true statement because it can be interpreted as not everything needs to be solved with deadly force. The speaker was smart and knew there were other methods of problem solving. I think this quote represents the novel as a whole because it shows the point of view of characters like Merlin, who knew the other ways to communicate with others and fix issues without waging war, and taught this to Arthur throughout his time as his tutor. Arthur kept this knowledge with him and used it during his time as king. I think it also represents how characters like Agravaine should have been. On multiple occasions, he killed out of anger when there could have been safer outlets to release his wrath. Violence should never be ones first resort in solving a problem, however, if it comes down to it, not all violence should be banned, as it can get to the point where violence is the best way to settle a issue. Overall, what do you think displays more intelligence, fighting or burying the hatchet?
Yes because once a person has acquired a powerful position, they want to keep it for as long as they possibly can. With power you have authority over others and you are able to manipulate them to do your bidding. One way a person of power will step down from his position, by his own will, is if he is pressured by a mistake he has made while he is in said position. An example of this is the Watergate Scandal with Richard Nixon. Richard Nixon knew that he would eventually be impeached for the Scandal, so he resigned from being president to avoid being the only president to be impeached. My question is do the people of the United States have enough power or too little power?
“It was useless to tell them that I would rather shoot rabbits than people.” This statement can summarize the whole novel from Arthur’s point of view. He had been taught by Merlyn to dislike violence and bloodshed. Everyone else was excited by fighting and war, but Arthur didn’t want any of that. In fact, he was scared of doing the wrong thing on accident. “What was Right, what was Wrong? What distinguished Doing from Not Doing? If I were to have my time again, the old King thought, I would bury myself in a monastery for fear of a Doing which might lead to woe.”
How do you think the story would have been affected if Arthur didn’t use Might for Right?Compared to a lot of countries in the world today, U.S. citizens have a lot of power and freedom. However, a lot of people have misused the privileges we have here. For example, the right to carry arms has been twisted by people who have killed innocents in random shootings.
Do you think that we should have less freedom for the reason that anybody could do something potentially harmful?@kulekat11
I agree with that statement in the way that we should not be the aggressors. However there are some other situations where certain violence might be needed.
Also, we have seen cases where people have acted in self defense from threats rather than full actions. Where do you think the line should be drawn between self defense and aggression, even if it’s labeled as pre-attack self defense?
- The topic ‘Forum: Blog Chat #4:Violence: Yes or No?’ is closed to new replies.