Interpreting Kipling, Part II

 [1]


The stories in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book are full of symbolism. You can think of just about anything in our modern society and find something in The Jungle Book that could somehow symbolize an idea. As Kipling spent some time in India, it is easy to see that much of the symbolism in The Jungle Book can be applied to the social structure within India (with the caste system, The Untouchables, etc.) and also the international relationships between countries, such as India and England. To interrupt myself here, it is funny and interesting to compare the notion of the Untouchables in two different cultures. I think about the definition of the Untouchables in India and then think about the definition of the Untouchables in the U.S. In India. The lowest of the lowest social classes is the Untouchables and they are called that because anyone who is anyone would not dare to even touch them (as Sophie pionted out in class).

  [2]

Sometimes, in the United States the Untouchables refers to a group of law enforcement officials who are so "great" and "courageous" that they can't be touched or prosecuted by corruption laws or certain kinds of juries. They are protected by those who are so strong and powerful that no enemies can get close enough to touch them. The below video is an example how this occurs even on the local level.  Just when you thought things were getting better. . . .

How many Aggies does it take to subdue a 155lb man?

 [3]

Here's how some police "handle business". The officer was not convicted of anything in this case. . . Now that's justice!

I was surprised at some of the inconsistencies within the various stories of The Jungle Book. For example, in the first three stories that center around Mowgli and in The White Seal the race of men is usually something  the animal race regards as inferior, destructive, dangerous and negative. However, in Rikki-Tikki-Tavi the mongoose Rikki shows his concern for the humans by protecting them from the snakes. I was also surprised by the inconinuities regarding the caste system throughout the stories of Mowgli. In Kaa's Hunting all the jungle animals view the the Bandar-log as an inferior and horrible society. We can see a similar connection to Kim in the chapter of Kaa's Hunting, 'They are outcastes.' [4]Even Mowgli eventually views the monkeys as being shameless and lawless and as the lowest of the low in the animal world. In Tiger! Tiger! it is a different situation. Kipling writes, "And Mowgli had not the faintest idea of the difference that caste makes between man and man." [5] In this story, Mowgli does view Shere Khan as being inferior and detestable and eventually takes his revenge on him. I was very puzzled about reading all of this. Why does Mowgli see social classes in the animal kingdom, but not in man?

Maybe it's  that Mowgli, although he's a man, grew up in an animal society and  therefore is biased and impressionable. Mowgli was just recently thrust into the world of humans. Could it be just a matter of time before he also becomes judgmental and prejudiced in the world of man? Is he too corruptible? Is he noble enough to be an Untouchable when it comes to the Untouchables? Maybe Mowgli hadn't the faintest idea of the caste system because the IDEA hasn't been taught to him yet. Perhaps Kipling meant to be so inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps he was making social, governmental, political, moral, religious commentaries. Perhaps he was not so much judging, though. Maybe by writing a 'harmless' children's story with anthropomorphic characters he was finding a way to vent and express himself while subtly pointing out hypocricies in government, society and his opinion about religion. I think Kipling saw the world as an imperfect place. So rather than overtly chastising it, he found a way to portray the imperfections in his poetry and writing.

The contradictions of Mowgli's views on social classes could be viewed as a commentary on the inconsistencies between the Hindu religion and the Indian caste system. To "most" Hindu's (at least back then) there is not really animal caste system or, at least, not like the humans'.  Sure, they think highly of cows. But animals should be treated with respect and humanity. It is bizarre how they treated humans. "Humanity" is a funny word to use, it seems.  Hindus show humanity to all animals, yet not necessarily to all humans. Other than cows, one animal group does not trump another. But as far as humans there is the caste system. There are the Untouchables. In Kaa's Hunting, Mowgl shows respecd for the law when he takes responsibility for breaking the law and accepts the consequences. But in Tiger! Tiger! Mowgli shows disregard for the laws of the society and the priest. In Tiger! Tiger! there are scenes that seem to have a parallel within certain practices. When Mowgli returns to the human's village after using their cow and buffalo herds to help kill Shere Khan, the village shows their disapproval of Mowgli by their trying to stone him in order to cast him out--making him an "outcast". Kipling conveys this well: 'It is in my head that, if bullet mean anything, they would cast thee out.'[6]When his biological and adoptive mother Messua tries to stand up for Mowgli for his bravery in revenging himself on the tiger, the mob of villagers, including the priest, assert their views and their power: 'Come back, Messua!' shouted the crowd. 'Come back, or we will stone thee.'  [7] Perhaps this is Kipling taking an opportunity to show the views and treatment of women in India. Could this be a commentary on the controversial sometimes practice of women getting stoned or of the practice of suttee... where a widow is thrown or throws herself onto the funeral pyre of her dead husband? Or perhaps Kipling couldn't have helped but be inconsistent in his writings. Perhaps Kipling himself was unsure and confused of what was right in a fast-paced and ever-changing world. In a world of globalism, this seems to be a period in history of great paradox and contradictions...

In a Victorian England of being prim and proper while half a world away they were showing might and force to 'tame' (or exploit) the wilds of the jungle. As Kipling's world shifted from India to England, and to the United States of America, maybe his mental world had trouble shifting as well. Mowgli felt like he didn't belong anywhere with neither the animals nor  humans, because both groups casted him out. Perhaps Kipling felt like somewhat of an outcast in his life because he felt that he couldn't fit who he really was into the constrainsts of the societies he traveled to.  Even within one story of The Jungle Book there is a strange inconsistency. In the beginning of the Kaa's Hunting, Bagheera is against Baloo's practice of using corporal punishment on Mowgli as a teaching aid. Baloo argues his case, 'Better he should be bruised from head to foot by me who love him than that he should come to harm through ignorance.' [8] But by the end of the story Bagheera shows he is in favor of corporal punishment after all. As is prescribed by the Law of the Jungle Mowgli has 'done mischief, and blows must be dealt now.' [9] Baloo seems to have shifted his earlier views: 'Baloo did not wish to bring Mowgli into any more trouble, but he could not tamper with the Law, so he mumbled: 'Sorrow never stays punishment.' [10] Maybe Bagheera's change of heart can be explained by the context of Mowgli's beatings. When Baloo beat Mowgli it was as a 'teaching aid.' But when Bagheera beat Mowgli, it is seen as punishment for causing mischief and therefore breaking the law. It seems that both animals were trying to teach Mowgli a lesson, but in a completely different way. But who is more effective and morally superior, if anyone? Baloo?

[11]

Baloo initially beats Mowgli to help him learn and memorize, but then realizes his error and feels guilty and responsible for pushing Mowgli into the arms of the monkeys. I also think to myself it could be Bagheera. Bagheera who holds out on beatings until it seems absolutely neccessary for punishment and learning. Maybe Bagheera decides to beat Mowgli because Mowgli was bad and naughty and he made him angry and he wants him to pay. Or is Bagheera just simply trying to follow the Law because that is what he ought to do and to show that he is not like the lawless monkeys? Kipling finishes off this topic by writing, 'One of the beauties of Jungle Law is that punishment settles all scores. There is no nagging afterward.' [12] This seems as if to say that once the punishment is given and the lesson is learned, they move on and they get along once more and hold no hard feelings and assumes they'll learn a lesson. There are always lessons to be learned. They're just not always learned the way others intent to "teach" others lesson--about "the jungle". 

[1]http://www.comicsintheclassroom.ca/images/mijungle.jpg
[2] http://www.ncdhr.org.in/%20Images/castoutcaste.bmp
[3]40 Kipling Rudyard, The Jungle Book (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Ed. LTD), 40
[4]70 The Jungle Book, 70
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQDuDoksZJU
[6]84 The Jungle Book, 84
[7]85 The Jungle Book, 85
[8]37 The Jungle Book 37
[9]61 The Jungle Book 61
[10]]61 The Jungle Book 61
[11]http://www.dacbsa.org/virtual-patches/gr-Cubs/BALOO.jpg 
[12]62 The Jungle Book 62

The love of the Longhorn

The love of the Longhorn

 [1]

The Longhorn: The mascot that loves you back.

When I think Longhorns (seen above), I think totemism. There are many reasons for this. Longhorns fans are hog wild about Bevo. At sporting events people "bleed orange"-- win or lose. Being a Longhorn carries a certain level of pride, sincerity and integrity. . Like with any fan, there is certain reality involved in being a fan. I am part of this group, therefore I belong to everything it stands for. For some, it's not about being an individual at all. It's about the prestige or what belonging to the group means to them. . A lot of us grew up in or around Texas, so we know the pride associated with it and how some can get carried away with it even. OK, I've been guilty of that myself--I didn't want to go to any other college in Texas. I got my letter from A&M before I got my letter from Texas. I was so excited when I got the letter, I just sat there for like 2 hours looking at it before I got up or told anyone. But for me, it was more about what it would mean after I was finished. No. I didn't want to graduate from some dinky school in some po-dunk, dry town in Texas. When I decided to go back to school, I remember saying, "when I go to Texas... blah blah blah." And people would say, you mean IF? Do you know how hard it is to get in (et cetera)?

The Texas Fight song represents  the competitive nature of the tribe and symbolizes the kinship and the magical practices of--winning.

[2]



I'd shake my head confidently and say, "No, I'm going." I guess part of reaching your goals is just seeing yourself do it, one day at a time. My sociology teacher told me (the only teacher from which I ever earned a C ), just imagine yourself achieving your goals and before you know it, you'll look around and you'll have achieved them if you try hard enough and "work like a protestant". There's one thing I tell people when they ask me about UT. "So, Ben, how's UT?" My response is that it's a lot of work and that I'm probably going to be a victim of my own success (since my goals are high after I leave this place). But, still, I think to myself. In spite of all the hard work, blood, sweat and tears; I wouldn't give it up for the world. Being a Longhorn means something to me. Being a successful Longhorn means even more because of the prestige associated with UT. When I go on to "bigger and better" things,  where I came from will be taken into consideration. That's how it is.     

So, about totemism: "W.H.R. Rivers defined totemism as the combination of three elements (1) the social, which is the division of the tribe into totemic groups; (2) the psychological, which is the belief in a kinship between members of the clan; and (3) the ritual, which includes all the taboos and magical practices." [3]

As I was saying, there is a social "division of the tribe" of those who are longhorns or consider themselves to be see themselves as in and others as out. They want, some more than anything else, to be a Longhorn because of the associated social status of being a Longhorn. And who, in their right mind, doesn't want to say "HOOK 'EM" every once in a while. You're crazy if you don't think that sounds cool--or look cool for that matter. All the cool dudes, even the old ones, still do this. 

 
[4]

The Hook 'em sign: it goes something like this. 

The psychological belief in kinship aspect I'm not sure I so much agree with the kin part and truth be told, I'd rather not associate with half of the snot-nosed, silver spoon fed kids around campus. Maybe that's because I have family and have had the same friends since grade school who I still hang with in Austin. But there is a psychological aspect for me, too. I'd think less of myself if I were an Aggie. I know that sounds terrible, but it's true. This brings me to the taboo or ritual part of being a Longhorn. As the saying goes, "Don't mess with Texas." I find that to be a funny slogan since I normally say it to my Aggie friends, more than I say it to any one I see littering. Oh, and you see the Aggies driving their gas guzzling trucks, driving by themselves (with maybe a dog in the back) sporting the broken horns sign, as if that's supposed to mean the Aggie has defeated the Longhorn. This brings me to the ritual aspect of it. There is nothing, and I mean nothing,  I like more than getting in a cheap jab at an Aggie. I have friends who are Aggies and, believe it or not, they're pretty good guys. But even they know something about the Longhorn--it's a lot cooler than having Lassie as your mascot. Even more comical than Lassie, is the stories you'll hear Aggies tell you about how they named our Mascot. However, as Jim Nicar writes in the Daily Texan:

"Whatever the reason, UT's mascot was named by folks in Austin, not College Station." [5]

And so we can all pridefully stroll down the trail of success having bled, perspired and cried, telling tasteless Aggie jokes about the Aggie that lied.

Hook 'em!

















[1]http://www.theamundsons.com/photos/2006/texas%20longhorn%20with%20rose_1%202.jpg

[2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTUJSEFKSBE
[3]course anthology, 901
[4]http://www.texassports.com/image_lib/hookem_200.jpg
[5]]course anthology, 892

The Jungle Book

The Jungle Book



The Jungle Book

The Jungle Book 

The Jungle Book

The Jungle Book 

The Jungle Book

 [1]


In our North American society, life is reminiscant of the social environment of the animals in Rudyard Kipling's The Jungle Book. Just as there is an ever changing social structure, such as the one where Akayla loses rank in leadership as he gets old, and hierarchy amongst the jungle "people," so is there is the old U.S of A. Yet, even within the wolves, seemingly the top dogs, there are issues that trump social class. This is also the case in the US. An issue that affects even the alpha male wolf, the leader of the jungle microcosm, is that of aging. Getting old is an inevitability, yet you would think, that with our stigmas attached to it, that it was a choice (and a unsavory and unsightly one at that). In the jungle, as well as in our society, an aging person translates to a person being less desirable, less able and of a lessor value. Akela, the alpha male dog, is getting old and not every body appreciates him or respects him and so his leadership is changing. Shere Khan , who now has his own following, is not a fan of Akela: "for as Akela grew older and feebler the lame tiger had come to be great friends with the younger wolves of the Pack, who followed him for scraps, a thing Akela would never have allowed if he had dared to push his authority to the proper bounds. Then Shere Khan would flatter them and wonder that such fine young hunters were content to be led by a dying wolf and a man's cub." [1] In the jungle, it was practice that as soon as the lead wolf grew too old he would die or be killed and then a new lead wolf would be chosen, reign for a few years, and then suffer the same fate of his predecessor when he also became too old. That sounds awfully familiar. We continually replace people in our country with newer, younger, better people because the others are "too old." Well, how old is too old? "But remember, Akela is very old, and soon the day comes when he cannot kill his buck, and then he will be leader no more." [2] The jungle creatures equated hunting prowess with that of leadership ability and life worth. The ability to kill really did determine life worth, for if you could no longer hunt, not only could you no longer be the leader of the pack, but you could no longer live. 
Being old means being weaker. Apparently, according to the Jungle Book, it also means having less worth. The jungle culture was not one that respected their elders, despite the wisdom that came with it. The United States is also a culture in which we impose superficial judgments upon the aging people. Age descrimination runs rampant in the US, yet that practice seems to often fly under the radar. We have simply just gotten used to the idea that we like new and lively better than "old." Even if that means ignoring the experienced, and wise. I could give example after example of how American society loves to just cast off the old and the decrepit. They are a group is society that can simply be pushed to the side and ignored. And there is no way that we could see that they may have worthy insight or contribution. Not only are we a society that shuns the elderly as untouchables, but we worship youth in some ways. Case in point: celebrities. While there is pressure among the general public to stay young, it is virtually inescapable if you are famous. You are pressured (or at least desired) to be thin, have nice skin, get a face lift, surgery, injected toxins into your forehead, which have no doubt been tested on animals and that has now been found to seep into the brain and affect neurons, color your graying hair, wear a toupee or wig, get teeth implants, lift saggy breats, get a tummy tuck, use starvation diets, remove wrinkles, whiten your teeth, and the list goes on. Not only is this everlasting youth now the norm, it is almost a necessity. If you are famous and you don't try to minimize the effects of aging, you may very likely be viewed as over-the-hill has-been who no longer has any value, worth, and, most importantly, marketability. Whatever your job as an aging celebrity, you are usually replaceable. It is no problem to get a younger, fresher, hotter version of you. You, Version 2.0 Just as in the Jungle Book, people today in our country are disposable. Youth = Life. Old = Death. The "aging" celebrities know this, and so did Akela: "It is certain that I must die, and my life is of no worth." [3]
 The below youtube is a depiction of the wise wolf's dilemma of aging: 

[4]

"What is the Law of the Jungle? Strike first and then give tongue. By the very carelessness they know that thou art a man. But be wise. It is in my heart that when Akela misses his next kill--and at each hunt it costs him more to pin the buck--the Pack will turn against him and against thee." [5]The world of the rich and famous is a dog eat dog world. And just as in the jungle, in our country, when someone is no longer in the in-crowd, it really is as if just about everyone has turned against them. When it comes to modern fame, you are either in or out. And that fame is usually unpredictable and fleeting. In fact, this is so much the case, that many people would rather be notorious or infamous rather than be forgotten or not famous at all. As the celebrity saying refers to bad press: "any press is good press." Such is this desperate society: many people dead-set not to be nobodies. That's just it. Maybe they'd rather be dead than be nobodies, left with a legacy of any sort as long is their remembered well... sort of like today's martyr's or military "heros". But Kipling's views seems to be if so many people determine their worth from their fame, and we don't view old people as having worth, then how can they view themselves worthy when they no longer have fame because they are old? Growing old is like a death-sentence in our society, on many levels: "When a leader of the Pack has missed his kill, he is called the Dead Wolf as long as he lives, which is not long." [6]In the US, that time between "growing old" and dying (you know "the golden years") is no-man's land. Just as Kipling aptly put it, being old is this society is like being a dead-man walking. I think this has more to do with what people do when they're old or, in the case of my grandmother, what you think you can do. Her 89 years hasn't kept her from getting up everyday and taking it as it comes. I've taken this much as a lesson from my old grandmother. And while Kipling made these sorts of implications in his writings in the Jungle Book, he also left behind a telling reflection of what made him feel as if "alive" in his old age when he wrote about his son Jack who was killed by an exploding mortar shell.  Sometimes a memory is all we have, but that's enough to get us through the day.

[7]

[1]http://www.akayla.com/picts/AKAYLA5a.jpg
[2]The Jungle Book, (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Ed. LTD)  24
[3]The Jungle Book, 24
[4]http://youtube.com/watch?v=pNeHObm4pyU
[5]The Jungle Book, 36

[6]The Jungle Book, 26
[7]http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_04/kippoemMS2710_228x625.jpg Also, 2nd story (parallism analysis of Kipling)....

Alice Killed Mill!

Tweedles, not tea. . .  


When Alice is confronted by the ludacris arguments of Tweedledee and Tweedledum, I can't help but think of my own life. "I know they are talking nonsense," Alice thought to herself: "and it's foolish to cry about it." So she brushed away her tears, and went on, as cheerfully as she could. "[1] Alice knows that what the Tweedles are telling her is absolutely ridiculous, yet she still lets it bother her. She knows that they trying to convince her of something she knows to be an absurdity, and at first she let's them. She knows in her mind what it going on, but she lets them get her all riled up to the point of tears. This reminds me of some of the people I have encountered in my own life who have doubted my abilities or will to achieve what I want to. I have heard the arguments of those people and, just like Alice, I have recognized their ridiculousness, but I have still not yet let their statements get to me. I have not let them bother me and let them fester like a boil until I just couldn't take it any more. Poor Alice, in all the confusion and silliness, was reduced to tears. She knows what is right, in spite of the fact she is surrounded by morons trying to convince her otherwise. If you listen to people's unfounded criticisms and attacks on yourself long enough and hard enough you just might believe what they say.  You know what they say is bordering on the verge of absurdity and even insanity but you let it get you down.  It's true, Alice moves on from this attack without much issue, but not without crying over it first. And to move on from it, she had to cheerfully (as cheerfully as she could) change the subject, get back on her horse and move on.

Poor Alice, I can relate with the ridiculous and confounding conversations abound in her journey in Wonderland. Alice must feel that these characters are just being confusing and talking in circles just for the fun of it, just to give her a hard time. They speak in puzzles and riddles, and almost everyone even manages to get in a poem (and Alice makes it pretty clear that she hasn't the patience nor the desire to listen to any more  poems). Nonetheless, Alice feels compelled to go through to the the eigth square and becomed queened. Maybe she understands that in order to achieve something great, you have to go through some trying and confusing times. I understand this, too. Just like Alice I have ran out in the crossfire.
Another particulary vexing conversation is when Alice has made it to the eight sqaure and become queened. Here she finds two other queens, The Red and The White. So, now we have three queens together trying to have a conversastion. Talk about divas! The two other queens challenge Alice every chance they get. One of them tells her to speak only when spoken to. Then they ask her if she knows how to do arithmetic. Of course, not being content with her affimation that she does indeed, they decide to test her. They bombard her with Wonderland math problems and silly riddles. Alice, of course, being from a different land, doesn't understand their "logic." They seem to enjoy the fact that Alice either can't answer the questions or gets them wrong. And to add insult to injury, the Red Queen says, "Wrong, as usual." [2] The gloating pair like to exploit, especially in unision: “She can’t do sums a bit!” the Queens said together, with great emphasis. “ [3] Even when you read this passage silently to yourself, you can practically hear their smugness and superior tone. You can practically see them patting themselves on the back at their ability to find someone seemingly even more ignorant than them and then revel in their self-righeousness. I guess the only way some people feel good about themselves is if they put other people down. However, Alice manages to turn the tables and put the queens on the spot by asking them if they can do sums. Alice “didn’t like being found fault with so much” [4], so she asserted herself and questioned them. And what intersting thing should happen? Well, we find out the queens aren’t so smart and able after all.  

By the time Alice is at the queens’ dinner party, she has had just about enough of all the nonsense and frustration. Alice finally snaps and takes matters into her own hands at banquet table of her coronation party. It is HER party after all, and she'll cry if she wants to. But does she cry? No. "I can't stand this any longer!" she cried, as she jumped up and seized the table-cloth with both hands: one good pull, and plates, dishes, guests, and candles came crashing down together in a heap on the floor." [5] And now comes the wrath of Alice: "And as for you," she went on, turning fiercely upon the Red Queen, whom she considered as the cause of all the mischief." [6] At this point, Alice is such in a tizzy that she pays no mind to the fact that the Red Queen has just shrunk. "At any other time, Alice would have felt surprised at this, but she was far too much excited to be surprised at anything now. "As for you, " she repeated, catching hold of the little creature, "I'll shake you into a kitten, that I will." [7] Alice proceeds to shake her "backwards and forwards with all her might." [8] In this dinner-party scene, Alice takes a huge step. She went past the point of no return here. She decided to put her foot down and put an end to all the absurdities and talking in circles. She just had to show everybody who was boss, or rather that she could be boss. Alice decided that she was no longer going to let these strange creatures dictate her each and every move. She decided she wasn't going to let them affect her so. No more curious creatures were going to bother her again or pull the wool over her eyes. Is it coincidence that after Alice furiously shakes the Red Queen she then finds herself free from the nightmarish Wonderland? It seems to me that Alice had something to prove, something to conquer, other than just a game of chess. Once Alice shows her assertiveness and assures the silly characters that she does have power after all, then they truly can never bother her again. She was finally freed from the red fury angered by the chains of illogical nonsense, chaos and all the frustration and angst that goes with it. Yet Alice goes on, shaken, to turn the page. 

 [10]

 I guess the old saying is true: "That which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger." Alice found that out and I think I find that to have more truthfulness to it every day. I've been shaken like Alice in a chess game many times at work

[11]

[1] http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/VSA/Dawn/project2/index_files/image020.jpg

[2] Alice 189

[3] Alice, 251

[4] Alice, 244

[5] Alice, 244

[6] Alice, 244

[7] Alice, 266

[8] Alice, 266

[9] Alice, 267

[10] http://www.bulletsofautumn.com/vurt-feather/vurtimages/alice.jpg

[11]http://www.ebbemunk.dk/alice/91red_queen.jpg

Dobie's Beast of Burden

[1]

Seen above: The Mustang statue at the Texas Memorial Stadium

Dobie's Mustang

Don't get me wrong. I like the mustang statue at Texas Memorial Museum seen above but it doesn't give me the same inspiration as the Longhorn. I'm surprised Frank Dobie had any love left over for the Longhorn after he was done doting over the Mustangs. He says, "Like the longhorn, the mustang has virtually bred out of existence but mustang horses will always symbolize western frontiers, long trails of longhorn herds, seas of pristine grass, and men riding in a free land. ' [1]Somehow, I think he manages to diminish the Longhorn in lieu of his boyhood ideal of the Mustang. Like most Cowboys, Dobie seems to exaggerate throughout his text which is typical of the "historians" of the time and region. He seems to think that it was horses that gave him his "freedom" from the Indians. Another Cowboy, John Bainbridge, wrote it differently,

"The Indians, moreover, won out in the battle for survival They devised winning battle plans and strategies out of their commitment to retaining their way of life. The Spaniards held the advantage while they alone possessed horses and superior weapons, but by the early seventeenth century, the Plains Indians were the match of any other horsemen. They could swoop in, raid, pillage, kill, and then flee from the stationary outpost of European civilization. The Indians planned their attacks so as to enjoy numerical strength. And they had no villages to be defended or large armies to be defeated. Their constant raiding, thus, weakened the white man's hold on the frontier. " [2]


The Mustang is not, as Dobie claims,  a symbol of [Western] freedom that happened upon us because we're from this side of the planet, "No one who truly conceives him as only a potential servant to man can apprehend the mustang. The true conceiver must be a lover of freedom - a person who yearns to extend freedom to all life. "  Rather, it is a cross-cultural symbol that stands took place when the Spanish explorers and the colonial settlers discovered America. It's a remanent of the past, but it doesn't belong to any certain side or entity. The sense of entitlement to the mustang seems sort of silly when he's saying, at the same time, "a person who yearns to extend freedom to all life."  In the below video, J. Dobie extends his thoughts of freedom in cyberspace. Listening to his thoughts remind us how far we've come:

[4]

I guess before I put Dobie's argument about the Mustang belonging in Longhorn territory to rest, I could also say that though Dobie has been somewhat 'bred out of existence', that he's still with us in spirit in my blog. I don't mean there on your blog space, "But here, beautiful and free, he lives for the centuries to come" [5] as well as at Texas Memorial Museum. In light of Harry Ramsom's quote his memory is left here highly regarded.

"I think Frank Dobie was one of the greatest teachers the University of Texas ever had, . . . . on of the truly great natural historians.. . . And this insight into nature, I think, needs to be continued as a Dobie tradition here if the University is really going to realize its own promise."

- Harry Ransom
























[1]http://www.utexas.edu/student/cmhc/intern/Images/horses.gif
[2] Course anthology, Dobie 840
[3] John Baimbridge, The Super-Americans (Garden City, New York: Double Day, 1961)

[4] Course anthology, Dobie 846

[5]

http://z.about.com/d/austin/1/0/3/9/tmm4.jpg

Interpreting Kipling. . .

Kipling's Kim

 [1]

Reading Kim reminded me of a Thomas Hardy poem called Welcome Home.

Welcome Home by Thomas Hardy

To My native place

Bent upon returning;

Bosom all day burning

To be where my race

Well were known, 'twas much with me

The to dwell in amity 

     Folk had sought their beds,

     But I hailed: to view me

     Under the moon, out to me

     Several pushed their heads,

And to each I told my name,

Plans, and that therefrom I came.

  "Did you? . . . Ah, 'tis true

I once heard, back a long time,

Here had spent his young time,

Some such man as you. . . 

Good-night."     The casement closed 

  again,

And I was left in the Frosty lane. [2 ] 

As much as I like the cold feeling I'm left with after reading Hardy's poetry, I felt it necessary to read biographical information on Kipling to warm my perspective on Kim. It seems there is an interesting parallel between Kim and Kipling. Kipling was sent to England to be educated and upon his arrival recieved quite a cold welcoming from the Brits. Further, my analysis reveals a hegemonic relationship between Britain and India that mirrors  Kim and the Lama....  Kipling was born in Bombay, India, on December 30, 1865 and contributed significantly to literary genres of short story, poetry and novel. [3 ] He came from a wealthy family, his father holding the post of Professor of Architectural Sculpture at the Bombay School of Art; his mother was also accomplished.  When his parents decided to sent him to England where he lived the next six years detached from the direct influence of the Indian culture; he became deeply affected by "beatings and general victimization."  [4 ]Kim's character portrays the exploitation England and its imposition of greed leading to British government in India and similarly Kim is caught in a situation resembling world politics.

After reading the beginning of Kim it became apparent: Kim is the parallel of England and colonization and the progressive idea imposing its imperialism through any means necessary, including deceit, theft and lying.  Like Gandhi , Kipling seemed to hold similar ethical standards to Buddhism and there are lessons to be learned in Kim.  My guess is while Kipling's childhood represented Kim in the Novel to an extent, Kim's broader characteristics play an important role in portraying British colonization. Further, If we analyze one of Kipling's poems we may find his characteristics representing certain philosophies as well. Below is one of the most inspiring short poems I've ever heard; it rings of a connection with India and some of the religious philosophies within the country:

 [5]

In a way I think this poem applies to Kim, Kipling himelf, Britain... and us... or... U.S. within   the entangled web that comprises the dynamic aspect of imperialism and  coaxed relationships established presently, but require resolution. For some reason (if we're going by my analysis), Kipling seems to put the onus England's actions and the dynamics of the world and its divided relationships as a whole.

 

Imagining a world that abided by the lyrics in the poem of  If, our world, I think, would be as close to complete harmony as possible (though I'm not sure how fun that'd be). It'd definitely make my life in this imperialist world more exciting If I could, if only imaginatively, compare the current world to one that followed the basic philosophy in Kipling's If.  If Kim represents a country, then he is European superiority with the Lama obliged to obey, "The Lama rose obediently, and they passed out of the serai like shadows.''[6] There seems to be quite a few innuendos riddled throughout this text, but I'm not sure what Kipling meant by them exactly. Speculation would have us believe resentment towards the Englishmen were present, but also within' Kipling to a degree. However, this is hard to believe. Unless he hides his resentment well... 

  [7]

Reading Kim also struck peevishly my social class nerve and my subsequent redundancy radar went off. Of course these things exist, particularly in novels, but it's so obvious in Kim that it's seemingly emphasized intentionally to exacerbate the divisive effect between European colonization and India at the time. It's also apparent in his dialogue, 'For here is always war along the Borde,' rumbled a deep voice. 'For there is always war along the border--as I know." [8] Additionally, almost annoyingly abundant is Kipling's savage depictions of lama and others, `Ho, shameless beggars!' shouted the farmer. `Begone! Get hence!' [9] He goes on, `But thou hast said he was low-caste and discourteous.' And yet once again, The man shuffled uneasily in his slippers. `The land is full of beggars,' he began, half apologetically. [10] When I finally got to chapter eight, I joyously found myself daydreaming about Victorian Literature class.

 [11]

 [12]

 

 [13]

And  I'm left with thinking  the key to repetition is finding new ways to repeat the same thing. In this case, we should take a note from Kipling's message in Kim..... which I think eventually will be a moral lesson. Although I haven't finshed the novel, I think it's going to have more than one parallel. The good authors can imply many things with one character, scenario language or setting...

Strangely enough this view leaves me listening over and over to If, one of my favorite poems... now.




















1http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/images/kipling-fb-image.jpg
2 Hardy Thomas, Late Lyrics and Earlier; (London: Macmillan and Co., LTD 1922) 25
3 http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/1457/biograph.htm

4http://www.geocities.com/athens/aegean/1457/biograph.htm

5 Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 35

6 http://www.old-picture.com/american-history-1900-1930s/pictures/Rudyard-Kipling.jpg

7Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 37

8 http://www.mind-control-method.com/rep.gif

9Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 34

10 Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 34

11Kipling Rudyard, Kim, (Mineola, New York: Dover Publications Inc. 2005) 34

12http://www.mind-control-method.com/rep.gif 

13http://www.thomevans.com/images/gal4/Repetition.jpg

The Light of Asia

Arnold's Vision

[1]

India possesses historical records dating as far back as fourteen centuries before the Christian era. [2 ] Little is known of the history of its original inhabitants, though it is believed they are, to some degree, represented by various tribes. At some point in recent centuries, Hindu has poured and gradually "dislodged the possessor of the soil." [3] Additionally, the English took control of India before Arnold wrote his poem The Light of India, but Indian mutiny reached the news of England July of 1857. Shortly after, however, the mutiny was quelled. In spite of this, Arnold had his own vision of India. Arnold wanted to convey, " to his countrymen in England, in the language native to them, the vision he had seen of India, of her glory that was bygone--bygone only to reemerge in brighter hues."[4]

Arnold's compassion for India is not only telling of his fondness of the country, but also the influence its history of Buddhism had on him (that is, if we're to analyze the meaning of his poem). Arnold writes, 

"Buddha will go again to help the World."

"Yea! spake He, "now I go to help the World."

This last of many times; for birth and death

End hence for me and those who learn my Law

I will go down among the Sakyas, 

Under the southward snows of Himalay,

Where pious people live an d a just King." [5]

Perhaps the impiousness Arnold refers to is the the British stronghold in India. The Indian Mutiny sealed the fate of the East India Company. The overarching extension of the British Empire in India had suggested its desire to bring the Indian administration directly under the crown. The government of India was transferred to the crown and the East India Company, seen below, later ceased to exist.

  [6]East India House is a vast edifice; it was originally founded in 1726, but was in 1798 so much altered and enlarged as to become almost an entire new building; it comprises the principal offices of the East India Company, and contains several noble apartments.

Arnold seemed to have wanted a different India than that of his time,

"Thus spake he, and Yasodhara, for joy, 

Scarce mastered breath to answer: "Be it well

Now and at all times with ye,  worhty friends,

Who bring good tiding; but of hits great thing

Wist ye how it befell?" [7]

There are many things to be interpreted within The Light of Asia.  In the below YouTube video is a poetic retelling of the life of Buddha and Arnold's vision for India. 

 [8]

Interestingly enough, as much as Arnold liked India, the feelings didn't seem to be mutual towards the British, "Yet how imperfectly these promises have been fulfilled". [9] 

The Queen assumed the august title of Empress of India, her Viceroy, Lord Lytton, declared the Delhi Imperial assemblage on January 1 1877.  She spake, "You the natives of India, whatever your race and whatever our creed, have recognised claim to share largely with your English fellow subjects, according to your capacity for the task, in the administration of the country you inhabit." [10]

Not only is the Queen playing religious politics here; seemingly, if we examine the era, the Queen couldn't get enough people to share wealth with her. However, the people of India did give her the below painting to fulfill her neediness of material excess:

    [11] 

"The title Empress of India was given to Queen Victoria in 1877 when India was formally incorporated into the British Empire. It is said Victoria's desire for such a title was motivated partially out of jealousy of the Imperial titles of some of her royal cousins in Germany and Russia. Prime minister Benjamin Disraeli is usually credited with having given her the idea. When Victoria died and her son Edward VII ascended the throne, his title became Emperor of India. The title continued until India became independent from the United Kingdom in 1947." [12]

Queen Victoria seemed to possess selfish intentions, but at least Arnold's were in the right place as he seemingly adhered to the Buddhist philosophy,

"Take of our store, great sir!" and "Take of ours!"

Marking his godlike face and eyes enwrapt;

And mothers, when they saw our Lord go by,

Would bid their children fall to kiss his feet, 

And lift his robe's hem to their brows, or run

To fill his jar, and fetch him milk and cakes

And oftimes as he paced, gentle and slow,

Radian with heavenly pity, lost in care

For those he knew not, save as fellow-lives

With his poem Light of Asia, Arnold leaves questions that would later come involving difficulties of future relationships, material excess and India's success,

 

"It is greatly to be hoped and wished that this royal visit to India will be productive of great and lasting good, that it will remove obstacles and prejudices from the naive mind, and esablish friendly and harmonious relations cement more firmly than ever our alliances with native princes, and implant in the heart of our illustrious Prince principles that magnitude and gravity the whole matter requires."[13]

 [14]

And now I'm left pondering the principles of Buddhism and the point of Arnold's poem. . . 

1 http://www.moonpointer.com/media/2/20070730-loa.jpg

2 Norwood Samuel, Rise of Supremacy in Hindustan, (Jaipur India: Arihant Publishers, 1989) 9

3Norwood Samuel, Rise of Supremacy in Hindustan, (Jaipur India: Arihant Publishers, 1989) 10

4 Course anthology 

5 Course anthology

6 http://www.victorianlondon.org.html

7 Course anthology

8 http://youtube.com/watch?v=XL5L2-CFkMM

9 Dutt Romesh C, England and India "(New Delhi India: Mutgal Publications 1897) 151

10

Dutt Romesh C, England and India "(New Delhi India: Mutgal Publications 1897) 151
11 http://www.indhistory.com/img/queen-victoria.jpg
12 http://www.indhistory.com/queen-of-england.html

[13] 

2 Norwood Samuel, Rise of Supremacy in Hindustan, (Jaipur India: Arihant Publishers, 1989) 330

[14]

http://www.great-buddha-statue.com/great_buddha_statue.jpg