The United States Free Trade Agreement with Colombia

The Colombian Free Trade Agreement with the United States is a treaty that envisions opening up the market in both countries to eliminate barriers in the international commerce of goods and services. This agreement was first signed in November 12, 2006 and it was recently passed in October 12, 2011, but despite the fact that it brings some benefits to both countries it is my belief that these advantages are insignificant when compared to the massive disadvantages the treaty will bring.

The following are some of the benefits that Colombia will receive after signing the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the United States. First of all, the FTA will open for Colombia the world’s largest market in goods and services. Second, the FTA will bring stability to Colombia, and as some recent studies show, it will benefit the economy by raising the number of exports and by providing more jobs. Four years from now, Colombia will be a more competitive country and it will be substantially more open to the world, with a more mature productive sector, and with better conditions to attract foreign investments.¹

Moreover, in the past years, Colombians had had to pay over $ 9 million in custom duties for their products to come into the States, but now as a result of the FTA, about 99% of Colombian products in the United States will be duty-free immediately. Products coming from the United States will be cheaper (since they won’t be required to pay custom duties as well) therefore the consumers, the most benefitted group, will have more options concerning quality and price; therefore the Colombians’ purchasing power will increase significantly. ¹

Respectively, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission, ratifying the Colombia trade agreement would mostly benefit the United States by making 80 percent of U.S. exports to Colombia duty-free immediately and by phasing out the remaining tariffs over 10 years.² The duty-free goods include almost all products in these sectors: agriculture and construction equipment, aircraft and parts, auto parts, fertilizers and agro-chemicals, information technology equipment, medical and scientific equipment, and wood.

Moreover, the U.S.–Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) is estimated to support more American jobs, increase U.S. exports, and enhance U.S. competitiveness. The FTA would allow U.S. corporations to extend patents on medicines, a prioritization of profit over access to health care.³ In summary, the agreement will provide significant new access to Colombia’s $166 billion services market, supporting increased opportunities for U.S. service providers. As a result, there will be an increase U.S. exports to Colombia by $1.1 billion (or 13.7 percent).

As we have previously seen, there are some very good advantages for both countries. However, several disadvantages are something inevitable in these kinds of agreements, and unfortunately, they outgrow the advantages in this case.

Since 1991, due to the Andean Trade Promotion Act, almost 90% of the Colombian products that go into the United States are already duty-free; therefore, by signing the agreement, only the remaining 9% of the products will become duty- free. However, by signing the FTA the States will be able to remove 80% of their products’ custom duties. This makes the U.S. products cheaper than Colombian products; therefore many Colombian small businesses will go bankrupt. Furthermore, as shown by extensive research, “the FTA would push Colombia to lower minimum wage, and remove or reduce guarantees for overtime pay, collective bargaining and worker’s compensation. According to the Pan-American Health Organization, the FTA would raise annual medicinal costs for Colombians by $900 million.” But also, intellectual property rights provisions would place patents on traditional medicinal knowledge and natural resources, rendering traditional medicinal practices illegal.⁴ Needless to say that Colombians will suffer a detriment because it is estimated that the FTA will also make the investment in Colombia decrease by 4.5 percent.

According to the organization Witness for Peace, if anyone benefits from the FTA it is the drug traffickers because “when growing food becomes unsustainable, some farmers turn to cultivating illicit crops like cocaine.” They also declare that the FTA not only benefits drug traffickers but also national and multinational corporations that exploit natural resources because the FTA proposes reforms that give them the right to challenge environmental protection, public health, and public safety laws in Colombia because they are “barriers to trade.”

It is obvious that the FTA does not benefit those that it is supposed to such as small farmers, but instead, it is estimated that “without protections from U.S. agricultural imports subsidized by the U.S. government to the tune of $24 billion per year, Colombian small farmers are projected to lose 16% of their income.” Undoubtedly, the FTA will accelerate displacement, and since land inequality in Colombia is among the highest in Latin America, (Colombia’s 5 million internally displaced people represent the world’s third largest displacement crisis) “the FTA will worsen this problem by accelerating land expropriation to benefit large-scale agro-export industries.”

The FTA also brings disadvantages to Afro-descendant and indigenous peoples because as noted by Trans Africa Forum and the Michigan Citizen “it requires changes to the Colombian Constitution that would deny indigenous populations’ communal landholding status. It would also harm Afro-Colombians, who make up 26% of the population and are disproportionally being displaced from their resource-rich lands.”

For the first few years, the FTA might be beneficial to Colombia because it will remove 9% of our product’s custom duties. Nevertheless, Colombian products will be in great competition in the United States as well because the United States is signing free trade agreements with several other nations, therefore the Colombian products will be in great disadvantage in comparison to the other countries’ products and this will affect severely the commercial scale between Colombia and the United States. 

Unfortunately, the disadvantages are not only for the Colombian people, but also for the U.S. citizens. “Job loss in the US”, A September 2010 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 69% of Americans think “free trade agreements between the United States and other countries cost U.S. jobs.” This is the article reply: “They’re right: The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Colombia FTA will result in the loss or displacement of 55,000 U.S. jobs. Never one to rely on facts, Bush skipped over the reality that increased trade flow only benefits an economy as long as it doesn't lead to unsustainable deficits.”

 It is not without foundation that most Americans think that free trade agreements cost U.S. jobs because as seen in 1993, a small pre-NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) U.S. trade surplus with Mexico reversed into a $91 billion deficit in 2007, while a pre-NAFTA deficit with Canada grew exponentially.  Most Americans also saw the result as well. A 69.1% increase in the U.S. combined trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, from $24 billion in 1993 to $190 billion in 2007.

In reality, and opposite to what most FTA supporters have said, unemployment in the United States will rise by 1.8 percentage points, which represents a loss of 460,000 jobs. The Gross domestic product will fall 4.5 percent, and poverty will climb 1.4 points. A very insightful website named “The Rag Blog” made by Americans who don’t see the FTA benefits also declared that “Trade affects the composition of jobs, not the total number.” According to The Rag Blog “three million net U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost under NAFTA”, therefore they mock the job creation claim saying that it is “particularly sly, as economists know that total employment numbers and unemployment rates are not typically affected by trade policy, but by central bankers who set interest rates.”

In fact, they say economists define labor force growth as simply income growth minus productivity growth. But instead, what trade policy actually affects is the composition of jobs in the economy, in particular tradable sectors like manufacturing. The Rag Blog also declares” the original claim by NAFTA boosters in 1993 that the pact would lead to 170,000 annual U.S. job gains was premised on the projection that the U.S. would have a growing trade surplus with Mexico” which never happened. They explain:

U.S. manufacturing employment declined from 16.8 million people in 1993 to 13.9 million people in 2007, a decrease of nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs, nearly 20% of the total. Moreover, today's $190 billion U.S. trade deficit with NAFTA countries -- as a simple accounting matter -- equals manufacturing jobs that could have been here. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that the U.S. could have had over 1 million additional manufacturing jobs had there been trade balance between NAFTA countries alone, or no NAFTA at all. ⁵

From what we have previously observed by the research on the advantages and disadvantages of the Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the United States we can conclude that (unlike my previous thesis) it does not benefit either the United States or Colombia better than the other, but it brings equal amounts of disadvantages to both, and the reason why it is being passed is not for the benefit of the majority but for the benefit of a small elite which also controls media and makes it seem like “it’s a great deal.”

Bibliography

1. “Beneficios del TLC entre Colombia y Estados Unidos.”Portafolio. Accessed 06 December 2011. Available.

 http://www.portafolio.co/negocios/beneficios-del-tlc-colombia-y-estados-unidos

2. Economic Benefits of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.” NCPA. Accessed 06 December 2011. Available.

 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba632

3. “U.S.- Colombia Trade Agreement.” Office of the United States Trade Representative. Accessed 06 December 2011. Available.

http://www.ustr.gov/uscolombiatpa

4. “Colombia- U.S. Free Trade Agreement.” Witness for Peace. Accessed 06 December 2011. Available

http://www.witnessforpeace.org/downloads/Witness%20for%20Peace%20Fact%20Sheet_FTA%20with%20Colombia_2011.pdf

5. “Colombia and the TLC: just who benefits from ‘free trade’?” The Rag Blog. Accessed 06 December 2011. Available.

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2010/03/colombia-and-tlc-just-who-benefits-from.html

Comparing and Contrasting John Donne and George Herbert's Poetry

Through the ages, John Donne and George Herbert have been known as one of the best metaphysical English poets, and despite the fact that they had different styles and taste for poetry, both coincide in their art of mirroring their emotions to the rhythm, the meter and the rhyme scheme of their works, adding greater meaning and value to their masterpieces.

John Donne’s Batter My Heart and George Herbert’s The Collar are very similar in meaning because in both poems, the poets struggle with their faith, and although they have different conflicts, both end up submitting to the Lord.

At the beginning of the poem Batter My Heart, metaphysical poet John Donne declared his desire to be made new by God, even though he knew perfectly that this implied his being torn into pieces.  Then, passionately, he described the atrocity of his sin and compared it to a “usurp’d town to another due” and described himself as “betroth’d unto your enemy”, that is, God’s enemy. He admitted that he was in great need of God’s redemption, therefore he asked Him to divorce him from sin, for he felt engaged to Satan. And finally, the poet admitted that he would never be pure nor free unless God made him so.

Similarly to the first poem, The Collar by George Herbert, is about a man who was in desperate need for God, but who on the contrary, did not acknowledge this necessity for Him. The weary poet expressed his desire to obey no more; he said: “I will abroad.” He was going to cease lamenting and wondering with regret what his life would have looked like had he not walked in the ways of the Lord. All his life he had always been an obedient, submissive sheep, but now he regretted the times when he had had wine before him and did not try it; he remembered there were merry times, but he wasted them.  The poet was utterly convinced that his life was boring and full of forbearance from all the pleasures of this world, so he said: “Recover all thy sight-blown age On double pleasures: leave thy cold dispute Of what is fit, and not. Forsake thy cage, Thy rope of sands.” He decided he was going to delight on double pleasures and forsake the ways of the Lord to whom he had devoted his life before. Joan Bennett comments on the meaning of this poem and says: “The Collar, which is this poem's title, is an emblem of servitude. The poem moves through rebellion against his Master to the sudden recognition that the freedom he is claiming is freedom from God's love: ‘But as I raved and grew more fierce and wild At every word, Me thought I heard one calling, Child! And I replied, My Lord.’ His poetry is not the record of quiet saintliness, but of continual wrestling and continual submission; the collar is not easily worn.”¹ 
            Despite the different approaches, we see that these poems are very similar in meaning. However, when it comes to vocabulary, emotion and tone, the poems display striking differences. In the poem Batter My Heart we are taken aback when in the last two sentences Donne expresses two strong paradoxes regarding the same subject. He says: “Except you enthral me, never shall [I] be free” which makes sense because human nature is always  slave to something, either to sin, or to righteousness (God).. Therefore the only way that we can be free from the bonds of Satan is if God makes us His slaves. The second paradox is yet more perplexing, for written with the same purpose and expressing the same idea, it has a deeper connotation, and at first glance appears repulsive. It says: “nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.” Undoubtedly, Donne’s poems were meant to make a very strong impression on its readers.

The poem The Collar is evidently very rich in vocabulary as well, but instead of employing paradoxes, Herbert uses elaborate puns that we encounter even before the first line of poetry: in the very title. In the most basic line of meaning, a collar is a band that one uses to chain animals. In this poem, the poet is the animal being held captive in a cage and by a collar. However, the collar could also stand for a clerical collar that priests use to identify them as such. This should not surprise us because Herbert was a priest. But there is a greater meaning behind the title that we must uncover. The title “The Collar” could be re-written as “The Caller” or “the Calling” that God makes to draw him back to himself, displaying that he is not a divine lawgiver, but a tender, loving father.

Moreover, when scanning the poems there is a great contrast between Donne’s and Herbert’s style. For example, when scanning John Donne’s Batter My Heart we can see that he writes some words that are meant to be read slowly and emphatically such as “heart, Three-person’d God”,  “knock, breathe, shine” and “break, blow, burn.” Regarding these frequent instances of consecutive stressed words Josephine Miles says: “All these active verbs, these references to time and good, to body and soul, these addresses, these metered and firmly rhymed exhortations, make up the woof, the basic weave, of Donne's poetry. His theme of love, both earthly and divine, is given a body and a duration and a value by the explicit argument of the verse.”² Needless to say, Donne is using this emphatic rhythm to allude to the title “Batter My Heart” because these stressed words sound as if someone were actually stroking his heart repeatedly with a bat. These repetitions give the poem an emotional connotation, for he is mimicking, with the sound of the verse, what is actually happening to his soul, and this is precisely the action that must take place so that he can be made new.

In contrast to Batter My Heart, Herbert does not use a rhythm that resembles almost onomatopoeically the sound of the words, but instead, Herbert uses the rhythm in The Collar to resemble his ideas. The simplistic two-foot lines appear when he is pondering “all wasted?”or stating simple things like “I will abroad” and “away; take heed.”

When comparing and contrasting the rhyme scheme, we notice that the first part of the poem Batter My Heart is quite orderly. The poem is certainly made up of approximate rhymes; however, it follows a pattern of A-B-B-C-C-D-D in the first stanza. Then, in the second stanza, everything becomes mindless of rhyme until it reaches a strikingly perfect G-G rhyme at the end. Doubtless, this structure was made intentionally to portray the author’s emotions from within as he moves in a transition from his desire to be made new, the despicability of his sin, and his helplessness that finds an answer in God.

            Regarding rhyme scheme as well, I personally divide the poem The Collar into three separate parts. When Herbert is describing his dilemma, there is chaos in the rhyme scheme, which certainly resembles his troubled mind. Then, when he is making up his mind to break the chain that has held him captive to the ways of God, his rhyme scheme is still a disaster, however, we see that his lines are almost in steady meter. Finally, after he appears completely armed with every possible argument to apostate the divine law, he suddenly gives up as he remotely hears God calling him “child”, thus the poem ends with perfect iambic meter and an A-B-A-B regular, rhyme scheme.

In respect to meter, not surprisingly, the two poems coincide in almost everything as the authors are trying to portray the restlessness of their souls. Like a genuinely troubled person, the author of Batter My Heart did not do the slightest effort to write the poem in iambic pentameter. In fact, almost half of the poem is submerged into what I would call a mess in meter because there are lines with three and a-half feet, four and a-half feet, and five and a-half feet. And there are only a few lines that are written in decent iambic pentameter. This irregularity in meter is even more evidence of the parallelism between the meaning of the poem and the structure of the poem itself.  And, as expected, in the last two lines we can appreciate perfect meter which attests to the fact that the author is back in harmony with his soul because he rests assured that God will answer his plea. There is no doubt that the arrangement in meter throughout the poem is intentional.

Regarding meter in the poem The Collar, we see that despite the fact that it initiates with a few anapests such as “as the road” and “but a thorn” the poem turns out to be basically iambic. However, we should not be surprised that when Herbert starts to uncoil his line of reason, the poem structure also breaks down into chaos. No longer do we see iambic pentameters, but we encounter two-iamb foots almost every other line starting from the second stanza all the way to the very end.

To be sure, both poems are divided into three main parts. The first is somewhat orderly in rhyme scheme, meter and rhythm, then the second part is complete chaos, but the third part is peaceful. This was how the brilliant metaphysical poets John Donne and George Herbert decided to structure their poems and how, despite their differences in style, they successfully breathed life into their works.

Works Cited Page

1.      Joan Bennett, Four Metaphysical Poets: Donne, Herbert, Vaughan, Crashaw, 2nd ed. [book on-line] (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1953, accessed 28 November 2011), 54; available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=34662703; Internet.

2.      Josephine Miles, Eras & Modes in English Poetry [book on-line] (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1957, accessed 28 November 2011), 23; available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=165121; Internet.

i>Qu � a / ` G x�G 10 Dec. 2011.

Roy Walker, The Time Is out of Joint: A Study of Hamlet (London: Andrew Dakers, 1948) 19, Questia, Web, 11 Dec. 2011.

W. Thomas MacCary, Hamlet A Guide to the Play (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998) 83, Questia, Web, 11 Dec. 2011.

div;bo? � : o ` G x�G 1.0pt;mso-border-alt: solid white .25pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 31.0pt;margin-left:-36.0pt;margin-right: 0cm'>

G. L. Kittredge 1939, xviii-xix, cited in  Coursen, H. R. Macbeth A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15348086. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Coursen, H. R. Macbeth A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15348086. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Bloom, Harold, ed. William Shakespeare''s Macbeth. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98109508. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Hamlet

Hamlet, one of Shakespeare’s greatest plays, portrays what seems to be the strongest internal conflict in a single character. Prince Hamlet had some good reasons to act the way he did, such as his father’s murder and his mother Gertrude’s overhasty marriage to Claudius, the murderer. However, I believe the main reason why Hamlet acted like an immature child was because he was psychologically afflicted as a consequence of not succeeding his father to the throne.

It is very plain that the sudden knowledge about his father’s murder and his mother’s incest did upset Hamlet; nonetheless, I believe there are two reasons why this was not what mainly accounted for Hamlet’s actions (and inactions). First, I believe Hamlet’s misfortunes were overstated throughout the play, which is meant to dissuade from the other layers of meaning under the obvious surface.  And second, since the conflicts were alien to Hamlet’s person, that is, they involved him indirectly, it seemed to me that Hamlet was using these as an apparently legitimate excuse to be upset with the world; thus overshadowing the real conflict within him.

As it is, Hamlet did not succeed to the throne immediately after his father’s death because his uncle Claudius married his mother Gertrude, and not because Hamlet was not able to rule a kingdom. Nevertheless, this event had more catastrophic outcomes than we are often persuaded to acknowledge. In the psychological realm, not succeeding to the throne had two major effects on Hamlet. First, slowly but steadily, Hamlet began to swallow the destructive lie that he lacked the ability to rule. And second, he came to the strong realization that he was alone in his task of recovering the throne and purging Denmark from its rottenness.

As a result of the first psychological realization, Hamlet pledged to avenge his father, which demonstrated that unlike everyone’s belief, he was capable of something. However, his insecurity was stronger and he yielded to the belief of his powerlessness, leading him to the second realization: that nobody minded him. This sensation started by Hamlet’s observation that even though his father had died just two months ago, everyone seemed to have moved on, except for him. As Hamlet understood it, he was alone in the realization that Claudius’ and Gertrude’s marriage was incestuous and that his father was murdered. He agonized at the unhappy thought that despite him being the prince, he had been neglected. This, precisely, is what led him on to have existentialist thoughts such as the famous Shakespearean line “to be or not to be.”

While Hamlet reflected on his unhappiness and his unfortunate life, a dreadful idea crossed his mind. Since nobody cared about him he might as well act like a madman. Unknowingly, Hamlet began to act like a child not just by being mindless of the consequences of his actions, but by playing, and not just crazy. Hamlet decided to play with the feelings of others, the intelligence of others and finally, with everyone’s and his own life.

For the most part, Hamlet played crazy because he wanted attention as a result of feeling neglected despite his importance as prince. Hamlet wanted everyone to know how upset he was about his father’s death and his mother’s marriage. He feigned to be a madman in order to make everyone uneasy about his mental health, and consequently the future and wellbeing of the kingdom (since he was going to succeed Claudius). Not surprisingly, this method of making people aware of himself and aware of his suffering proved very effective for Hamlet. Everyone in Denmark had now become acquainted with the fact that he was a madman, and even the king found himself worried and sought to find the cause of Hamlet’s affliction. It was at this moment where Polonius, a flattering and foolish courtier fancied himself to know the cause of Hamlet’s affliction and congratulated himself on the fact that it was probably mad love for his daughter Ophelia.

Now, despite the fact that Ophelia and Hamlet had a separate story, Hamlet’s misery left not one of the aspects of his life untouched; consequently, “the beautified Ophelia”, as he once called her, fell victim of his childish game as well. There were two main reasons why Hamlet was disappointed on Ophelia.  First, she left him alone by returning his letters unopened and denying him admittance when he was afflicted by the ghost incident. And second, he found her pretending to read a prayerbook and using makeup when it was clear she was waiting for him. Thus, Hamlet assumed that she was as fake as all the others and a king’s puppet too (unsupportive of Hamlet’s recovery of the throne). What Hamlet did not understand was that poor Ophelia was just obeying her father’s commands and that she was happily deceived in the fact that the king was trying to find an antidote for Hamlet’s madness.

Clearly there was a huge misunderstanding, but this did not give Hamlet licence to torment innocent Ophelia with his frequent sexual comments and his scorn of the female role; in doing such he was acting like a child, mindless of the consequences. Thomas MacCary said: “He plays the madman most, when he treats Ophelia with so much rudeness, which seems to be useless and wanton cruelty." Hamlet’s treatment of Ophelia with contempt made her seek the more his approbation and his love (eventually leading to her madness), and she even risked her purity and virtue as shown during the scene of the play within a play.

Furthermore, Hamlet not only showed his childish attitude by playing with Ophelia’s feelings but also by playing with other courtiers such as her father Polonius and Osric. Richard Corum says: "it seems clear that, among other things, Hamlet is using camel, weasel, whale, and cloud to attack Polonius under the cover of his feigned madness."  Both nobles were certainly not very clever, but this did not give Hamlet the right of making fun of their want of wits. It seems Hamlet gained his sense of value and worth by slighting his own people, which resulted in both their deaths.

And finally, Hamlet shows his insecurity and childish mindset by his inaction. Despite the fact that he knew his father was murdered by his uncle since the very beginning, he resolved to kill him till the very end. Like a child, Hamlet spoke about his father with such love and admiration as there was no doubt his father was his hero and he hoped one day to become like him.  We even see the projection between the father and son as both bear the same name. But despite his admiration of his father and his promise to the ghost to avenge him, still like a child, Hamlet was still too noble and easy going to make up his mind to do something about Claudius. It seems he would rather spend his time in existentialist speeches. In light of this, Roy Walker says: “Hamlet is thus compelled, but can by no means find the form of action which will pass current in this world, a good that might overcome this evil. He is reduced to inaction; Hamlet's mind turns again to agonized contemplation of his powerlessness.”

Finally, as the end of the play approaches, there were two factors that successfully changed Hamlet’s mind. The first, Hamlet finally understood that death was unavoidable. He realized this at the scene in the graveyard, which’s purpose was to “relieve the tension before the catastrophe and to show that Hamlet is no longer concerned with the threat of damnation in an afterlife (MacCary 83). And second, his being acquainted with Ophelia’s death, caused by her madness made him realize the devastating consequences of his own contemptuous deeds and sparked in him a desire to move into action and purge Denmark from its festering evil.  

At last, Hamlet was able to live like a man and die like one too. Consequently, Fortinbras decided to give him a military funeral because he knew that had Hamlet been granted his rightful place in the throne, he would have proven “most royal.” In other words, had Hamlet been given the opportunity to assume a position requiring responsibility, he would have gotten rid of Denmark’s disease without the unnecessary death of Denmark’s courtiers, caused by Hamlet’s own childish games of feigned madness.

  

Works Cited Page

W. Thomas MacCary, Hamlet A Guide to the Play (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998) 102, Questia, Web, 11 Dec. 2011.

 Richard Corum, Understanding Hamlet A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998) 5, Questia, Web, 10 Dec. 2011.

Roy Walker, The Time Is out of Joint: A Study of Hamlet (London: Andrew Dakers, 1948) 19, Questia, Web, 11 Dec. 2011.

W. Thomas MacCary, Hamlet A Guide to the Play (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1998) 83, Questia, Web, 11 Dec. 2011.

Macbeth’s Tragedy: Fate or Folly?

Most of Shakespeare’s plays deal with themes such as the natural vs. the supernatural, misuse of power, ambition, guilt, etc. But, specifically to The Tragedy of Macbeth we frequently encounter the theme of fate, which is given priority over other minor issues and influence over the play as a whole. However, despite the popular idea of fatalism (fate governs one’s life) both Shakespeare’s Masterpiece and the Bible agree that fate is not the leading cause of man’s tragic end, but rather “man’s own folly ruins his life” (Prov 19:3)

As the play commenced, we were introduced to three very sinister witches who were key to the development of the plot. “They were not ordinary witches or seeresses. They were great powers of destiny, great ministers of fate. (G. L. Kittredge). The three witches’ purpose was the devil’s: to deceive, kill, and destroy. They pretended to be on Macbeth’s side, but they were just manipulating him and playing with the lives of many others as well. But really it was Macbeth’s own desires that made him sin. In the first part the Witches contacted Macbeth to let him have a glimpse of what the future looked like for him. They declared that Macbeth would not only be Thane of Glamis, but also of Cawdor and finally king over all of Scotland. At first, Macbeth went through a stage of unbelief and said: “by Sinel’s death I know I am thane of Glamis; but how of Cawdor? The thane of Cawdor lives, a prosperous gentleman; and to be king stands not within the prospect of belief” (I. iii. 71-74). He communicated to us his conviction that the witches’ predictions were impossible. However, later we also see in Macbeth a spark of interest and eagerness to know his future as he says: “Stay, you imperfect speakers, tell me more!” (V.iii. 71.)

As soon as the first prediction became true, Macbeth started to desire what seemed like a nice life. Nevertheless, he recognized that even though having the title of king seemed like a good thing, it was certainly not good because it was leading him to think of murder, which he could not conceive at the time. He said: “If good, why do I yield to that suggestion whose horrid image doth unfix my hair and make my seated heart knock at my ribs?” (I.iii.38-40.) Moreover, right after having first consented the idea of killing Duncan, he quickly dismisses the thought of it because he comes to the conclusion that: “if chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir” (I. iii. 44-45.) If what the witches told him was truly fate, he wouldn’t have to do anything, instead things would just naturally fall into their rightful place.

Later, we discover abruptly that even though Macbeth came to the previous conclusions on his own, they weren’t enough to keep him from performing evil. Subtly, Macbeth became a fool because even though he knew what was right he was not able to put it into practice. Banquo also warned Macbeth against the witches by saying: “oftentimes, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness tell us truths, win us with honest trifles, to betray’s in deepest consequence” (I. iii. 25-29.) But after having already neglected his own conscience, it was easier for Macbeth to ignore this friendly advice too and immediately start planning the execution of his evil desires.

One of the greatest factors that influenced Macbeth’s decision to murder Duncan was his own wife. At first, Lady Macbeth manipulated him through the mocking of his “manliness” and her delusions of ambition. “She (was) vehement, assuming first that fate ha(d) already made its decision and she (had to) do whatever (was) necessary to become the handmaiden of destiny” (Coursen, H. R.)  However, further into the plot, Lady Macbeth’s threats were no longer necessary because Macbeth was able to take the reins of his own destiny; embracing his sinful nature. Ecclesiastes 6:10  says: “man ... is not able to dispute with one stronger than he.” And this is a perfect explanation of Macbeth’s internal conflict, for even though it was against his will, he yielded to his sinful nature which was greater than him; and it was also easier now, for fate was on his side.

 Eventually Macbeth killed Duncan and became king, but this did not satisfy him. After these events, something else began to roam through Macbeth’s mind and tortured him endlessly: the thought that Banquo’s sons were going to be kings, just like the witches predicted too. Macbeth was determined not to let this happen and started seeing his good friend Banquo as an enemy, and his mind would not be at ease until he did something about it.

  In fear of losing his throne to Banquo’s lineage, Macbeth decided that Banquo must be murdered together with his children. But this time, evil was incrusted deeper into Macbeth’s heart, therefore he did not even need his wife again to spark another assassination. Moreover, as the foolish idea of killing Banquo festered inside Macbeth, the roles suddenly switched: Macbeth was no longer trying to accomplish fate’s will, but he was now against it by trying to prevent Banquo from having a line of successors. Once again, Macbeth executed his bloody plan by killing Banquo, which eventually led him to kill Macduff’s noble wife and children and young Siward. We must understand that these murders are nothing but the foreshadow Macbeth’s own downfall. This resembles what Proverbs 16:4-5 says: “The Lord has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble. Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the Lord; be assured, he will not go unpunished.” From this we can infer that this view from scripture is Macbeth’s outcome is coherent with what scripture also foretells will happen to those who sow wickedness.

      Near the end of the play, Macbeth recognized that he was mistaken by trusting the witches (which was true) but he still did not realize that what brought destruction upon him were his own wicked decisions.  Macbeth did not understand that “each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed” (James 1:13-14.) Macbeth was apparently unaware of the fact that “A man's own folly ruins his life” therefore he blamed it on the witches and on fate, which also fulfils the second part of the verse: “yet his heart rages against the LORD” (Proverbs 19:3), which simply means that “When a man foolishly wrecks his life, he may yet insist on blaming God, or perhaps ‘Fate.’ In this way, he persists in his folly.”

What ruined Macbeth was not the knowledge of his fate through the witches, but his response to this knowledge. He liked what he was foretold, and he did everything in his hands to make it true, but as a result he received the punishment for his own folly: he died by Macduff’s sword. “Macduff is, in this sense, the fulfilment of Macbeth's foolish wish to replace natural succession with abrupt violence” (Bloom, Harold.) I believe it wasn’t charm that made the witches be accurate about the future events, but their knowledge of Macbeth’s will; they discerned the evil desires of his heart and therefore knew that he would fulfil their prediction on his own. Bloom, Harold says of Macbeth: “Hence we speak of destiny or fate, as if it were some external force or moral order, compelling him against his will to certain destruction... but he is imprisoned in the world he has made” (William Shakespeare''s Macbeth.)

At the denouement of the play, we see that “Shakespeare attempts no solution of the problem of free will and predestination. . . . He never gives us the impression that man is not responsible for his own acts” (G. L. Kittredge.) Now we know that The Tragedy of Macbeth shows how We know the Bible tells the truth, and Shakespeare also had to portray some sort of truth to make his plays “believable” to the human soul. Therefore both had to agree to the fact that even though God is sovereign over all things, as humans we choose our own fate, and that can either edify us our destroy us. Also, we have to have in mind that Shakespeare’s patron was King James himself, also the patron of the King James Bible, therefore there is no reason for these works to contradict, but instead they had to be constantly in agreement, for they had the same patron.

WORKS CITED

G. L. Kittredge 1939, xviii-xix, cited in  Coursen, H. R. Macbeth A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15348086. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Coursen, H. R. Macbeth A Guide to the Play. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15348086. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Bloom, Harold, ed. William Shakespeare''s Macbeth. New York: Chelsea House, 1987. Book on-line. Available from Questia, http://www.questiaschool.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98109508. Internet. Accessed 16 September 2011.

Ancient Roman Society: Another Portrayal of Humanity’s corruption

Is Rome worth one good man’s life? Julius Caesar and Gladiator imply it was not. If even a few people such as Maximus and Brutus that made history by reaching human ideals, could not build a society worth of itself, then how about the thousands of tyrants that have had power in the government? No matter how hard we try and strive to have a perfect government, every time we get the same results: death, disease, injustice, poverty and in-satisfaction. Human government will never be perfect because it was created by men, who only work for their selfish disdain.

Relativism of character is one of the main themes stressed throughout the play Julius Caesar. We can see this because though Julius Caesar was thought ambitious, he actually was an excellent and sympathetic military leader. He managed to establish some advantageous reforms for the people; which made Rome a prosperous, open, and trustworthy place to live. Julius Caesar was not completely good, which is why he was killed, but if he could have become a tyrant we know not. Relativism is also portrayed in another character in Julius Caesar, Brutus. While Brutus seems to be the hero of the day, he made several mistakes such as letting Anthony give a speech during Caesar’s funeral, and later sending his army into battle. More serious issues in Brutus’ character include the assassination of Caesar, his own friend, and his own suicide. Julius Caesar portrays this relativism to express the fact that human kind is not absolutely honest or corrupt.

In contrast, Gladiator presents a more idealistic hero. Even though Maximus went though much suffering, he almost seems not to have internal conflicts, unlike Brutus. In Gladiator there is no relativism, you are either good or bad. Maximus is clearly the light shining in a world of darkness, while Commodus inspires gruesome repulse; reminding us of all the ruthless people that have governed our world since ancient times.

Brutus and Maximus, the story’s heroes, had several things in common. Both were honorable; they inspired loyalty and respect in their subjects and army; a priceless gift. Both had a transparent character and wanted the best for Rome, which they served with all their will. Neither of these two characters strived for nor desired power. Nonetheless, both heroes shared the misfortune of losing their wives; and later they also died. But did the heroes’ will die too? Both stories end with the physical destruction of the hero. But do their values and motifs also get destroyed? They both fought for what they thought was right, but we might also want to question the reasons and arguments that supported their way of thinking.

As we examine the characters from a closer perspective, we can distinguish some significant differences between the two heroes. Brutus, on one hand, proves a more realistic character. Brutus was more easily persuaded into the conspiracy, and even though he sincerely believed that Caesar would become a tyrant, he did not have the slightest evidence to prove it. Blinded by false accusations and thinking that he would change the course of history for good, Brutus betrayed his friend. However, on the long run, Brutus did not accomplish that much. At the end, when he mutters out his last sentence, he certainly expresses regret. He says: “Caesar I kill thee with not half so good a will”, which means that now he wanted to kill himself more than he ever wanted to kill Caesar. Was it because guilt was strangling him from the inside? Though still honorable, Brutus does not seem a good leader or example to follow anymore.

On the other hand, Maximus was not persuaded into the conspiracy but forced into it. When Caesar asked Maximus what he wanted most in the world, he answered “go home.” When Commodus asked to help him he denied him too. He did not want any part in war, which is why he said: “dirt cleans easier than blood”, referring to becoming a farmer and quit being a general. But as he became a slave, and then a gladiator, he was unwillingly forced into the struggle. Once more, he submitted to his principles, he was true to his own feelings, and longed to see a new Rome, free from the tyranny and corruption that had rendered it; his last desire and accomplishment. Obviously, we must also remember that this idyllic character is only found in movies.

Though imperfect heroes, Rome still was privileged to have them.

 Heroes were not very common in ancient times; and they are still rare. 

For this reason we would think that the crowds would respect heroes and honor them more, 

but clearly this was not the case, the crowds were not worthy of them.

 In both stories, senators agreed that manipulating crowds was important for the government of Rome. 

And in gladiator, Gracchus said: “Rome is the mob… conjure magic for them and they will be distracted”, 

 which means that he did not think very highly of it. 

And one time Lucilla also said: “the mob is Rome- once you control them you control everything.”      

     Even though these heroes wanted Rome to be a republic instead of an empire,

 the people were more comfortable being ruled by a tyrant. 

One sign of this was when the crowd wanted to crown Brutus after he gave his speech, 

which is ridiculous, because that was exactly what Brutus was working against: Rome having another Caesar.

 What is the purpose in having a perfect government if the people do not deserve it anyways? 

Clearly the people also have responsibility in this matter.

Both gladiator and Julius Caesar portray this idea of imperfection. Brutus’ character is a little more realistic that Maximus’ character. But even the ideal Maximus was at last a victim of humanity’s cruelty and was never able to see the reform he brought about. Until humans get rid of their selfishness, which obviously they’ll never accomplish by their own means, we will never have a just government. And even when men tried to establish a theocratic rule, thousands of people were killed, like in the crusades. No matter how much you strive for righteousness, you are still bound by your human nature of error and sin. We cannot do it by our own means. Therefore the only time when our thirst for justice will be satisfied will be when Jesus comes down to earth again to rule as everlasting king.

Lord of the Flies: A Reflection on the Human Heart.

Nataly Arenas                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

The short novel Lord of the Flies is an outstanding literary work in which William Golding shares his personal analysis of the structure of society and its imperfection. Golding recreates a fictional scene in which several 5-12-year old British boys are scattered on an inhabited island due to a plane crash and have to figure out how to get rescued. Throughout this piece, Golding develops in a consistent way the concept of original sin and how it is rooted to the human heart.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions defines the term of original sin as the state of sin into which everyone is born as a result of the fall of Adam. ¹ The way that Golding expresses his point of view in the book has several phases. The first one is where he states the characters that are involved in the conflict to which we can all relate in our common society. We all know a Piggy, which is the intellectual character that gets easily frustrated when he cannot find an answer to the surrounding circumstances. At the same time, we can also picture in our heads a Ralph, which is the kind of democratically -elected leader that tries to establish laws and order in a community. And finally, we also have an idea of how an authoritative and powerful figure like Jack can manifest himself in the actual world.

Despite all the obvious differences between the characters they share some particular similarities, including the fact that they all come from the same background- they are all British boys, and from this we are supposed to infer that they are highly educated and civilized, but the book itself “reacts to the pervasive belief in the superiority of British culture and to the belief that to be British was in some sense the direct opposite of being a savage." (Olsen 2) Nevertheless, and most importantly, all the boys share another common trait that is native to them, sin. Gradually, we find more faults in the characters that induce us into thinking that even though they are children, the worldwide symbol for innocence, they are unable to ignore their sinful instinct, and as we move more into the story we are more disappointed in their conduct.

Rom 7:15-17 says: “what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.” This is exactly what is happening to the children and what Golding is trying to prove.  For instance, we know that Ralph’s goal was to establish laws and order on the island and that his genuine desire was for the children to follow and obey them. From this we know that Ralph obviously distinguishes what’s right from what’s wrong. But to our frustration, we encounter that Ralph was later willfully present at the feast and watched the dance that led to Simon’s murder. Ralph indirectly participated in this terrible event only by being there, and we read that his conscience would not let him conceive the fact that he had sold his morals for a piece of meat.

The other characters also distinguished between good and evil. For example, Piggy was often telling Ralph to explain in the assemblies to the children “what’s what” (   ). Piggy was the one who said: “ I know there isn’t no beast—not with claws and all that, I mean—but I know there isn’t no fear either… unless we get frightened of people” (   ), which adds to what he said earlier: “perhaps this isn’t a good island”(   ), meaning that he understood the terminology. But despite his recognition of good and evil, he was also present at the abominable dance, and later denies Simon’s murder which can be translated as a denial of sin. And finally comes Jack, who is no different than the other two because he said: “we’ve got to have rules and obey them. After all, we’re  not savages” (   ). But at the end there was no question concerning whether he sinned or not. Among his multitude faults were his cruelty, swearing, cursing, murder, idolatry, not only to a beast but to himself and finally the lie to his tribe about a beast roaming through in the island.

In his book, Golding uses countless of other examples (including that of Roger and Henry) of how despite the fact that the children knew the difference between good and evil, had the same education or at the same time different personalities and worldviews, they all had the same miserable outcome: Sin. Golding himself says: “I still think that the root of our sin is there, in the child. As soon as it has any capacity for acting on the world outside, it will be selfish; and, of course, original sin and selfishness--the words could be interchangeable . . . You can only learn unselfishness by liking and loving.” ³ From this information we can state that Golding firmly believed in the concept of original sin and agreed with the Bible concerning this universal and inevitable truth.

In Lord of the Flies, Golding also uses several allusions to the Bible, and the main one in that of Adam and Eve found in Genesis 3. According to the Bible, the first two human beings were innocent, but not ignorant, due to their knowledge of God’s law. Still, they believed themselves ignorant, and changed God’s truth for a lie. The outcome of their bad decisions affected all human race and they themselves had to live in constant fear all their lives.

In Golding’s story, the children did not carry the burden of the adult life yet and therefore were still innocent. However, they were not ignorant, the law of good and evil was already written in their hearts due to the fall: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” Rom 3:23. Still, the children also believed themselves ignorant and created an excuse for sinning, which was the necessity to kill the beast (which was also a lie). There is no doubt of the juxtaposition that Golding created,  and which once more proves his understanding of the Biblical concept.

Unfortunately, Golding leaves us without any hope as he limits himself to write in one of the last sentences of the novel that “Ralph wept for the end of innocence {and} the darkness of man’s heart” (   ). At the end, the children were rescued by an officer whose attitude resembled that of Jack at the beginning of the story; it seems that all the evil that we faced throughout the pages will be doomed to repeat itself all over again, since the children are taken to another war. However, the Bible contrasts this tragic ending with a refreshing promise in I john 4:4 which says: “You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.”

“We are not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners.” R.C.  Sproul.

Works Cited

1)      “Original sin.” Encyclopedia. Accessed 29 september 2010. Avaliable. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O101-Originalsin.html

2)       Kirstin Olsen, Understanding Lord of the Flies: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000) 2, Questia, Web, 29 Sept. 2010.

3)      William Golding, "William Golding Talks to John Carey," in William Golding: The Man and His Books, ed. John Carey ( London: Faber and Faber, 1986, 175.)

4)      R.C. Sproul from The Holiness of God. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.; 2nd edition (July 1, 2000)