Monday, September 8, 2008
Monday/Tuesday
See the document at Downloads called "BenjaminHistory." I wrote the first page, but the second consists of extracts from Benjamin. Read and respond to it at least once on the blog. Be sure to be specific in your references to the document and mentally engaged as you write. After reading once, you might look for key words: "spiral," "line," "image." What is meant by "progress" and "homogenous, empty time"? Marquez writes of the isolated rebels, history's big losers. He is investigating how to recover the flitting image of the past. Remember -- Colonel Aureliano Buendia lost every battle and then struggled to keep either image of himself or coherent language to express himself on pages 161-168. Think hard, get dirty, grasp an idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
108 comments:
When a new party wants to gain power they sometimes resort to violence, as the liberals did in this novel. Aureliano only joined because he felt that the conservatives were corrupt, not that they were a bad government. In this passage Aureliano loses touch with reality, leaving the person he used to be to become a mistrustful ghost of a man. He seems to lose the very warmth of his heart because of his solemn attitude towards the war. In the end of the passage Aureliano's party goes against everything it supposedly stood for to gain more support and ends up only fighting for power. I think all government is similar in many ways, and this passages makes me think that Marquez felt the same way. Coming from his origins it is very easy to see why. I feel this passage was his most powerful anti-government message so far.
hi everybody =]
For me, reading through all this material brings into light how power hungry and prideful people can be. It is this that keeps any form of government from being perfect, or from benefiting everyone. This is demonstrated very well at the bottom of page 135 when Aureliano is speaking to Colonel Gerineldo Marquez.
"'Tell me something, old friend: why are you fighting?'
'what other reason would there be?' Colonel Gerineldo Marquez answered. 'For the great Liberal party.'
'You're lucky because you know why,' he answered. 'As far as I'm concerned, I've come to realize only just now that I'm fighting because of pride.'"
in this passage, you see the extremes people will reach for to gain power and defend their pride. But even when placed in positions of power, its never quite enough. We still search for that extra inch to extend ourselves, inflate our ego just a little bit more.
In some ways, the most hurtful, dangerous thing to do is not to swing a flaming machete at someone's face, but hit them where it really hurts. Their pride.
i dunno...random, scatterbrained thoughts that will probably make no sense when i come back in a little bit to read it.
oh well. skip this comment if you have to.
-.-;;
In what way do you think the conservative government or the liberal rebels use history? (Avoid cynicism and easy answers. The future is in your hands! Think about it!)
I agree with both Kayla and Ian. When we want power, we tend to do anything possible to get it. Aureliano went from spending countless hours in the laboratory to becoming very prideful in war. In the end, he did not have a real reason to fight for the Liberal party. Instead of fighting for change, which is what the Liberal party longs far, Aureliano only fights for pride. He does not see that the real reason for others fighting is because they want change, and that this is the way that they chose to settle it. Colonel Aureliano Buendia, holds a higher name and is now very proud.
The parties are both fighting for the same thing in the end. Power is a very good thing to have, however, it may also do a lot of damage. In this case, Aureliano has forgetten who he is. Yet he continues to fight.
What evidence in the book points to the idea that Aureliano has "forgotten who he is"?
He doesn't necessarily forget who he is, he mearly changes into a new person. He goes from the deep thinking solitary person who made gold fish to a mistrustful war hero. He is still solitary but to an absolute new level not allowing anyone within ten feet of himself. He loses his old good naturedness and becomes this ghost of a man.
To adress how the governments used history, both sides used it to manipulate people to see their sides. The conservatives want the history to show good things to prove that tradition is a good thing. The liberals want a bad history to make people think there needs to be a change. In both ways they are corrupt for not showing an unbiased representation of the past.
In response to what Mr. Koon was asking, i would have to say Aureliano's loss of self-identity is representative of the golden fishes that he makes. All throughout the book, he continues to create the fish, he typically makes them after a traumatic event, as demonstrated as he begins making them again after he loses faith in the purpose of war. This is further mirrored with Rebeca, who has a similar habbit of eating dirt and whitewash whenever something traumatic happens, such as the death of her parents or when she finds herself deeply in love with Pietro Crespi. These habits represent how we all deal with events in our lives in different yet simmilar ways. Now back on the topic...
It seems that history follows a pattern. Typically someone has been given power, either divinely, by mere luck, or through caniving and struggle to power. The ones who wish it to stay the same are identified as "conservatives" and those who are not in power are identified as "liberals". Eventually the system comes to such an extreme that a country is bound for a cataclysmic event, such as a civil war, a revolution, a massacre, etc., but always by means of violence. Even the United States, the greatest country to ever exist, once had it's own civil war. Sure, the causes of the war are often passed off as ethical, that the North wanted to end slavery, but the true issues were political, just as nearly every war starts. In truth, just as in OHYS, the destiny of every "perfect" civilization is to be destroyed, such as the eventual demise of Macondo, through every individual's demise to be in power. Life is an eternal power struggle, to be put simply.
I wouldn't quite say he changed into a different person. It's not likely for people to change in that situation. I believe it's more a situation where separate parts of himself are more accentuated. Everyone has the Acknowledgement of power and drives. Just because Aureliano becomes more power hungry, it isn't him losing his "good naturedness" it's him hiding it. He has it somewhat in him...hence why he questions the reason to fight. It symbolizes the fact that he's showing his good nature and hiding more so his drive for the power and ruthless killing.
And, who ever said that history itself is unbias? Have you never noticed the fact that history is always somewhat bias. It's apparent with the language that is stated in text for specific historical momemnts. If one said "The Northern states completly dominated during the civil war with numerous demolitions of the Southern armies." there is an apparent bias towards northern states vs the confederacy. But, in order to change the same statement in a Southern point of view, one could say "Although the Union won the war, Southern states fought hard and still won many battles vs the Northern states." Since history is already bias, there isn't exactly fault in government officials wanting history to favor them. Based on the people writing, it can already be leaning towards their positions. It's all based on word choice. -Chelsea
This still means that government tampers with history, and that ruins the integrity of the past
i agree with chelsey and the person beofre. i believe it has to do with his golden fishes because near the end of his life he is consumed with making them and all that he really does involves those golden fishes. I aso agree with him hiding his need for ruthless killing because that is all he has done during the entire war seeing as he was one of the very few to survive it.
i also agree with the person before chelsey in saying that history repeats. if u notice, which almost everyone has, that the names are repeated such as the 17 aerlianos. it made me wonder as ursula begins to wonder, does this mean a complete circle for history? Such as the twins. They changed how they were to confuse people but have they really lost who they where in the process? And how many of the younger generation children are the same as the years before them, like jose arcadio and his grand son beginning to be facinated with Melquaidis. Things are inherited, traits, just like the names are.
-Kristina
I agree with uscroxx619 and Dashia completely. Pride and power is everything that the people of the Liberal party long for. Yes, indeed Aureliano has some type of self- esteem issue as to where he has to make goldfish evertime any dramatric issue takes place in his life, as well as Rebecca. The sgirl is completely insane, she eats earth and that walls along with issolating herself everytime she is stressed.
Moncada admonishes Aureliano, saying "out of so much hatred for the military, out of fighting them so much and thinking about them so much, you've ended up as bad as they are." (174 in my book, my pages are different.) This statement immediately reminded me of Nietzsche's quote, "Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one." The statement came to mind again as i read about Aureliano being pacified by demolishing the widow's house (179). The liberals, in trying to overthrow a corrupt establishment, had themselves become a brutal institution. The blood lust they acquire is only one factor of the increasing futility of the war. Most of the people fighting, especially the officers, are no longer sure to what end they are fighting. This quandary is addressed as the Colonel and his advisers convene in the parlor. They realize that the changes for which they had crusaded had become less meaningful and therefore compromisable, and "all [they] were fighting for is power."
In addition, I have to draw the ridiculously obvious line between Benjamin's opinion, that "the true picture of the past flits by. the past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again," and Melquiades's daguerrotype. the presence of any moment is fleeting. Because the "true picture" is ephemeral, the daguerrotype captures and preserves its visible aspects. Also, Benjamin's statement, that for every image of the past that is not recognized by the present as one of its own concerns threatens to disappear irretrievably", is demonstrated almost deliberately as the insomnia plague sweeps through Macondo. Had Aureliano not taken immediate action in recording the names of everyday objects, their meanings and purpose might have vanished forever.
I agree with Kristina, the repetition of names is similar the patterns in history. The twins end up having similar characteristics of the people they are named after. Ursula notices this and insists on raising her great-grandson, Jose Arcadio. She is persistant in making sure that he will become a pope and bring some pride to the Buendias. Ursula looks at her children and grand children to see how they have brought shame on the family and at one point when Colonel Aureliano Buendia is about to Have Colonel Gerineldo Marquez shot she says to Aureliano, " It's the same as if you'd been born with the tail of a pig."
Not to change the subject or anything...
Benjamin seems to be amazingly biased towards dictatorships in my opinion. He seems to think that even though dictatorships are bad that there is only one alternative and that is communism. But that makes me question if he believes there is a middle. I can't fathom a world of either communism or facism. There is a large part of governments that he is forget. I wonder if anyone can answer why he believes that there is no happy median.
Also I don't believe the Colonel lost every battle. He was just very good at playing the dying hero. At no point does he truly lose anything that he cannot regain until the very end when he ultimately dies. There is a fine line in between being hurt and being a hypocrite. I have a feeling that he soon become a hypocrite when he realizes that his cause is lost. Which points to the fact that he chose his side out a foolish and inaccurate decision.
Just a thought...
-Meg
oh my gosh, manizzle, like in the dark knight "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain."
wow. okay.
as far as aureliano "changing"...i don't think people do that. Its more hiding away the less attractive features of their personality. but after a while, they just come out anyway. especially after something like a war...can you blame him? He was always a creature of solitude...
anyway. i remember when we first got OHYS and Mr. Koon explained that the events weren't linear (I think thats the word he used...that or something like it.) they were more like (then he did a funny hand motion like the ocean waves)
while im reading i keep thinking about that. The piggy tail keeps coming into play...and we get flashbacks within a flashback of a flashback. Even Ursula says (p. 193) "It's as if time had turned around and we were back at the beginning."
maybe time doesnt work the way we thought. its certainly tweaking the way i think. its more like a circle...and what is the phrase? The circle has no beginning. i mean, if you think about it, when is the beginning of time?
okay, this is super long. and super disorganized. another post of random thought...
(By the way, who is uscroxx619? Do you think it would be possible if we have a screen name like that we could sign our names at the bottom of our comments please?)
meggy...you have to think about when he was writing that and where he was. ..
I think that it is evident Aureliano has forgotten who he is because like the novel says, he has come into a state of solitude. He shuts himself out from the world by staying locked in Melquiades' room working dilligently on his little gold fishes. The war has made him lose all affection that he even burns the dolls of Remedios, who he once cared about more than anything in the world. He never came out of the room and barely had an appetite. He stayed so focus on his work that he lost all recollection of what the routine of his daily life was. Caught in the frustration of not knowing if he wanted to be alive or not, he wasn't even happy to live in solitude because I don't think he even knew what he wanted out of life anymore.
that was Morgan ^
Now that I have reread what I wrote last night, I wouldn't say that Aureliano has completely forgotten who he is. He has made many changes that are not good. He bases his life on a war that doesn't really mean as much to him as his own self pride.
When General Maconda is sentenced to death and Aureliano tells him that he is not going to shoot him he says...
"What worries me is that out of so much hatred for the military, out of fighting them so much and thinking about them so much, you've ended up as bad as they are. And no ideal in life is worth that much baseness."-pg, 159
When Aureliano goes to give General Mocanda's wife his left belongings, she is disappointed in him and does not let him in because he nothing but trouble for war.
Aureliano can no longer be seen the same way as before. He has lost the respect that Macondo once had for him. All because on his pride. Pride and power tend to go hand in hand. They are very powerful. Pride often takes over when you have received higher authority. When fighting for something, it is because you have strong feelings about the problem and you see the future that it holds. Aureliano seems only concerned of himself.
hi everybody.
In my opinion, an individual cannot always sense when he or she has changed, but to their friends or family their change could be evident. for example, Aureliano didnt think that he had changed much, but to his long time friend General Mocanda he had changed alot. He even tells Aureliano, "At this rate you'll not only be the most despotic and bloody dictator in our history, but you'll shoot my dear friend Ursula in an attempt to pacify your conscience."
the previous comment was from matt in case you didnt know so :P
Again, I agree with Dashia! Aureliano really have alot of pride. It seems as if people are all for the people to gain popularity, until the people put them up on a pedistal and give them some type of authority. That's when pride steps in and take over, and as well as Dashia was stating that's when Auerliano lost respect because of his negative changes.
.....SoRry for the mis-SpeLled words in the bLog aboVe......I waS in a ruSh and Didn't rEview my meSsAge befoRe poSting iT.........:)
iLY,
sh@WanA
When the words “homogenous, empty time…” are written I think of moments in the past where history does not progress in which we make the same mistakes over without learning from them. I agree with Kristina when saying that history repeats itself quite often in our lives and it bluntly screams to us to not dismiss the fact that we as human beings who do not perceive the most from history than we should. The first sentence on pg. 161 states, “Colonel Gerineldo Marquez was the first to perceive the emptiness of the war.” Emptiness is written here once more to convey that the war that they are fighting is completely pointless. Killing after killing which is an obvious idea of repeating leads the liberals absolutely no further from when they started.
I notice that familiar characteristics pass on from generations in the Buendia family also, such as how most of the Aurelianos are somehow related to war type activities.
The major thing is the idea of incest that is most common among this family. It starts off with the nuptials of Jose Arcadio Buendia and Ursula then leads to Jose Arcadio and Rebecca then directs to Aureliano Jose and Amaranta. Progression throughout history doesn’t seem to make sense to them. Or maybe it does because they would rather have their love with the person than follow the traditional views set by God?
Also, Remedious Moscote was the girl that Aureliano fell head over heels for and I think its funny that the third child of Santa Sofia de la Piedad’s is named after her and she also has that similar aura that causes men to go wild. Empty time during history is a great waste of time for it is our duty to hold on to what our ancestors have delivered to us. Benjamin states, “To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize ’the way it really was’(Ranke), it means to seize hold of a memory…”
I also thought of Harry potter :).
In The Chamber of Secrets where the past greets them yet again in the future (whether its good or bad) and everyone is faced with the problems of the same magnitude as they encountered around 50 years ago.
In the article, Benjamin discusses a "state of emergency." I think that by allowing an elite fer to have all the power in a government, as in a facist nation, a country would be handing itself over to extremes on both conservatie (leading ultimately to facism/dictatorship) and liberal (leading ultimately to communism) sides. This is exactly what we want to avoid, because it puts the nation into the "state of emergency" that Benjamin suggested. After and during the war, Macondo seems to be in such a state of emergency and is spiraling downward. I agree with Benjamin in that history comes from the powerful and it is essentially what they make it out to be. In such a situation, the citizens must be vigilant and use their voices while they still have them. They must remember such problems, because later, when the nation and it's citizens are able to escape the state of emergency, it will be these memories that prevent history from repeating itself.
I agree with Matt because I have actually experienced a change that only my friends noticed. I don't necessarily think that Auriliano has changed though. When he was a child, he usually stayed with Melquiades in his "study" or somewhere else by himself. When he decided to go into the war this was not a change from him being by himself because while at war a person has little to no contact with family members. When the war ended and Aureliano returned home he went back into his shop and started making the fishes again because that is what he enjoyed and he was alone during that time. Aureliano has always enjoyed being in solitude we just recognize it more in his later life.
I consider most of the Buendia family liberalists because when Don Apolinar Moscote came to the house to tell them he was the new "ruler" of Macondo they strongly objected. They tried to even ban him from the town because Macondo has always been equal and they wanted to keep it that way. Even though Communism is usually described as EVERYTHING being equal so that everybody is of the same wealth, Macondo is a little different. Ursula bakes things for the town to sell to gain more wealth and in a real communist country that would not be aloud. I think Macondo is just a happy medium of Facism and Communism, leaning more toward communism.
I agree with ian when it comes to Aureliano "forgetting who he is." I do not think that he forgets who he is but more or less forgets what he is fighting for. When the war started he was determined to fight and defeat the conservative powers. However, as the war continues, the liberals begin to fight for the satisfaction of gaining power. Mocanda tells Aureliano "you've ended up as bad as they are." He sees that Aureliano forgot what he was fighting for.
AS far as Aureliano changing as a person, i don't beleive it. He was solitary before the war in his workroom making little fishes and he remains solitary at the end of the war with the ten foot circle and his continuing work in his workroom.
I agree with Dhara. We see the same patterns throughout the book with incest and the repeating of names. The characters also notice the weight a certain name carries. Arcadio said to the firing squad before he was shot, "'Tell my wife... to give the girl the name of Ursula.'" But after rethinking, he realizes "I forgot to say that if it was a girl they should name her Remedios." I can't find the quote but his wife, Santa Sofia de la Piedad, later names her daughter Remedios because bad things happen to those named Ursula. If the daughter were named Ursula maybe we would have seen the character grow into a stronger women.
The characters are repeating history and not learning from their mistakes. Maybe if they would name the children new things all together, we would not see the same problems being repeated over and over again.
Someone said something about Aureliano turning back to his fish-crafting habit as he lost himself more and more, am I right? I wanted to respond to that (a little late) because Aureliano, if I remember correctly, had two large hobbies in his life, one of which the book mentions on page 164 of the standard book. What interested me here is the contrast between the two different hobbies, in the way that the fish Aureliano created were more mechanical in style, and he chose to continue making those. It shows more blatantly the part Aureliano lost in himself as the war went on.
Also, what Kayla said reminded me of the part of the passage where Aureliano met several of his sons, and found that they treated him the same way he treated them. This puts more proof in the history in the book being more of a "funny hand motion like the ocean waves." :] Everything that happens to these people doesn't simply affect them; it affects the generations after them. Finally, all the confusing same-name deals in the book have purpose.
"In what way do you think the conservative government or the liberal rebels use history? (Avoid cynicism and easy answers. The future is in your hands! Think about it!)"
I am a firm believer in the fact that history repeats itself. It is just an innate part of life, we are like the "pig tail" in the book, we spiral around and around, circumstances may change but the same thing basically happens over and over. A dictator rises, a rebellion takes place, another dictator rises from the ashes of the old regeim. In the novel, both liberals and conservatives dredge up old rivalries and problems, and in what could be called the "present", or where the characters are actually living the events, they have forgotten why they are fighting. The circle continues, war after war, battle after battle. They no longer really remember why they fight, as proven by the Colonel, who fights for pride not beliefs. A man is a conservative or a liberal and must instantly hate all of the other party because of their history. Each party manipulates events and history, putting their own unique spin on it so they have some semblance of a reason to fight. The two sides have so succeeded in this that both sides are like a powder keg, and the smallest spark causes a huge explosion of violence.
(ill answer the next question in my next post, soon as i figure out which Aureliano...)
Oh yay katie! thank you. i feel so special now that my post has been referenced to...
but you are right, i actually hadn't thought much about his sons in this conversation...what does it say about his love of solitude that he treats his sons that way? it was so detached...he prefers the little goldfish over his sons it seems. No that his sons are much better.
what's in a name? Quite a lot, by the looks of it.
Ello!
I agree with Chelsea and Sarah completely when they were stating that history will repeat itself if we dont learn from it. As most Americans know The Great Depression was the worst possible time to be living in the US with stock markets crashing people lost everything. In order for history not to repeat itself people have to study and understand what went wrong with the way the people were living. But in 100 Years of Solitude Ursula started to notice that history was repeating within the twins and she raises her great grandson to be better than the rest of her family basically i believe its to give their family better name than what people already know about them!
I really liked what Kayla first said about pride. When Aureliano decides to take Macondo to war, he convinces himself that he is fighting for a greater cause--he wants to protect Macondo from the conservatives because he sees Moscote as a criminal. Aureliano either does not want to or can not realize that the war he has caused and continues to fight is only a self-serving act for him that has brought pain and suffering to both sides.
When Aureliano witnesses Moscote fixing the election, he automatically equates conservatism with negative images. He therefore joins and fights for the liberal side. After the war is over, Aureliano realizes, as Kayla quoted from the book, that he is no longer fighting for the greater cause that he used to justify the war in the first place. He now realizes that he is more self-centered and is only fighting for the recognition and power.
I see some striking parallels to some of our current events in 21st century America.
As Aureliano works with the goldfish i belive he loses himself he harldy pays the outside world any attention I dont think he lost himself durning his studying but i do highly suggest that he lost he sanity! He sits with the goldfish all the time and does no speaking to anybody nor eating he simply just keeps works with the goldfish thats where i believe he loses his touch with the outside world.
It interests me that so many people believe history will absolutely repeat itself. While in the book, yes, this is true, I don't necessarily see it happening as much in real life. Maybe that's simply my prejudice against anything teachers quote to make information seem useful; so be it. But my point is that Macondo had no combined history before Ursula's family (I use Ursula as the one to connect the whole family because, as some said, she's the backbone of the family and even the society as a whole) and the other settlers created the place. Thus, they had no history to repeat.
So, in my opinion, history really doesn't "repeat" itself as much as we think, in the way we perceive "repeating". I believe what we're seeing is simply a human behavior, taken to an extreme. Aureliano's coldness would exemplify a normal human behavior taken to an extreme measure--to the point of an actual bodily chill.
I really liked seths comment about both parties being like a powder keg. This comment really stood out to me because if everyone would remember this massive war was started by a small action. This action was when Aureliano saw the ballots being switched after they had been counted. This small action was the spark that set the powder kegs off. Aureliano decided at the point to become a strong liberal and strongly oppose any conservative that he encountered.
The problem with this was also mentioned in seths post, when he brought up the fact that many of the soldiers had forgotten what they had started fightinig for. There are two main reasons for this. First it is because when the war first started all the soldiers were young and thought of war as a game and that having that power to go out and try and control people was fun. The other reason is because the war began over such a small spark. After hundreds of battles and being away from home day after day it was almost certain the Aureliano would not remeber why he had even decided to become a liberal in the first place
I think that Colonel Aureliano Buendia is fighting in the war towards the end of the novel for his own personal reasons. He is fighting in the war becausew he needs to. In the novel it says that he comes home from the war and makes those gold fishes all the time and even takes ones apart he made and remakes them to pass the time. Now that he is not fighting the war, he faces a strong feeling of solitude. The war between the conservatives and liberals has had such a big impact on his life that he needs to be fighting in a war. Without war he faces solitude and eventually that solitude takes over his body and kills him. i think that the story of Colonel Aureliano Buendia is that solitude is a deathly illness.
For me, i think Aureliano was more solo during the war than after. Sure, he then resorted to making his fish after the war, but in a way, that could also be a tactic to trying to return to his old life. During and after the war is the time where he was more of a solo character. That's also the time where he had his moment of self evaluation. When he asked Colonel Gerineldo Marquez " why are you fighting" and after his response he replied that he, himself, was fighting for pride. The question alone leads to an epiphany of self discovery, yet he's still in solitude. I believe his return to the old habbit of making gold fish is a way to reconnect to the past reality of his old life; back when it was somewhat more simple. Solitude may be a deathly illness, but I don't agree that that's what killed Aureliano.
When Aureliano comes into this so-called trance where his whole life revolves around making the fishes, he is doing it just to escape from the war which he failed at. Eventually he found that people were buying fishes, not as jewelry anymore, but as a historic relic. I think at this point it became clear to him that no matter what room he locked himself up in he couldn't escape the traumatic memories of the war. I change my previous statement that Aureliano has forgotten who he is, because even though he might be trying he definately can not escape the title and fame he gave himself while fighting. His solitude is strictly inside his body because around him all in Macondo people don't forget about him. How could they, when after all, there is a street named after him?
I agree with other comments that history has been repeating itself in the book. The kids likes and dislikes are all similar depending on their name. The Aureliano's are very wide-eyed, curious people with insight while the Jose Arcadio's are adventurous and thinkers. It's as if when first born their destiny is already determined for them.
-Morgan
I believe that to some extent aureliano has forgotten who he was. This is shown when he returns to Macondo and buries all of his former belongings and things that remind him of the past. During the time of the war Aureliano let the war be the only thing that consumed his thoughts. He wasnt worried about his family, his work in the lab, or anything back in Macando unless the war was brought back to Macando. But after the war is over Aureliano puts himself into a state of solitude, he comtinues to want people to remain ten feet from him as though the threat of war remains. When he returns to mai=king his gold fish he finally starts to r return to his previous lifestyle only to realize that nothing was the same and he remained in his state of solitude. I think that Aureliano's lifestyle was corrupted by the war and he realizes that he will remain in solitude until his death.
I think that Aureliano is still living his life as if he is still suffering from insomnia. It seems that he forgets who he is and change. Earlier in the novel the speaker talked about Aureliano's silversmith work, saying that he was "praised all over the swampland for the delicacy of his work." He seems to lose that delicacy and attention to detail. Over time he starts to neglect his gold fish and only focuses on the war. On page 172, actually walks past the silver shop without a second glance even though the key was left ii the door.
(sorry for any misspelling!!)
Call me crazy, but when i re-read the prompt i noticed that Aureliano was uninterested in women, and then suddenly when he leaves for war he fathers 17 children, so then i thought about a quote in a book that dealt with war, and it stated "For war leaves us cold, emotionless, it purges the soul of compassion and concern." It's interesting that he was mostly aloof during his life prior to the war, and then after he leaves for the Caribbean during the war he sleeps with 17 women. This could suggest a further reason for quitting the war, assuming this quote is true.
I support what Sarah and Kayla agree to by saying that the liberals have a strong sense of domination and pride in which can only ultimately lead to a communist rule. I see that Aureliano tends to perceive things the way he feels is necessary for the common good, but once you step back to glance at what truly is happening its just a petty war that would eventually lead to resolve nothing.
Surprisingly, Aureliano steps back to take a look, “ ‘that means,’ Colonel Aureliano Buendia said, smiling when the reading was over, ‘that all we’re fighting for is power.’”
Pride is a dangerous disease that can invade your being and transform you into a different person. I believe that the war has worn down any feeling of affection that Aureliano might have had and it clearly states that here, “Then he made one last effort to search in his heart for the place where his affection had rotted away and he could not find it.” pg(173). Referring to what Katie wrote, I believe that after this already slow decaying state of all affection he finds that he loses his grasp with reality and tries to mask that “emptiness” by focusing on the details of his fascination of fishes and their designs.
Like I said before, and everyone else has said too, the Buendias have failed, and continue to fail, to learn from the past. Benjamin states, "The true picture of the past flits by. The past can be seized only as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again." I think this means that there is a moment in which the truth is revealed- the Buendias realize at some point that incest and renaming are causing issues. But that realization is soon forgotten and past mistakes are repeat all too soon. Benjamin also explains this when he writes that progress is a straight or spiral course. In this case, the Buendia family is progressing in a spiral course. Repeating the same mistakes over and over again, just as Seth said.
I also believe that Aureliano has almost totally forgotten the person he was before the war. Though some people seem to think he hasn't, i think that Morgan's example of burning Rememdios's dolls and forgetting his purpose in the war are prime examples. Pride has corrupted him and by the time he discovered this, it was too late.
I agree with Seth and others that history repeats itself. I like the the comparison of history to a pig's tail. History spirals in the same pattern that it has done since the beginning of time. It is never-ending. It is a non-linear representation of time. History repeats itself with wars. There have been many wars in this world. Why? Wars happen because we are unhappy with our situations and long for power. We want what others have. We are hungry for power. When the war started in Macondo, those who fought wanted power. Aureliano was a man who did not like the corruptiveness, violence, or the oppressive nature of the Conservative Party. Because of this, he led a war against the Conservatives. Like many lose their lives in battle, Aureliano lost his identity with the many "battles" that he fought. After fighting for a long time, he forgot what he was fighting for. Was it power or for peace?
Another example of Aureliano losing himself from war. "He ordered them to leave him in peace, insisting that he was not a hero of the nation as they said but an artisan without memories whose only dream was to die of fatigue in the oblivion and misery of his little gold fishes."
Did anybody notice the number of goldfish Colonel Aureliano makes and unmakes?
Have you thought about the similarities between Colonel Aureliano's "usefulness" as a propaganda tool and the insomnia plague of earlier chapters?
Of course the government uses history for its own gain. As Chelsea was saying way back, textbooks can give a different angle of any event, and it can be seen from that bias point of view. If they are trying to get everyone to face against a certain side (like Conservatives vs Liberals) then they can make up all kinds of simple slogans just to make their side seem better. "Conservatives are bad." That statement alone would make one want to join the Liberal party more. Throughout the war, Aureliano and others simply say "Long live the Liberal party" as their sort of slogan, but the reason for Aureliano's fighting is never really shown. It's as if he had nothing really going for him before, so he chose to boost himself up in something pointless to him (as others have said, for pride).
There never really seems to be any progress in the pointless war either, they always end up losing here, winning there. It never ends.
There seems to be no end to the Colonel's quest to win the war. He starts it because he feels betrayed when he sees the ballots changed. And as he loses battle after battle he loses his humanity. I totally agree with Neely that Aureliano does lose himself in the war. By the time he is forced, by his mother, to see what he has done it is far too late for him to be human again. The only thing that is left for him is to surrender and retire to a quiet world of solitude and golden fish.
I believe Aureliano did change. I have seen people change before and I have seen the stubbornness of some to never change. What is portrayed by the author is a young man fighting a fight for nothing and slowly the war changes him into a man who is cold and alone. That truly is the only affect of war in those times. Young, happy men were disillusioned into fighting for a cause that never really existed. As they watch their friends die they become changed. I cannot really blame Aureliano for becoming cold and for giving up. I think I would have done the same if I had been that betrayed.
It is true that he cared more for his golden fish than for his sons. But I do not think he though of his sons as his. Yes, there was a certain feeling of responsibility but no love. The golden fish were his and always were. He couldn't just feel love for a bunch of half grown men that showed up one day. I really don't think his sons wanted love from him, just acknowledgment.
-Meg
However, the progress of time is continuing to move on. Aureliano gets older and starts to lose his grasp of meanings. All the battles he had fought lost their glory, and he just wanted to end the war. He ends up going home to more familiar things and gold fishes that reminded him of a happy time. He had also done this after seeing the ice. It is as if he is dealing with the traumatic event (as said earlier) by making the fishes. And I agree with the reference about Rebeca also dealing with her stress by eating dirt and whitewash. It's as if THEIR history is repeating itself over and over. They all make the same mistakes, but in their own way.
I agree with what someone said earlier, i think it was Ian, Aureliano has no true cause to go to war. Before the town of Macondo was not invovled in politics, it seemed to be to only little place with no connection with the out side world. In fact Aureliano did not even know the difference between the liberals and the conservatives, Remedios' dad had to explain it to him. Shortly after that conversation Aureliano decides to be a liberal and go off to fight the war with them. The only reason he chosee the liberal party was because he saw his father in law switch the vote in favor of the conervative party. But whose to say that someone from the liberal party was not doing the same thing. Also if his father in law had been a liberal switching the vote would Aureliano have become a conservative? He let one small action become his drive for war.
A note on the repetative nature of history...
In a way, and particularly in this book, history is similar to a vast, knitted blanket. The numerous threads are seemingly insignificant individually, but blended together, create an intricate formation. While the design of the blanket may change over time, the pattern used to form the stitches usually remains the same, just as history repeats itself.
The interesting thing about Marquez's style of writing is that instead at looking at each row of stitches, he examines the progression of one particular fiber at a time, and then returns to the beginning to examine another.
I, personally, do not believe Aureliano changes. Perhaps the events in his life have so hardened him as to form a rigid, weathered exterior, but the fact that he still longs for his golden fishes suggests that his base desires and meaning have endured.
Could he ever shatter the armor and be fully restored to who he once was? I do not believe so. But the characteristics he acquires are just that--acquired. That which he began as still exists.
I really liked what Seth said about history repeating itself in a "pig tail" like way. In the novel, Jose Arcadio Segundo goes into hiding after the attempt on his life. Ursula relates it to when nobody knew where Aureliano was during the war. Ursula says, "Just like Aureliano, It's as if the world were repeating itself."
This can also relate to what Benjamin stated in his "Theses on the Philosophy of History" He writes, "progress was regarded as irresistible, something that automatically pursued a straight or spiral course." I think that he is saying that progress always follows the same course, which will cause a repeat in history. Seth says it perfectly when he talks about the rise of a dictator, a rebellion, and then the downfall of the party. Power is the reason for most wars and I think that it is a repeated path that history will follow forever.
This is looking great. Earlier, a student said both sides in the war pay a price for not providing an "unbiased" view of history. Think about how we might get one of those: an unbiased view of history.
Also, look at all the ideas on the handout. Have they all been addressed substantively?
And what is Ursula's role? (Remember the notes: "authorial reticence": does Ursula provide some of the moral commentary the narrator does not?)
"This is looking great. Earlier, a student said both sides in the war pay a price for not providing an "unbiased" view of history. Think about how we might get one of those: an unbiased view of history"
Simply look at the Civil War in our own history. Especially in northern states, they are taught the south was an aggressive evil force and the north were saints who fought to stop the evil. The winners of wares write the history books, because most of those who disagreed with them are dead. Everything is used for propaganda, there are two sides to every story. This is illustrated time and time again, look at politics, with the mudslinging, or look at wars where a certain side appears to be "evil" or the "bad guys", that is propaganda at work. If the situation had been different, if say, the south had won the civil war, would we not see the northern states of that time as cruel dictators and oppressors? An unbiased view would acknowledge that both sides made mistakes, but that is an impossibility becase we as humans have bias against a certain side in a war, plus the history books are so biased against the losers it becomes nearly impossible to challenge the self imposed sainthood the winning side had given itself. We pay a price for it too, prejudices are everywhere, people believe incorrect or slanted information, and that succeeds in further deepening any rift already between two opposing sides. Look to the Presidential running, Democrats and Republicans will deepen the rift by slinging mud and bringing up ancient, slanted history, attempting to whip their respective members into a frenzy. This will work out well for the party that wins, and the loser will be further drug through the mud, simply because they lost. History is not kind to the losers of any conflict, and we pay the price for it.
i want to comment on what Mr. Koon said.
i dont really think that it is possible to have an unbiased view of history. i mean, everyone has there opinion about every war, for example, the one the USA is currently fighting, some people agree and other do not. It has to do with ur upbringing and the opinions that u were brought up by your parents knowing. Therefor, i belive u can try and have an open mind about a subject such as going to war, but i dont truly believe that a true unbaised view of history can be achieved.
About Ursula, i belive she is an authoritative reticence. reticence is defined as a trait of being uncommunicative; not volunteering anything more than necessary or the avoidance of saying too much; a silent nature in which i believe is true. She is silent but as the oldest living ansestor in the family she has a certain type of respectfullness that is required from everyone and they know this. She is the glue that holds the family toegether silently and she provides much moral commentary. She is strong in her believes and stands by them no matter what the situation may be. The narrator doesnt really show theyre side or opinion on what some of the family meembers do but i believe he shows them through Ursula because no matter what her morals are always ket in tact no matter the situation.
I agree with Kristina. Like I said in one of my essay asignments, history is always and will always be completely bias. Because It's always written in someone's point of view and not all man think alike. There is always one topic of history that not everyone agrees on.
Yes!! I agree with Dhara. The ability to have power is a big thing and was a very important to the Liberal and the Conservatives. I also agree with Brad when he says that Aureliano does not forget who he is but he forgets what he is fighting for! I think he keeps fighting for pride.
When people are in the state of mine to get something such as power they tend to keep fighting for it. And when it seems like things are looking good they continue to fight to have more and more power. Back then it was very important to have power as it is now. When people feel that they have power they sometime tend to loose control and forget about evrything else. I think this is what happens with the war
In rsponse to what Kristina said about Ursula, there's a quote on page 169 where she says, "It's the same as if you'd been born with the tail of a pig." Ursula is speaking to Colonel Aureliano Buendia about how shameful his actions have become. Of all the characters, Ursula is probably the most unbiased, which really isn't saying much. She sees the big picture better than the rest of the Buendias, and she worries about the constant circle (or "spiral") that the Buendia history seems to go in. People are constantly bringing shame to the family, starting with their early ancestor who was born with a pig tail, bringing the ULTIMATE shame to the family. However, Ursula tells Colonel Aureliano Buendia that his behavior (as he goes about in his ruthless Liberal ways, planning to kill even friends of the family who get in his way) is just as shameful as if he'd been born with a pig's tail.
I dissagree with Seth's comment on history being a "pig tail" pattern. History only follows a pattern if those who inhabit it allow it too. Pig tails have a definte end, in other words they spiral to a point. History itself is not water in a toliet bowl circling around the drain to be flushed into oblivion. The course of history can be altered or "pop a u-turn" if those under its burden choose to rally against the estabolished order of things. However it can sometimes be turned or changed for the worse as is the usual case in recorded history.
In the case of the Buendia's, they are not forced to name their children one of five names or a combination of the two. This decision makes for a confusing read, luckily this book it is fiction. If it were recorded history, and I was there to record it, I would have a hard time telling it with the repetition of names and charector traits. And who's to say the narraotr himself may have not switched things around by some accident or to prove a point.
Like pig tails this story does come to a definite end, as all stories do. This book is not the history of the world and the themes of the Buendia's history should not be applied to the phenomena of actual history. The Buendia's family spirals into the abyss, but that was the risk Jose Arcadio Buendia and Ursula took when they took fate into their own hands. If the two had not intermaired histroy may have stayed as a circle as it should or is naturally, but as they did, their worst fears were realized. The family was born with a pig tail, not a visable one but one infinately worse.
rjolly -- well said, but why NOT use the novel as a metaphor for history? How is history, REALLY, and by what means could we know?
I do agree that fiction exaggerates, sometimes in grotesque fashion, the problems and triumphs of life, but that is exactly what makes the problems and triumphs visible. Isn't it?
I agree with Elisabeth about how Ursula is the most unbiased and can see the whole picture. It's as though with losing her sight she has gained more in terms of wisdom. She realizes that with the repetition of names the child inherits the traits of who they're named after. Ursula keeps trying to break the cycle of disgrace(pig's tail) that is brought upon her family, but everyone is named after each other and how can she stop it? Jose Arcadio is sent to become a pope and Meme is just like her father. It seems like the spiral will continue.
I agree with Rob (noob) Jolly when he said that History has its own course of action at witch it goes through its specific course. But to answer your question mr. koon. I believe that history is like Voltaire says " History is a lie commonly agreed upon." Interesting isnt it. But he is totally right how do we know what actually happend if we werent there at that specific moment at that specific time. Exactly we dont all we know is what poeple tells us or what we read or by the pictures we look at. Like we talk about in class words lose their true meaning pictures lose their image. When this happens we lose pieces of history then we go off of what people say happend. How do we know it is the truth how do we know that happend all it is is a bunch of rumors that powerfull people want us to believe yess i said rumors. People spread rumors all the time to make a story seem better or worse history isnt perfect it is made and told by humans. So can say the book is a metaphor for history or history is unbias or bias but realy to answer your question what you have got to ask your self is why do i believe what i believe about history why is it this way is it because of words pictures or power. But really what it is to me is exactly as Voltaire has stated it "History is a lie commonly agreed apon" And to answer your last question on what means could we know, I believe we will really never know what happend exactly how it happend all we can do is agree or disagree for some of you out there on the lies of history. We will never know thats why it is oppen for your own interpretationand in what you believe.
I HOPE THIS answered your question mr. koon and if not sorry i tried.
I agree, but we are made up of history so how can we say there is no history? We might turn and twist history but there is a history. The problem comes down to the history. The history is what time wrote, humans are just incoorporated. We can twist and alter the stories in our heads but why dont we just make it happen? Yes, just because we weren't there we can interpurt different things millions of different ways. Like Mr. Galeota says, "I don't agree with this or that...". He objects because he sees things a different way. We are all different but one of the most common problems today is we believe anything we are told.
In regards to Rob's post, I agree and disagree with the points he presented. History is not predetermined and may go in any which way. Although history does not have to repeat itself, it has had the tendency of doing just that. One thing that comes to my mind when I think of history repeating itself is the rise and fall of dictatorships throughout history. In Ancient Rome, Julius Caesar built a tremendous empire that was to be crushed down after his mysterious death. In the 1940's, Adolf Hitler created a regime that had the world in fear. This dictatorship did not last. Very recently, Saddam Hussein rose to control Iraq. His power was also relatively short lived. Therefore, although history has an end, just like the point of the pig's tail, which will be the end of the world, as of now, we are engulfed in the spiral of repetition.
Marquez obviously incorporated this ideology in the writing of this novel. The most obvious reference is his use of the repetition of the names in the Buendia family.
i agree with brians comment when he refers to how history has the possibility of being filled with rumors. if something was to happen the only people that would know the truth are the ones that was there and actually witnessed it. this reminds me of gossip and how storys can change as they are passed from person to person. i remember in middle school when i used to play telephone and the end sentence would be different from the one that was actually said. i guess what im trying to say is that whether your dealing with the game telephone, a conversation with your friend, or the text from you history book,when a story is told it will eventually change.so we dont know if the things that we learn that are based on history is either a rumor the truth
Innterjecting in the argument between rob and william, i would like to take what rob said further. History can be a pattern and looking back it usually is. the opressed become the oppresors, the liberators become the dictators. Its all just a struggle to gain and maintain power; however, that pattern can be broken with a concious effort of us, now, in the present. WE choose what happens to us, WE choose what path to take, and WE choose where we as a world community go from here. And our history should play a huge role in that decision. do we want to repeat the atrocities of the past or are we going to use our history as a guide to take steps to prevent things like the holocaust and colonial slavery from recurring in the future? we have a decision to make. are we going to continue on that pigs tail spiral downwards into cultural perdition or are we going to break the chains and begin somthing new?
Remember the book! Quote it, and use it to substantiate claims, or our words will float away into thin air...
As this novel is classied as "Magical Realism" where events are unlikely but not impossible, ironic and paradoxial, why should anything in this novel be applied to the real world? Its as if you are looking to make a political decision based solely on the comercials of one candidate. I do not believe that this is just a story, or a commentary on South American hardships, there is obviously more. But to say that this book proves that history is a downwards spiral of doom is illconsidered, the narrator may suggest it but I may suggest the opposite and who is to say who is correct?
History is the story of the winners and of those who read will read it. The winners of the wars write the books and record their actions as nobel and just and their enimies as evil. Nazi text books of the late 1930's would portray Hitler as a national hero, what changed? The facts haven't but the people have. As long as there are people to make history there will be people to reinterpret it. Text books in the next hundred years will most likely be different from today's, your truth today is tommorow's lie.
Humans tend to follow a pattern. Throughout our lives, we follow routines that we stick to. We learned to keep track of time in order to follow our patterns and progress through our days. Sure, there may be that one day when you get a flat tire, you're late to class, you miss an assignment, you fight with your friend, and everything else seems to go wrong that day... but do we not go back to the routine? Do we not still follow our timed schedule? I think that the same can be said for history. It tends to repeat itself in a pattern. Difference in opinions, rebellion, overthrow, new gov't.... then it happens again when someone else disagrees, only over a different issue. But of course, we do have the few years of "peace" inbetween. Like the pig tail (very good image) history is a repetition of some sort, but with differences on each go-round.
I agree with Dashia in the sense that Colonel Aureliano has no longer fully grasping who he was; and doesn't care about what he has become. Obviously he has been blindsided by the war that no longer has meaning to him because he states,"As far as I'm concerned, I've come to realize only just now that I'm fighting because of pride." Strangely, it seems that history is repeating himself with that same pigtail concept that Seth referred to; Aureliano seems to be resorting back to the frantic amnesia days when memory begins to drift away and the meaning and importance of people and things begin to fade away...only this time he is not interested in remembering and although his family and friends are embedded in his memory, he acts as though they aren't important at all.
I agree with what both rob and william said. Rob talks about how history is twisted by people. Much like the pig tail, it is twisted. Going along with williams idea of dictatorship, war is a big example. War throughout history is extremely similar. War is the effect and the yurning for power is the cause. In most cases of warfare that involve the fighting against a country with a dicatorship, that country has never succeeded. It has happened repeatedly throughout history, with the examples william's given above.
Another thing i want to point out is a passage from the "BenjaminHistory" handout. Towards the end of the passages, it mentions that progress follows in a strait course, or a spiral course. This relates to the pigs tail also in the sence that progress throughout history is pushed and pulled into spiraled directions but in the end is still history. No matter which way it may be conceived or written, history is what it is, and we are the results and future builders of it.
im not sure if im repeating anyone, i haven't had a chance to read all of the comments.
The pig tail seems to show a spiral in history, not a twist, a spiral shows a connectedness along with movement. The spiral most easily viewable is the repetition of names. The jose arcadio's seem to all be adventurous but seem to be doomed toward tragedy. But each one seems to lose a little of the purity and want for knowledge of their predecessor. which seems to indicate a downward spiral through this period of history.
from the reading i have noticed the repetition of a few choice words throughout the novel: clairvouyance, and solitude/solitary. I know that repetition is a huge theme in this novel, and i was wondering if the remmergence of these words was part of that theme? and if so why?
thoughts anyone?
After reading a few posts and the benjamin paper, i agree with nina. history does follow a pattern but at the same time there are always new things occuring. in an earlier post brad said aureliano forgot what he was fighting for but didnt forget who he was, with that i both agree and disagree. it did seem that he forgot what he was fighting for but when it comes to forgetting who he was i believe he did. at first he was all for fighting against the conservative powers in order to defeat all that they stood for instead of the pleasure of gaining power but towards the end of the battles it seemed that he was changed. he was more wrapped up in the thought of war and how he was as a leader instead of being on a more personal level with some of the other characters mentioned in the book.
tying together william and mandy's posts yes the spiral is continuing and it may come to an end but who's to say that another pig tail wont sprout further down the road? the end of the spiral may not neccessarily mean "the end of the world" it may just symbolize the ending of a tradition. for instance, this may sound weird and be completely stupid but, when i was little i used to eat multiple slices of just plain cheese, cold from the fridge without bread or anything. but now i dont really like a lot of cheese. i do still eat it but my routine of eating multiple slices every day stopped, the tradition was broken but it wasnt the end of my chessy world! sorry that seemed random but i thought it was an example that could fit into this situation.
adam
sorry where it says "chessy" i meant cheesie!
Ahhhh....I love Rob's comment because it is very true. If history is recorded by those who rule or win, how will we know how accurate it is? There is no such thing as an unbiased perspective of history because not a single person today can determine exactly what happened one hundred years ago...and even if they could, that would be one person's account of things. So how will we know the other sides to history's stories? We won't. History coils like a pig tail because as humans, we desire power and strength, taking the necessary precautions to obtain and keep up that power of strength. Because of this, often past struggles are repeated in a quest to maintain that same satisfaction someone of an earlier time sought after.
I agree with chris when he says that history is "twisted by people." And this is like a pigs tail. Some people think that history relates to a pigs tail because it repeats itself, but a pigs tail comes to a end. After the history keeps repaeating its self, when will it come to an end? Thi is why I agree with chris about relating history to a pigs tail becuase history is twisted by people.
People will publish their own opionins on histroy and we as the new generations will adapt to it. As we learn one person's view on what happened during his or her life, we may not know the other important things beacuse to them it wasn't important. Or if they do tell us the important facts, it will or may get told differenly than another person. Just like with what Sabrina and brian says, history can be like rumors. Its goes from person to person and once it gets to the end its all twisted up!!
In regards to the concept of the spiral, many of you have seemed to reject it because of the fact that history is not exactly the same. No one day is exactly the same as another and I do not feel as if Gabriel Garcia Marquez is trying to show that. The spiral begins at a point of origin and rotates. The passing of time and fluctuations in every day’s routine is represented by the vertical movement of the spiral. The horizontal displacement represents that society seems to return to many of the tendencies of the past. Even though each of the Aurelianos and Arcadios is different, they share very similar internal and external characteristics. From the author's description, the Buendia family has a certain body type that is very recognizable and unique to the family. They also seem to have the same personalities. As Ian said, although they are similar, each one seems to be less pure and have less curiosity towards knowledge than their predecessor. This change is represented by the vertical displacement of the spiral image.
I also have mixed feelings from what Rob said about how history and this book are related. Yes this is just a book! Just words printed on a page. Nevertheless, while some my view it as a simple work of fiction, I feel that the author is trying to represent a much bigger picture than his little town of Macondo. It is very similar to the poem we discussed about the hot dog vendor in the middle of New York. Although it is JUST a tiny little vendor, the author is using it as a symbol for our world, the society we live in, and our perception of the use of language. So, in regards to Rob's statement, this book does not prove anything. It is just expressing one man's views on a very controversial subject.
I agree with pretty much everyone's comments I have read. Nina was right in saying that we stick with our timed schedule. No matter what time I wake up in the morning, I always somehow naturally slow down or speed up unconsciously to leave my house at the same time each morning. Events are ever changing, but they don't change my time clock. This is like the pigs' tail referred to in the novel. Every morning occurs with the same backbone, just with different sproutings off that backbone.
As with the memory thing, who's to say that that has not really occurred in our history? Except that we slept and just forgot over many many years what had already occurred. What if Macondo had been formed two thousand years earlier and all these odd events had happened then too...but it had all been forgotten in the long, torn pages of history?? What if the world goes through spirals in itself...and everything occurring now, all the inventions, all the amazing people, all the wars...what if they have all occurred previously in history. Then came global warming and wiped out that memory through wiping out people...and the world started again, just to go into the same old spiral??
Responding to Kyle's questions, I think the repetition of those certain words, such as clairvoyance and solitude/solitary, is part of the spiral of history. The book is called One Hundred Years of Solitude [sorry Mr. Koon, I can't get it to underline :) ] and yeah, it's supposed to be about a family...but solitude can also be thought of in a bigger picture...such as we are confined to these approximately one hundred years on earth in our lifetime...This can be our own solitary time...if that makes sense. We are alone in this time in history. We are not connected with George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Who we are surrounded by in these billions of people on earth now are who we are confined to solitude with. There have been billions more people who have lived and died on this earth, and many are similar to those today (the spiral/pigs' tail), but we will always be lost of those people. We only have replacements now. I don't know if any of that makes a whole lot of sense, but I hope you get the gist of my thinking...
i completely agree with anitra and rob. you cant completely understand history because it was writeen from one persons point of view, which may or may not be bias. but mostly its bias. this makes me think of how we have been affected by the literature and any other information we have read in our lives.
have we been affected in such a way that it makes us have mixed feelings toward a relevant point in our lives?
in regards to jennifer's answer to kyle's question, i understand what she is saying but at the same time when she says "We are alone in this time in history." i dont neccessarily believe you are alone but more or less you are in your own solitary state of mind. each individual sees the world in a different way. Going from another point in her post, she points out that we forget things that happened over multiple years in our sleep, does that also tie into the title. The title being One Hundred Years of Solitude, i see it as we are in our own time and our own world but to the younger generation its all very different. thus making it their world and their time. in One Hundred Years of Solitude the different generations of aureliano's and jose arcadio's each are named after each other but thay also have different traits. like said in multiple other posts it is stated that the younger aureliano's and arcadio's seem to be "less pure and have less curiosity". that basically shows that they are percieving things in their world differently than their precedents had.
Ok. I agree a lot with what William said. It reminds me of a poster that was in my sixth grade social studies class that said, "History repeats itself." And I always interpreted this as meaning that events in history will ALWAYS, inevitably reoccur. No, this doesn't mean that the exact same thing is going to happen over and over again. I very seriously doubt, for example, that another Holocaust exactly like the first will take place. The same is true of the book. History does repeat itself in subtle ways, like the names, personalities, and whatnot. But in other ways, the history changes and evolves just like language. Now I see the connection between that painting (Angelus Novus) and the book. Like the interpretation that we read in class, the angel sees progress as one giant catastrophe while we see it as a string of logical causes and events. But why can't it be some of both? Sometimes history does form a nice, neat, logical string, while other times, it can be overwhelming and seemingly timeless. The author, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, shows us, the readers, that in the way most of the book is written. At times, the plot makes perfect sense. At other times, however, he mentions a death that hasn't occurred yet, which has on multiple occasions left me very confused. The author seems to present history as something that is both logical and timeless, which goes back to the definition of magical realism ("aims to seize the paradox of the union of opposites"). History in and of itself is a paradox. Or at least, that's the perspective of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
I DISAGREE WITH THE FACT THAT EVERYONE IS SAYING THAT HISTORY REPEATS IT SELF.
History is history yea it may repeat it self in small cases you know that have no effect of the way we live. But not like yall are saying. Your talking about hitler and the romans and all kids of major catastrophies starting all over again when we get to a certain stoping point. History is not a book were you read it then start again it is continous you do something you learn from it YOU DO SOMETHING YOU LEARN FROM IT. If what yall are saying is right then something like the holocost will happen again not exactly that but something like it. I believe that history is just what has happend in the past that is experience to grown on not this revolving circular door or this spiral tail that yall talk about that has everything to do that will happen in the future. Anyone agree......
Do you mean to say that nothing like the holocaust will EVER happen again? No, it will not happen exactly the same way or over the same reasons, but it will still be very similar. It is unreasonable to say that people always learn from from their mistakes. It might feel better to say that but I know that time and time again people make the same mistakes.
To add on...If you look at the African Nation of Darfur, it is VERY similar to the hollicaust. Hundreds of people are being murdered there every day. It is all ethnic cleansing. Whether we like it or not, history is somewhat repeating itself.
it seems as if aurealino is changing and is still suffuring from the disease insomnia. when he walks down the hallway, after returning from the war, he is unaware of remedios that walks right by him and he doesnt notice that a key is hanging from his lab door. he used to be the kind of person that payed attention with everything he interacted with. maybe he is drifting of into a "universe of unreality".
I agree with William, everyday we are finding more and more history that we have already seen before. Most of the time it is not exactly the same but it does follow the same concepts and patterns. Even though you are supposed to learn from your mistakes many times that does not seem to happen.
For example the Buendia family members continue to have incestual relationships with one another even though somewhere down the line a boy was born with a pigs tail. It is very possible that if the Buendia's continue like they are another child will be born with maybe not a pigs tail but some other deformity. Everytime a family member falls in love with another family member it has always tried to be stopped but never succeeded. The Buendia's seem like they will never stop marrying their family members, no matter the consequence.
In the novel history does seem to repeat itself. In the history of the buendia family, there was an incest baby with born with a pig tail and that risk prevented jose buendia arcadio and ursula from having sex for a very long time. Later in the novel there is so much incest that i cant even keep track of it and everybody in the buendia family knows that incest may bring about a baby with a pig tail but still have incest. They dont learn from history and so far(through pg. 333) there has not been another baby with a pig tail. but that risk is always there. In consideration of the world today and not the novel, I dont really think history repeats itself. We learn about history from history books and teachers and other sources for example the internent. And of course we have to be skeptical about everything we learn about history because of human bias. People who write history books or tell stories frm generation to generation tell their stories with bias. They Exaggerate the triumphs of their time and may not exactly tell the entire truth of the conflicts or problems. But i think that history i s not something necarrasliy repeated. Welearn about wars and triumphs of individuals and inventions and discoveries and etc. We also learn about hitler and the holocust and castro and communism.I think that we see the results of those major events in history and learn from them. I dont see the holocaust ever occuring again. It happened once and everybody saw the effects and if it were to ever even be considered again it would instantly stopped by a revolt or something else. I just think history is something we live off of today and events are made in history because of major events and we see those events and people in the fur=ture will read about the people today because we make different major events and then those people in the future just learn from the mistakes of this generation along with the mistakes of the past thouseands of generations and i think that each generation makes history and then people in the future will just look at our mistakes and learn along with the mistakes we are learning about today.
In regards to Elizabeth's comment...I agree that history will not occur in the exact same way it has already occurred, that it will be altered. This is why we are referring to a pigs' tail or a spiral, not a circle. A spiral indicates the same backbone or structure with altercations; whereas a circle would have indicated the same exact things repeatedly occurring. And William, she wasn't saying a Holocaust will never ever occur again, but it will never be the exact same thing with Hitler, Germany, Jewish people, and reasoning behind it; one similar may occur, but not the same as the one that took place in the 1940s.
Bryan, I don't really agree with you. I think I see where you're coming from...but I don't agree.
The main problem I see with what you said was when you said "YOU DO SOMETHING YOU LEARN FROM IT." People don't learn from their mistakes. I have been in many a situation where a person does something, vows to never do it again, does the same exact thing with minor changes, and continuosly repeats the pattern. This is not to say that noone learns from any mistake made. Not at all. I have also seen people make mistakes and immediately correct them and never do them again. But often times, with bigger issues, this is not what happens. It's human nature...we repeat what we're comfortable with, even if that state of comfortability is false and unknown to our conscious being. Why do you think genocide, murder, rape, lying, cheating, etc, etc, happens so often?? These are on a smaller scale than what we are talking about, but they apply the same point. People don't learn. As much as we would like to think the human race is dominant and better than anything else, we are really the stupidest, most prejudiced against our own species, and most selfish things on this planet. And we learn the least from our history.
I believe that history has a tendency to be both helpful and destructive, as Elizabeth mentioned. It forms paths of destruction as it treads new paths to follow for the future. History is always building and destroying...it makes way for a future...but leaves behind so much mess, destruction, death, and so many problems. History is just progress in reverse. As you go back through history, you can see the progress forming and molding the world as it is today.
I was asked on a psychology personality profile paper what I regretted in my life. I can honestly say that I don't regret anything. I wish some things had gone differently, but what has happened in my past is what has formed who I am. Same goes for history and future. The progress that has been made is what is shaping and molding the future and what the world is. The "new angel" sees the world's destruction and bad...but somewhere isn't there an angel who is looking ahead and seeing what the world is headed for and what it can become and do right?? Maybe that's the "old angel"...but to have good you have to have evil...so to have a future, you must know your past...
Kyle and Bryan, how can you say history doesn't repeat it self?? There are about 20 Aurelianos and they all turn out to be the same. We only learn form the mistakes we want to learn from. There have been plenty of wars and yet we still fight them today. Urusla tried to put an end to all the other mistake by telling the family to stop naming their children Aureliano. Urusla is about the only person who is learning from the mistake...everyone else just looks past them and carries on tradition.
lexi, my first sentence in my passage was THAT IN THE NOVEL HISTORY DOES REPEAT ITSELF. I agree about the aurelianos and ursula and everything in the novel. and yes we are fighting wars today but for different reasons. In my opinion we shouldnt even be in the war overseas now. But we are not fighting the wars we fight today for the same reasons we fought in wars in the past. We are not fighting for our independence or whatever bc we have that now because of wars in the histroy. We are fighting in wars for different reasons and we are making history that people in the future will read about and will most likely fight in wars in the future for different reasons than todya and will just learn from past generations.
okkk whats up? its amoore as you all can tell i finally set this thing up right.
To start Off i have to agree with me when she says aureliano plays the "dying hero" i wonder if Marquez meant something by letting him"escape" death so many times he cant even commit suicide right?
if im not right then i could have sworn it was melquiades that is supposed to live a number of times.
another thing seth says when he says that life is like the pig tail i believe in that too that life does repeat itself in way too many ways but whats keeps the world turning and being argued that it does is how fast and what changes when it does repeat itself.
Adolf hitler was in power and started to take over poland. so that his nation could rule for "1,000 years" yet was stopped. rewind to 323 BC alexander the great (not me guys) took over half of the middle east the same thing adolf tried to do RULE THE WORLD yet no one could stop him and he actually got pretty far. yet history still repeated itself another dictator rose yeth adolf couldnt follow up.
$AmoorE$
A lot of what Ian and Kayla said in the beginning is true. I also agree with what Dashia said, too. (I suppose this is what I get for being one of the last few to respond, haha) Aureliano did in a way revolve his life around keeping his pride and image in tact, and within that he sort of lost sight of his surroundings, and later loses sight of himself. In the beginning Aureliano believed he knew what exactly he was fighting for, when in the end it was a selfish tactic to find contentedness within himself, which also explains, as Dashia said, how he was not fighting for either party, in the end.
like kyle said, history seems to be repeating itself in the novel one hundred years of solitude. but unlike william stated I don't believe history repeats itself, most people will learn from what has taken place. for example when the usa was struck by terrorists, most likely an event will not take place like that again because we have learn from our mistakes. in the novel that is different, the buendia family has not learn there lesson from having relations with there family members from happpen earlier in the novel when the boy was born with pig tails.
i just want to comment on how he is changing after the war that reminds me of a song by tupac shakur he says " even though wars come and go, my soldiers stay eternal" that eternal that he speaks could it be an exempt to solitude or change in the soldiers
and which do you think aureliano would be the soldiers staing eternal or the man saying the quote? because he himself leaves the war but men he drafted still go on living it
yeah i quoted tupac ... get on my level
Changing the subject completely and going back to the Benjamin paper and what someone very early in the blog said about everyone wanting power and doing anything for it, I just want to say that those related to one of our early discussions in American History. During this discussion, we were asked why there is no such thing as a perfect government. Near the end of the discussion, many people agreed selfishness was the reason that a perfect government is impossible. Everyone has their own selfish agenda and everyone is looking to make it to the top. The conservatives, or the wealthy and ones with all the power, or in the case of the novel we are reading, the government and banana company are already on top and are willing to do anything to keep it that way. The liberals are the ones stuck at the bottom trying anything to have the sweet life at the top.
Now going back to the subject of history repeating itself, I would like to comment by saying that I agree with all the people posting about history repeating itself but maybe not in exactly the same way but instead in similar ways that suggest the links betweens the events. By human nature, we are all selfish and greedy people. We all pretty much have the same needs but we also have wants. And it's those wants that make the human race do harmful and destructive things in order to obtain the things they desire. When those needs aren't met, like in the book when a soldier told Amaranta that they were fighting against priest who said they couldnt marry their mothers, anger and hate begin to rise up and control our actions which may lead to disasterous things such as war. So as long as we continue to only look after ourselves, things such as wars are expected to keep reoccurring.
I just wanted to say one last point. i said earlier that history does not neccisaraly repeat itself. I dont really see another holocaust with the jews and hitler, anothe stalin era, another revolutionary war, or another constitution etc. Those things are in the past and we are living on them today. we won our independence in a war and there is not going to be another war where we fight for independence bc we already did. also the founding fathers of the USA created the constitution and the US lives off of that constitution today. there is no need for another constitution nor will there be one. Things that happen in the past are affecting us everyday. also we are fighting in wars today but for different reasons than in the past. and i think that each generation feeds off the past generations. People in the future will learn about the events of our time for example 9/11 and the war overseas and will not do the same exact things bc our generation already fought for that or expierenced it. And along with this topic in school when we learn about history and match major events with dates we make a timeline. and this relates to the spiral and pig tail of history. a timeline is a straiht line and we match dates with major events and learn about them. We dont make a spiral or pig tail shaped timeline. We make a straight line timeline because thats what the past is. It all matches up with dates and we learn about those events and dates and are affected by them in so many ways. Just like future generations will learn about the time peiod we are living in now. Alrite thats all ive got.
I found a particular statement by Benjamin that was particularly interesting regarding his perception of history in general. He writes, "The past can only be seized as an image which flashes up at the instant when it can be recognized and is never seen again." All history is, is a bunch of images to us with a story behind each one. With that said, how can we really believe what we are taught if there is no tangible object of proof that we can base it on. History is obviously biased and that is evident in every history book you will ever pick up. So how can we be sure that we aren't repeating history if we are taught something that might not be true. If that was the case, then maybe we are making the same mistakes that previous people in history made. Therefore, I personally believe that history does repeat itself. In fact, I think history is repeated everyday in our arrogant and selfish actions. Everything we do is based on a motive to help our self in someway, even if its volunteer work. You may be doing it to look good or to put it on a college application. That is a selfish motive, therefore, I believe that there are few selfless actions that have been made in this world. And I think if we were to find these in history, then we could make a basis for our actions in which history could repeat itself in a good way.
I never have really like the statement "history repeats itself". It always seems to have a negative connotation about it. Why is it a bad thing that history is repeated? Some of the selfless acts of history such as the creating of the constitution should be set as an example to follow.
Just thought I'd add a little more, though it's late.
"The truth will not run away from us"
I found this to be a nice quote. It caused me to think alot about what we discussed during class today. It's hilarious though, that no matter how often we're taught something, we seem to make the same mistakes over and over again. Take, for example, Darfur, Rwanda, and Cambodia. Those were after WWII. We continue to say that we will never repeat history, but where are we now?
Even George Bush was considered a mistake to be put in office for his first four years (not that he's a bad guy, just saying). Yet, he won by a great amount.
I also noticed how often Aureliano Buendia did such simple and "softie" tasks, such as the Golden fish and helping with sewing, repeatedly. It seems that he does this to escape the reality, so that he get's his mind off the war, which he doesn't really have a reason to fight anymore. That reason was taken away when he's views merged with the conservatives.
"and which do you think aureliano would be the soldiers staing eternal or the man saying the quote? because he himself leaves the war but men he drafted still go on living it"
Alex, I believe aureliano would be the man saying the quote. I only say this though, because of when Aureliano went to talk to the lawyers, to create a pact. Here, Aureliano decides to give up the fight, since it turns to a fight for power. He even sends his best friend to his death, almost.
Also, a response to what Rob Jolly said earlier, about the winners writing history. We need to change it. Obviously, history makes the losers look like the evil side currently. Like you said, what makes them evil? They might be saviours for all we know! History would be much easier to trust if it had a neutral standpoint.
too bad neutral is just a concept...seems like it to me, anyway.
MATT
I agree with Araam. All of history does tend to have some bias against to individuals that the story is about. for example, the classic story of George Washington and the cherry tree. The story was told in order to make washington seem like a more honest person as he led our country a few hundred years ago. but how many kids do you know have the courage to tell the truth to their parents after they just cut down their dads favorite tree. but in my opinion i think Marquez does a good job of telling the story of Macondo with unbias toward any character.
Also i disagree with Kayla. Neutral is more than just a concept. It is also can also be used as a color reference, a gear in a vehicle, and a standpoint one can take in an altercation.
matt...i was talking more about how people are always biased.
i dont know/care about cars.
:p
A Different Point of View
In 100 YEARS OF SOLITUDE, an idea I recognized was perception of the individual both in present and past times (history). Every single person in the world see's things as well as remembers things from a different point of view from the person next to them. In war, a soldier of one army will remember a totally different version than that of an enemy soldier.
Walter Benjamin states a great point in VI of "Theses on the Philosophy of History." The quote is:
"To articulate the past
historically does not mean to
recognize it 'the way it
really was'."
This deals with perception in that to tell/state something, which previously happened, is based on an individual. The statement goes back to show that every person has a different point of view (perception).
-Alex
Boduch
hey guys ok well i was in the kitchen watching a tv special on 9/11 and the most coincedintal thing happened my dad said "youd better be watching this so you make sure history doesnt happen again" and well this gott me to thinking how will watching our mistakes help not repeat history and i thought about what i said when i talked about how adolf didnt succeed in taking over the world like alexander the great almost did
question: is it because we learnd from ourr mistakes before?
I've never really given any thought to whether we learn from our mistakes or not, but it doesn't seem like it to me. 9/11 got me thinking a lot about this, and how we never seem to know how to handle a situation. There have been many dictators that threaten many countries well being, and time upon time again we take years to solve the problem.. It's been 7 years since the attack on the twin towers and we haven't made it much farther than the day we crossed the borders of Iraq. Shouldn't we have the process a little more down pat, should it not take less than 7 years and 4,158 American lives later? Thats not even to mention the 2,766,907 inocent Iraqi citizens that have been killed by the terrorists.
Post a Comment