Anjali's Daily Krishna Pictures

Rasa's 30-day Drawing Challenge (or Challange?)

Brutus: Patriot or Traitor? by Hanuman

Hanuman Durina

Honors English 2B

May 25, 2014

Brutus, the Back-stabber

When white abolitionist John Brown and his followers planned to raid the armory at Harper’s Ferry in 1859, he knew they would be committing treason. He did it anyway, because he felt so strongly that his cause, the abolition of slavery, was just, that he felt that any action he took would be morally justified. In the same way, Brutus justified his role in the assassination of Julius Caesar by arguing that his only goal was to stop Rome’s advance towards imperial rule. Justifying the means to an end is all Brutus is really doing, and as an honorable man, he had to ignore his conscience so as to carry out the heinous crime of stabbing Caesar. Some may argue that Brutus was just doing as he was told by Cassius, the ringleader of the assassins, and that eliminating Caesar was the only way to stop Caesar from rising to power as the Emperor of Rome. However, an intelligent man like Brutus should have foreseen that Caesar’s death alone would not stop the fall of the Roman Republic, as many powerful men besides Caesar desired to become the sole controller of Rome. Brutus proposes his solution to the Caesar problem when he says to himself: “And that craves wary walking. Crown him? And then, I grant, we put a sting in him.“ But this only solves the immediate problem, rather than actually preventing Rome from becoming an Empire. He also should have seen that envious Cassius’s intentions were not pure and been more wary of his counsel. Despite the friendship they shared, Brutus was willing to kill Caesar with no regard for his life or the lives of his family, showing that he betrayed both Caesar and himself by falling prey to the flattering and false words of the conspirators, especially Cassius.

Brutus was an honorable man, and so most people throughout time have believed his claim that his motive was never to hurt Caesar, but only to stop Rome from becoming an empire, a fate he thought so terrible that it justified killing his best friend. However, despite his intentions, Brutus didn’t stop Rome from becoming an empire, he just stopped Caesar from becoming emperor. This path ultimately led to a civil war between the triumvirate, and the eventual reign of an empire more dictatorial than any led by Caesar. Even if Caesar had been crowned, his rule would have been tempered by the Senators, many of whom opposed a strong central system. After Caesar’s death, though, the senators were powerless to restrain the Emperors. Even the citizens knew this to be true; as one said, “I fear there will a worse come in his place.” Another strong argument that can be made in Brutus’s defense is that Brutus was just following the orders he was given by Cassius and the other noble conspirators. Perhaps he let his trust in the Republic and its leaders cloud his judgment and prevent him from seeing Cassius’s greed, hate, and envy at Caesar’s rise to power. But the fact is, Brutus was not simply following orders; his actual role in the horrible act was one of a willing participant.  He was not a fool or a low-minded person, who blindly followed others. Rather, Brutus’s hero complex was the driving force behind the supposedly altruistic assassination. Only such a tragic flaw could inspire a great man to kill a dear friend over mere politics. Caesar clearly expected loyalty from his dear friend Brutus, and was saddened to find that he had taken the side of the murderous conspirators, as shown when Caesar said his famous line: “Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar.”

Brutus killed Caesar. Like many of the killers and conspirators, he was a close friend of Caesar. Not only did he take part in the slaying, but he did it in an underhanded way, ganging up on him and stabbing him in the back. This is not the behavior of an “honorable man.” This one cowardly act led to the end of both Caesar’s and his own lives, along with Brutus’s wife. Many noblemen, conspirators and not, died in the ensuing battle, as did countless soldiers and innocent people like Cinna the poet, who was beaten just for sharing one of the conspirators’ name.  Moreover, his stated “reasons… of such good regard.” which even the son of Caesar should be “satisfied with”, were completely undermined by the outrage and strife resulting from Caesar’s bloody slaughter.  He listened to Cassius, and ignored the obvious personal envy and hatred in his words.  Cassius states in Act I, scene II,

“Caesar cried 'Help me, Cassius, or I sink!'
I, as Aeneas, our great ancestor,
Did from the flames of Troy upon his shoulder
The old Anchises bear, so from the waves of Tiber
Did I the tired Caesar. And this man
Is now become a god, and Cassius is
A wretched creature and must bend his body,
If Caesar carelessly but nod on him.
He had a fever when he was in Spain,
And when the fit was on him, I did mark
How he did shake: 'tis true, this god did shake;
His coward lips did from their colour fly,
And that same eye whose bend doth awe the world
Did lose his lustre: I did hear him groan:
Ay, and that tongue of his that bade the Romans
Mark him and write his speeches in their books,
Alas, it cried 'Give me some drink, Titinius,'
As a sick girl. Ye gods, it doth amaze me
A man of such a feeble temper should
So get the start of the majestic world
And bear the palm alone.

Why did the “noble” Brutus not hear the anger and desire for vengeance in Cassius’s words as you surely do? Caesar also noted the hatred of Cassius: “Let me have men about me that are fat;/ Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o' nights:/ Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;/ He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.” Cassius himself said if he were Brutus, he would not trust Cassius, and that is why he decided to throw the false letters of concern into Brutus’s house at night. Brutus should have been more wary of the counsel of such a snakelike man. He should have used his influence, which was said to be second only to Caesar’s, to lead the conspirators and others to find a less bloody and more reasonable long-term solution to the problems the republic was facing.

To this day, a back-stabber is a despised person. He is a liar, a coward, and a traitor. Of course, today we use the phrase only metaphorically. But Brutus, who “loved Caesar well” actually stabbed his friend in the back with a knife. Maybe, as Brutus believed, his reasons were good, and the act was justified. But if his actions were so well-reasoned, why did the plan backfire on him and the other conspirators? Influenced by Cassius’s flattery and caught up in the mob-mentality of the conspiracy, he committed a murder far beneath the honorable reputation he was so proud of. He spoke of his love for Rome: “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved/ Rome more.” But he is simply using the ends to justify the means. He is falsely claiming that because he loved Rome, the only choice he had was to kill Caesar. Was there no other option? Mark Anthony said it correctly when he called Brutus’s stabbing of Caesar “the unkindest cut of all,” because it caused not only physical pain, but also was a terrible betrayal of Caesar, a dear friend, and betrayal of Rome as well.

The Battle of the Alamo: a Research Paper by Vidura

The Battle of the Alamo

The Alamo was founded in 1718 as a Spanish mission called Francisco mission of San Antonio de Valero after that it was abandoned for about one hundred years before the battle of the Alamo, and right before that the Alamo was used by the Mexican army too as a base but was taken over and re-fortified by the Texans.

The Battle of the Alamo was caused by the revolution of Texas. The Texas revolution happened because Texas couldn’t gain statehood— its population was too low. Meanwhile, American settlers saw the good land and started moving into the Mexican-controlled territory. Because of this, the population of Texas increased drastically from 1823-1828. The Mexican government was not happy that the settlers were moving in because they could see that it was sparking a revolution. The Tejanos, on the other hand, were happy because they saw it as a chance for Texas to gain statehood. The Mexican government was angry, so to stop the revolution they made it so that no American settlers were allowed to enter the Mexican territory. That only made the settlers and Tejanos angrier, and that was the real reason for the Texas revolution. 

The battle of the Alamo lasted for many days and the number of people killed topped an astounding   1,800. The number of people injured were countless. All though we don’t know exactly how many people there where, we know that all of the 187 Texan defenders were killed, and in the fort only a few people such as slave and a woman with her child were spared. At the battle of the Alamo, the Texans did lose but they actually got more kills. But General Santa Anna fought hard to make sure all Texan troops were killed because he did not want one to be spared. He also did not want to keep any captives not even the Texan army generals (such as William Travis).  

David Crocket was a famous speaker, a congressman, and a very good hunter. He wanted move to Texas when he saw a nice plot of land, although his wife did not want to move and she thought that they were perfectly fine were they were. Later, when the Texas revolution started he and 12 of his men fought in it and died defending the Alamo from the Mexican troops. The reason he fought was because he could see that the Mexican government was being very unfair to the people living in Texas. David Crocket is now commonly known as Davy Crocket although back when he was still alive people always called him David, not Davy.

James Bowie was also a famous man even before the battle of the Alamo. His brother Reza Bowie invented the bowie knife which is still used today. James Bowie used the bowie knife while fighting at the Alamo and the other Texas volunteers used similar knifes. James Bowie spent most of his time growing up in Louisiana although he was born in Kentucky. He moved to Texas in 1830 were he married the vice governor’s daughter Ursula Veramendi. He was a nineteenth century, smuggler, pioneer, slave trader, soldier, and speculator.

Unlike David Crocket and James Bowie, William Travis was really famous before he dies at the Alamo. William Travis went to Sparta academy were he learned subjects such as Greek, Latin, History, and Mathematics. After his education was finished at the age of 18, he became an assistant teacher at Monroe County were fell in love with Rosanna Cato. William and Rosanna married in October 1828. Just a year after their marriage Rosanna gave birth to their first son Charlie. He took charge of the defenders of the Alamo when Colonel James Neill had to leave due to sickness in his family.

The defenders of the Alamo were mostly American settlers who moved to Texas and didn’t think the Mexican government was doing a good job ruling over the Texas province. The Alamo defenders were besieged for about thirteen days starting in late-February and ending in early march. On one of the walls, there were cut down trees and an armored deck with cannons. The defenders dropped loads like stones on the attackers below. One of the main defenses of the Alamo were the heavy cannons. The defenders also had ditches on many of the walls where the defenders could lay on their stomachs and shoot at the Mexicans.

General Santa Anna was also not just a general but the president of Mexico too. General Santa Anna had almost 2,400 troops in San Antonio, although more were also coming. One tactic the Mexican soldiers used was put ladders up to the walls; this meant that the front row of defenders would die. The reason so many Mexican troops died was because Santa Anna was careless. One time when the Mexican officers protested against the ladder tactic because it would lose too many men, he held up a piece of chicken that he was in the middle of eating and said: “What are the lives of soldiers more than so many chickens? I tell you, the Alamo must fall, and my orders must be obeyed at all hazards. If our soldiers are driven back, the next line in their rear must force those before them forward, and compel them to scale the walls, cost what it may (Walker, 47).”          

Children and women were also in the Alamo, so because the Mexican government didn’t want everyone to think they were careless, they had to be careful not to kill children and mothers who were civilians and didn’t pose any threat upon the Mexican government. The battle of the Alamo had many effects. First of all, it gave people something to fight for. At later battles, people were heard screaming, “REMEMBER THE ALAMO!” and having so much courage that they could destroy enemy lines easily. Because of this battle cry, the Texans were able to win battles easily.          

    At the battle of the Alamo, the Mexican army suffered over 600 hundred Casualties and all 187 Texan defenders were killed. That means that if there were the same amount of Texans as there were Mexican soldiers, the Texans would have won the battle of the Alamo which would have made it even more famous than it is today. The battle of the Alamo made its defenders into martyrs and heroes. The famous men Davy Crockett, William Travis, and James Bowie were among them. Texans could also have more to fight for then they did before.

  

Works Cited

Alphin, Elaine M, and Tim Parlin. Davy Crockett. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Co, 2003. Print.

Connor, Seymour V. "Alamo, The." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Online, 2014. Web. 6 Mar. 2014.

The Official Alamo Website. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Mar. 2014.

Riehecky, Janet. The Siege of the Alamo. Milwaukee, WI: World Almanac Library, 2002. Print.

Walker, Paul R. Remember the Alamo: Texians, Tejanos, and Mexicans Tell Their Stories. Washington, D.C: National Geographic, 2007. Print.

The Lay of the Were Wolf

Hanu had to analyse this story, and argue who is the monster; Bisclavaret or his wife?

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-lais-of-marie-de-france/e-text/section9/

Here is his essay:

In defense of Bisclavaret:

Logos

Bisclavaret hid his secret from his wife to protect her, and to protect himself. When she demanded the truth, he told her. She loved him before she knew his condition, so why should she not love him afterward? Logically, she should have seen that he had always been a werewolf, and yet she loved him. So his being a werewolf did not make him a monster.

Pathos

When the wolf who was Bisclavaret saw his former wife and her new husband, he was overcome with fury. Any man who had been betrayed in such a terrible way would have behaved the same way. If fact, an animal might not care if his mate left him for another mate. His pain at his love’s betrayal shows that he is human, not a monster.

Ethos

After finding out about her husband’s condition, the wife conspired behind her Lord’s back with another man, stole from him, and caused him to live as an animal while she and her new lover usurped his kingdom and properties and left him to die in the wilderness. Bisclavaret, on the other hand, remained faithful and loyal to the king despite the terrible circumstances he was put in. Bisclavaret was loyal and his wife was not. So she is the monster.

Closing Argument:

A logical person must see that Bisclavaret is not a monster. He rightly expected that if he told the truth, his wife may fear him. So, rather than ruin his marriage over a thing he had no control over, he hid the reason for his disappearances from his wife who he loved dearly. When pressed, he revealed the truth to her. She loved him before she knew his condition, so why should she not love him afterward? Logically, she should have seen that he had always been a werewolf, and yet she loved him. So his being a werewolf did not make him a monster. Instead she betrayed him. But even after he was betrayed, he remained in the forest to avoid harming anyone. As a wolf, he could have done great harm to his former wife. But rather than recklessly act as a monster would, he just lived in the woods before becoming the trusted confidante of the king. The fact that even as an animal he was only aggressive towards his former wife and her usurping suitor, shows how just and rational he had always been, as a beast or a man.

Bisclavaret was deeply pained by his wife’s actions and the pitiful situation into which he was tricked. Still, rather than becoming violent and acting terribly, he instead acted peacefully and surrendered to his conditions. He lived a life of peace in the forest before becoming the king’s dog. He not only was just as trustworthy and kind as a wolf as he had been as a man, but he acted like a gentleman through all his troubles. When the wolf who was Bisclavaret saw his former wife and her new husband, he was overcome with fury. Any person who had been betrayed in such a terrible way would have behaved the same way. If fact, an animal might not care if his mate left him for another mate. His pain at his love’s betrayal shows that he is human, not a monster.

An ethical person has loyalty to those they love, but a monster has no love or loyalty. The wife claimed to love Bisclavaret, but she did not truly love him or she would have accepted him for who he was. He tried to live as honestly and happily as could, given his unfortunate predicament. But after his wife found out about her husband’s condition, she conspired behind her Lord’s back with another man, stole from him, and caused him to live forever as an animal in the wilderness while she and her new lover usurped his kingdom and properties. Bisclavaret, on the other hand, remained faithful and loyal to the king despite the terrible circumstances he was put in. Bisclavaret was loyal and his wife was not. So the wife is clearly the real monster.

5 Flowers, 4 Stories, 3 Cheers for Animals!

Anjali is working on a Daisy Girl Scout Journey called, "5 Flowers, 4 Stories, 3 Cheers for Animals!" There is a workbook, and in addition she is doing many educational activities to earn each of the three smaller badges which go on the larger patch:

Right now, she's working on the birdbath patch. Here are some pictures of her at the library "PAWS for Reading" event, where she read to a therapy dog and learned about how dogs can help people.

She also made a dog hand puppet there. A few of the other things we've done this week were making popcorn garlands for birds, putting out lint and yarn scraps for birds to build nests with, making a honeycomb collage.

Hanuman's Psychological Analysis Essay on Jane Eyre

Hanuman P. Durina

Honors English II B

Bringing It All Together

March 25, 2014

Why Is Jane Eyre an Orphan?

Oliver Twist, Mary Lennox, Heathcliff, and Harry Potter; all of these memorable characters are orphans, as are many main characters in both children’s and adult fiction. Orphans have always been plentiful in literature, because they are often sympathetic and memorable characters, but also because their unique situation allows them to have experiences that most children, who have doting and protective parents, could not have: “They are a manifestation of loneliness, but they also represent the possibility for humans to reinvent themselves. Orphans begin with a clean slate because they do not have parents to influence them either for good or for evil” (Kimball, 559). In Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte, the titular character was orphaned at a young age, and as a result she underwent many hardships. She was abused, spurned, betrayed, humiliated, and belittled. Although she eventually found happiness at the end of her journey through the book, it could easily be argued that happiness would have come to her far easier had she not been an orphan and had been protected and supported by her parents. Jane Eyre’s parents’ death and her being raised as an orphan changed the course of her life drastically and had a notable effect on her psychology—both for the worse.

Because of her early orphanage, Jane went through many hardships, and her life was completely upset by her parents’ deaths. Losing her parents resulted in her being forced to live with her aunt, Mrs. Reed “and orphan heroines are often cruelly treated by their female relations” (Kimball, 562). Her extended family did not treat her as one of their own; instead she lived a life of Cinderella-style servitude and artificially imposed poverty, as is the case with many orphaned heroines, “Abbot says I have less right to be here than a servant" (Bronte, 16). Jane would have been a far happier child if she had parents, as she would have not been abused by her Aunt and cousins such as when her cousin caught her reading a book;

You have no business to take our books; you are a dependent, mama says; you have no money; your father left you none; you ought to beg, and not to live here with gentlemen's children like us, and eat the same meals we do, and wear clothes at our mama's expense. Now, I'll teach you to rummage my bookshelves: for they ARE mine; all the house belongs to me, or will do in a few years. Go and stand by the door, out of the way of the mirror and the windows."

I did so, not at first aware what was his intention; but when I saw him lift and poise the book and stand in act to hurl it, I instinctively started aside with a cry of alarm: not soon enough, however; the volume was flung, it hit me, and I fell, striking my head against the door and cutting it. The cut bled, the pain was sharp: my terror had passed its climax; other feelings succeeded (Bronte, 4-5).

 Her mistreatment never broke her spirit, though; “"Unjust!--unjust!" said my reason, forced by the agonizing stimulus into precocious though transitory power: and Resolve, equally wrought up, instigated some strange expedient to achieve escape from insupportable oppression--as running away, or, if that could not be effected, never eating or drinking more, and letting myself die” (Bronte, 9). Still, she probably would have grown into a happier adult and lived a normal life apart from the heartbreak of her teenage years, as well as being supported after retirement from Mr. Rochester’s estate. She also may not have been sent to the same school and followed the same career path as a governess, thereby not experiencing many of the great hardships she faced on her journey. We might assume that Jane would have led a far happier life if she had not been orphaned, although she may have never met Mr. Rochester, with whom at the end of the book she achieves perfect marital bliss.

When an Author makes the main character an orphan, such as in J.K. Rowling’s popular Harry Potter series, he or she does so not only to enable certain plot points to move forward, but also because of the way orphanhood affects the psychological condition and inner psyche of the character. For Jane, the main psychological effects are her pessimistic world view and her determination and resilience. . She is resistant to change, and this is one of the reasons she leaves Mr. Rochester and cancels her marriage with St. John. I think that much of her personality was molded by all the hardships she went through, and though it made her stronger, it made her sadder. She even tried to convince herself that she should have no feelings for Mr. Rochester "You have nothing to do with the master of Thornfield, further than to receive the salary he gives you for teaching his protégée - He is not of your order: keep to your caste; and be too self-respecting to lavish the love of the whole heart, soul, and strength, where such a gift is not wanted and would be despised" (Bronte, 84). Jane would have been far happier if she had parents as a child and had not been confined to the life presented by her family and had not become as defensive and self-destructive a character. Her aunt was hateful and abusive, as were her cousins, and it led to very strong defensive barriers. The nasty Reed family taught her that poverty was synonymous was with degradation, and she thought that “Poverty looks grim to grown people; still more so to children: they have not much idea of industrious, working, respectable poverty-for me [it] was synonymous with degradation” (Bronte, 63). This led to her early on having problems dealing with her own poverty and happiness. We might assume that Jane would have led a far happier life if she had not been orphaned, although she may have never met Mr. Rochester, with whom at the end of the book she achieves perfect marital bliss, “He loved me so truly, that he knew no reluctance in profiting by my attendance: he felt I loved him so fondly, that to yield that attendance was to indulge my sweetest wishes” (Bronte, 432).

Jane Eyre was a very free spirited woman, not only for the time in which she lived, but also today. As Dave Astor writes in The Huffington Post, “Jane has to mostly make her own way in the world” (Astor). Because of this she would rather be happy and poor than sad and rich, but because she is an orphan, she tries very hard to not hold onto things that may not last. This causes her to have many problems with relationships and friendships, and she feels like unless she can find somewhere she can be truly happy she cannot stay. She also regrets many decisions she makes because she fears that they were the key to her happiness and that she made the wrong decision. In the end of the book, she claims to be truly happy, “My Edward and I, then, are happy” (Bronte, 433), so maybe her difficult life brought her to a great reward, but I think she would have found happiness sooner if she had not had to undergo such strife.

Works Cited

Brontë, Charlotte. Jane Eyre: Introduction by Joyce Carol Oates. Bantam Books, 1987. Print.

"Dave Astor: Orphans in Literature." The Huffington Post. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.

Kimball, Melanie A. "From Folktales to Fiction: Orphan Characters in Children’s Literature."Library Trends 47.3 (1999): 558-578. , Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois. Web. 31 Mar. 2014. <https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/8216/librarytrendsv47i3p_opt.pdf?sequence=1century>.

"Orphans - Childhood Studies - Oxford Bibliographies -." Oxford Bibliographies - Your Best Research Starts Here -. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.