Sungtae Kim/ Chapter 2/ Part 5/ A2/ Wed1~2

Marriage is a crucial incident in life that can influence and determine how happy a person will be in the future. Happy marriage is a potent factor that makes people enjoy their life. It influences health and entire well-being of people in positive way. On the other hand, failure in marriage can be devastating to the mental, physical state. Even worse, it can cause divorce. Therefore it is important to properly acknowledge the causes of these failures and try to revise the behavior.

First, lack of communication is harmful in the marriage. It is almost impossible to sustain friendship, which is one of the most basic type of relationship, if there is few communication between the two people. To protect certain relationship it is significant to keep in touch with each other. Marriage is a very fragile and delicate type of relationship which takes extremely long time to recover when it is spoiled. Talking and exchanging the feeling can protect marriage from being harmed.

Another cause of divorce is focusing on the flaws of each other. Actually this is the main cause of discords in all kinds of relationships. There isn't anybody who would prefer listening another person pick up the flaws and keep scolding about it. When a gardener finds out that a tree is sick, he doesn't just cut off all the parts that have disease. He would rather try to scrape out as little as possible and carefully wrap it so that it can recover. Over-criticizing is like trying to cut all the parts of the tree that are ill. It at times may change the person on few aspects, but there is more chance that he or she get overwhelmed and eventually end the relationship. Instead of doing this, finding good aspects and complimenting about it can enhance the marriage and even help the damaged relationship to recover.

Finally, not cooperating can cause the problem. Cooperation has long been stressed as the essential characteristic in group life. That's why all the companies and schools ask the applicants to prove that they can cooperate with others. Marriage is also a type of group life. Some people say that marriage is like a machine. If each component in the machine that should be interlocked, try not to "cooperate" anymore, would it be a problem? The machine will surely break down. Similarly, lack of cooperation can make the marriage difficult to go on. However, if the couple try hard to help each other sincerely and understand the differences, the problems will be alleviated or even automatically solved.

As a conclusion, arguments and problems in marriage are caused by lack of communication, concentrating on the faults of the spouse, and not cooperating. In reality, there are much more causes of marriage problems that are not mentioned in this passage like being dishonest. But if the root of the relationship between the couple is strengthen enough by following the feedbacks mentioned earlier, the problems will definitely decrease.

Hayeon Jin / Chapter 2, Part 5-A / Wed. 1-2

2. Many marriages end in divorce, often because love has failed. What are the causes of this failure? (Think in general terms, not of one particular couple you know.)

Most couples get married when their love peaks. That is why newlywed couples are so excited to live and be bonded together. The spouse would be the apple of his/ her eye at that time. However, when the sweet romance ends and the couple gets real, true marriage life starts. Couples fight often for various reasons as they live together and many of them end in divorce if the conflict goes too far. Misunderstanding, distrust, and boredom are the major causes of the marriage failure.

 Misunderstanding is one of the most common reasons why people fight, and the couples can hardly avoid it. As couples spend much time together and talk a lot, trivial or serious verbal conflicts naturally follow. The conflict might start when one's tongue slips or when one makes eluding speech. When the couples lose a chance to reconcile, misunderstanding begins. The message one party wanted to deliver to his/her spouse would be distorted in a bad way when they misunderstand each other.

Distrust is the most heartbreaking marriage failure. This often happens when one party does illicit love. For instance, when the husband has a girlfriend, he would secretly keep in touch with her. Since the couple lives together, the wife would certainly know that her husband is hiding something. When the liaison gets caught, the wife would absolutely distrust her husband. Even he regrets and loves his wife again, she can hardly trust him back. It means to say that the break of trust is equal to the break of smooth and sweet marriage.

 Boredom is the most incontrollable cause of marriage failure. It happens when the couple does not love each other anymore. There are many reasons why their love gets cold. If they spend too much time together and fight often, they could get tired of each other. On the contrary, even if they do not go out and rarely spend time together for a long time, they could not care for each other. If those are not the case, the banality of old couples could also be the reason of boredom.

 As mentioned above, there are numerous reasons of marriage failure. It is right to get divorce if the couples can't enjoy their time together. However, they should at least give the partner a second chance or try to love their spouse more before they decide to end the marriage in divorce.

 

Ye Eun Park / Chapter 2 Part 2 B1 / Wed 1~2

What does Esther mean by the last two lines of the story, speaking about the murder? "They account for it by the fact that I am a Redskin. They seem to have forgotten I am a woman."

 

When I read these two sentences, I felt so sad. I think the last two lines imply strong feelings of betrayal when she listened Father paul's talking. It seems like she says "They don't think of me as a human. To them, I am just "Redskin" person."

 

Esther maybe got hurt so seriously. As she grows, she has been confused very often and had many painful experiences because of her blood. To her, Father paul was trustful person and her lover, Laurence was more trustful person.

 

Of course, Father paul's talking about Esther makes her so depressed. But I think Laurence's agreement about his uncle opinion makes her more feel frustrated because she believed him so much and loved her. She had believed that Paul and Laurence think of her as a human. But the talking made her think they think of her "Redskin" person as many people.

 

Consequently, her rabid behavior is caused by her frustration of long-held beliefs. These two sentences imply her depressions and racism that she has felt long time.

 

Sunyoung Park / Chapter 2 part 2 B1 / Wed 1-2

1.       Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so? 

 

Is killing a human acceptable? My answer has always been 'No'.  Even in this situation where there were specific and reasonable reasons for killing someone, the answer is still 'No'. I reckon that no matter what the reason is, it should not be led to murdering.

However, that doesn't mean I cannot sympathize what she would have been feeling in that situation. In spite of my thought that killing is never acceptable, there are several reasons why I understand and sympathize her.

In one-dimension, I can suppose that she simply did not want his lover, Laurence, to be taken by other girl beside her. To see a lover beside someone else is the cruelest thing to watch. Furthermore, he was the one who Esther loved and trusted the most. Even after she overheard the conversation between father Paul and Laurence, she did not have rage toward Laurence. Rather, she praised his beauty and was astonished by the fact that she still loves him even after she heard Laurence's agreement with father Paul's thought. She could not let him go to other women's bosom because he was invaluable person to her. It was just a matter of impossibility.

Looking deeper, the situation made her do so. She was betrayed by the person who she thought was 'life-long friend' and someone who 'cares for Esther's happiness'. She would have felt betrayed by the whole world or even more than that. Right after she got the inside of father Paul's thought of her, anger and disappointment have swiped her. This situation might have made Esther think unreasonable and go insane, and this led her to kill someone.

Then, was there nothing she could do other than killing Laurence? Was this the only solution she could make in this situation? She might glorify homicide with a few beautiful and poetic lines and justify her misdeed, but murder never can be acceptable.

 

 

Soyoung Woo/Chapter2 Part2 B1/Wed 1-2

Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

 

  No, I don't understand that she killed Laurence because of hatred. Of course, That Laurence and Father Paul hurt Esther's heart is fact. Father Paul said that her mother is uncivilized and her father is 'a dash of French somewhere, half-breed'. he also said that her family involved Esther is 'bad mixture'. In other words, he insulted her family just because her family is uncivilized.

 

  I think that Father Paul's thinking is really wrong because I think all humans are equal. That Esther's mother is uncivilized and her father is half-breed is not justification for ignoring them. And I don't understand the reaction of Laurence about what Father Paul said. Laurence obviously loved Esther but he changed his mind when he heard Father Paul's insult about Esther and her family. Laurence should have contradicted Father Paul's claim If he loved her heartily. but he just accepted Father Paul's claim. Laurence's these behaviors made Esther more lonely and exhausted.

 

  However, Esther's murder was very emotional behavior. Father Paul obviously ignores her family but he really sympathizes her and fonds of her. Also Laurence and Esther was friend. I think it makes sense Laurence and Esther ends their relationship but Esther's murder is absolutely wrong behavior. It's very merciless to Laurence.

 

Minjeong Lee/Chapter 2 Part 2 B2/ Wed 1-2

2. What does Esther mean by the last two lines of the story, speaking about murder? "They account for it by the fact that I am a Redskin. They seem to have forgotten I am a woman."

 

 

Esther wanted to deliver the message that Father Paul and the other missionaries did not consider her as a human being, but as a redskin, an uncivilized, and a person from inferior culture.

 

 

Esther was not treated fairly as white people because she was not white; even her request for marriage was declined by Father Paul because she dared to marry white man. In other words, she could not be with who she wants to be with, and be happy, only by the reason of her un-white origin. Father Paul, the white missionary, seemed to care her and love her wholeheartedly. She believed he did so, until she overheard the conversation between him and Laurence. He told Laurence that she is not pure enough to marry the white guy with fair-blonde-hair, due to her origin. She was from Cree first nation, and was separated from her home when she was young as the Father Paul thought she should be educated and devoted to the god.

 

 

She had been through desperate racism. She not only underwent the minor discrimination, but also not regarded as a decent human being or a woman. Her demand was all unaccepted. It is not written in given passage, but it is described in the book that she was declined several times when she said she was longing to visit her home. It means Father Paul, who represents the missionary society, does not accept her desire due to her origin is "evil pagan". She thought she was betrayed, so she killed her lover, then she ran away. Father Paul suspected Esther as long as she was absent. She stated "They account for it by the fact that I am a Redskin. They seem to have forgotten I am a woman". They assumed that she killed him due to her cursed origin, so uncivilized that even killed a person. However, the real reason why she killed him is that she loved sincerely. However Father Paul dared not to ask if she did so due to her thwarted love because he did not thought she was a woman, just like white little Ida McIntosh, but as a redskin to be enlightened.

 

 

Seonghwan Cho / Chapter2 Part2 B1 / Wed 1-2

Topic 1. Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

 

A Native American woman named Esther left her family to become educated Christian. She was raised by Father Paul. He had a nephew, whose name is Laurance. As adult, Esther and Laurance fell in love with each other. To get admittance to uncle Paul, Laurence told him about their love. But, Paul who seemed to be generous got upset and disagreed.

 

Moreover, He persuaded his nephew to drop the love for Esther with racist-like remarks and suggesting marriage to another white woman. Eventually, Laurence followed Paul's advice. Overhearing their conversation, Esther killed Laurence due to the disappointment to their betrayal and jealousy to that white woman, and then left the house.

 

I can understand why she killed him. The reason is about Esther's emotion. Her feeling of being betrayed and disappointment may be as great as the affection and trust to them. The presence of Paul and Laurence is a kind of comfort to Esther who had a hard time because she is a exiled person. But there no longer were such solace. Especially, failure of love with Laurence may be a big shock to her.

 

However, I cannot accept her behavior. It was impulsive, unreasonable, and impersonal treatment. Of course, such feeling always change people's mind in an instant. But she should have tried to be calm and find another solution. She will suffer from that awful memory and guilty forever.

 

Seonghwan Cho / Chapter2 Part2 B1 / Wed 1-2 

Sangwon Park / Chapter 2 part 2 B-1 / Wed. 1-2

Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that did so?

 

When I read this story, I could sympathize with all of characters and feel they are so pitiable. As the final outcome, Laurence died a miserable death. Father Paul also felt depressed because of his nephew's death. And Esther lost not only her lover but also her civilized faith.

   

Well, I think Esther could select another way not killing her lover. In my opinion, Laurence just have lack courage to face his uncle. If Esther truly encouraged her lover and persuaded Father Paul, she might be a bride. But, she was blinded by her hatred, so choosing the worst way that become an murderer.

 

Meanwhile, I think Her behavior proves she was not qualified to become a civilized person's bride in the first place. In the civilized society, no matter how angry we are, we generally do not kill or hit someone else. Because conscience prevents us from doing that kinds of act.

 

I couldn't find any phrase about Esther's pang of conscience when she decided to commit sin, nevertheless murder is one of the largest sin in a civilized society. That means Esther doesn't have a appropriate conscience for civilized society.

 

I don't claim that she is Psychopath who doesn't have a conscience. I agree that she also have a conscience. The problem is that her conscience is fitted for uncivilized society where mother look on and even support her daughter's crime. (Of course, white people's attitude is also bad. We can see their bad attitude about racism. What I want to say is not white people's morality is better than indian's morality, I just want to talk about indian's unreasonable thoughts like honor killings in arab country.)

 

I think when Esther decided to kill her lover without the pang of conscience, she already lost her right to become a civilized person's bride. Futhermore, she doesn't have a right to claim that she is also a victim who deserve to get some pity. She is just a criminal.

 

Consequently, I can understand Esther's agony by the betrayal of her lover. But, absolutely, I can't accept her crime. Crime cannot be justified under any circumstances in civilized society. 

Hye-ri Lee / Chapter 2 part 2 B1 / Wed 1-2

  Have you ever been betrayed by someone who you have entirely trusted? If your answer was 'yes', maybe, you could understand the feeling that motivated Esther to kill Laurence. Then, How do you think about killing other people in revenge for his betrayal? Is it reasonable? Can you accept it? My answer is 'NO'. When someone who we love and think dearest betray us, we might fall into despair and tremble with rage. I just understand the cause of her act, but never accept what she did.

  Until she overheard the conversation between Father Paul and Laurence, she had entirely trusted and depended on Father Paul. In this story, she thought Father Paul as 'her venerable teacher', whom she revered as she would one of the saints in his own black book. On this phrase, I could guess that she deeply had faith in him and regarded him as extremely valuable people.

  Also, she loved Laurence, her old playmate and Father Paul's nephew. He whispered her his love for her and made her realize that she also loved him. Furthermore, he asked for his uncle to allow to marry her. However, Father Paul strongly rejected his request and persuaded to stop loving her. Also, he looked down on her precious identity like her bloods, parents and nationality. Finally, Laurence accepted his uncle's opinion and decided to forget her. She was betrayed by both the man like a saint and her lover who she had really trusted. Then, she would destroy Father Paul's lives by killing Laurence, his dearest nephew and her lover. I could not imagine how irate, disappointed and sad she was in that moment. So, I can comprehense the process of changing her mind and the cause of murder, but I can never admit murder she did.

  There are nowhere rational reasons why someone can kill others. I think murder is the most terrible deed that ignores other people's right to be alive and happy. For this reason, it isn't accepted to me that Esther killed her lover for not only revenge on Father Paul but also any other reason. 

Yejee Oh/ Chapter2 B1 / Wed 1-2

Everyone undergoes new experiences, relationships with others and through that, people would have both gaiety feeling and emotions of betrayal and disappointment. In Esther's case, her strong resentment and feeling of betrayal might be derived from various perspectives. One can be her deeply entrenched feeling of homesickness and nostalgia, or it can be her dependence toward Father Paul and Lawrence since there is no one else to take care of her. The other is that the people who she actually believed and trusted did not respected her the way she is, and even belittled and disregarded her home and her people. The crucial reason for her attempt to murder would be the fact that Lawrence was the one who actually loved her but soon chooses his faith and religion and gives up marrying her. 

 

People tend to have an emotion of sympathy when others are in the similar situation. Esther was blinded because of the sweet talks Father Paul said, and strongly believed that herself and Lawrence could actually married to be husband and wife. However, the truth was that Father Paul was an opportunist with a twisted and stereotypical mind to judge people by their color. Lawrence is also a man who is affected by his words and establishes his mindset as Father Paul asked him to believe, and think. The fundamental reason that Esther attempted to murder her lover was unbearable emotions of betrayal and sorrow. However, if the context goes deeper, it actually deals racism. Original people, pagan Indian as the passage says, are the victims who were pillaged and abused by the uninvited guests. Esther's murder might be unjustified or unforgivable as to human moral issues, but it reflects or even tries to strikes back how much pain and racial belittlement original people had went through. 

 

To reiterate, it is clear that Esther's murder was derived from the feeling that she just lost her loved one and that relationship does not go any longer. Moreover, it can be interpreted as the people's resentment toward deeply rooted racism because of  their region and their skin colors. It is arguable for the fact that Esther's murder but also gives a message that it is unforgivable to give people with prejudiced perspectives. 

Hayeon Jin / Chapter 2 part 2 B-1 / Wed. 1-2

Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

The story written by E. Pauline Jonson shows how a woman
in love got to kill her lover. Easter is the daughter of pagan Indian. Laurence, the nephew of Father Paul, loved her and wanted to marry her. However, Father Paul strongly opposed to their marriage because she is the daughter of 'uncivilized' pagan Indian. It just happened that Easter heard Father Paul and Laurence talking, and she got to be in a great despair and fury. Father Paul was the one who cared and loved her, so she couldn't imagine him talking about her in such an offensive manner. Plus, Laurence was persuaded by him and decided to give up on her. She could not handle her resentment and grief, and killed Laurence at the end.

I can partly understand why Esther killed Laurence. He was her solace, and they loved each other. However, Laurence gave up on her after listening to Father Paul's intense objection. Father Paul was the one who Esther highly esteemed and venerated, so it came to be an act of severe betrayal for Esther to hear Father Paul insulting her origin, parents, and herself. That is why I understand the point that she wanted to make Father paul mourn for the loss of his beloved nephew. Her wound would have been so painful that she could not help hurting Father Paul back.

However, I can never accept her act of murdering Laurence. Even though Esther terribly got disappointed by Laurence and Father Paul, Laurence was the one she loved. How could a person kill his or her lover? Even Laurence gave up on Esther at the end, she knew that he had loved her. Therefore, her idea of ' If I can't have you, so do others! ' was too hasty and immature. Plus, if Esther really loved Laurence, she should have found other ways to be with him, persuading Father Paul or moonlight flitting for instance.

Eunseo KIm / Chapter 2 Part 2 B1 / Wed 1-2

Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

 

           To shortly elaborate the background of why Esther killed Lawrence, she was overwhelmed with rage and disappointment over the betrayal of her lover. Esther had been homesick ever since she left her homeland, and had been heavily dependent on Father Paul and Lawrence. Lawrence was her lover, and they were happily dreaming of getting married. However, Esther accidentally overhears as Father Paul convinces Lawrence to give up the marriage. Contrary to her expectation, Lawrence rather easily accepts it. That same night, Esther sneaks into Lawrence's room and kills him.

           Managing emotions is tough. It may be the feeling of love, anger, depression or sorrow. Some people are controlled by emotions, while others are capable of hiding or even overcoming such feelings. It highly depends on the experience, background, and personality of different people. In the passage, Esther was less capable of controlling her emotions that she killed her lover. Her emotions became so extreme that she committed murder, which is irrational for a person in emotionally normal state. Taking a closer look to what made her kill her lover, it is probably the feeling of loneliness from homesick. She had been relying heavily on Father Paul, and probably to full extent, on Lawrence. From the conversation she overheard, she was betrayed by both her anchor and lover. To her disappointment, the two people she loved had turned their back on her. Esther's depression must have been maximized; making her kill Lawrence. There may be more than this, more factors that added up to her actions. It is understandable, in this light, why Esther made such a decision.

           However, understanding Esther and accepting her brutality is a completely different matter. People must refrain from acting solely upon their emotions. There is, up to some extent, guidelines that people must observe no matter what their feelings. It may be the constitution, law, or comparatively light policies and norms. Committing a murder is not something to be ignored or forgiven; Esther has gone far beyond the acceptable. She should not have killed her lover but instead, first of all, talk to Father Paul and her lover about it. She could have given them a chance to either let them elucidate or apologize. Killing her lover was too extreme and unreasonable. It is an undisputable truth that Esther has undergone a tragedy, but she should have been more responsible for her actions. Thus, Esther is understandable considering her background and situation, but it is dangerous to accept her cruelty as well.

 

Taehun Kim/ Chapter 2 Part 2 B1/ Wed 1~2

After reading this story, although a little bit shocked, I could kind of understand why she chose to kill Laurence. She would have felt a sense of betrayal at the two men. Being betrayed from just one person is harsh, let alone two. It isn't hard to guess that Esther's feeling of love quickly turned into hatred. Since most murder cases occur without being planned, I believe her actions were done impulsively, as she was emotionally unstable.

 

Although I understand why she chose to kill Laurence, I don't think it can be accepted. My reason is simple; killing someone can't be accepted in any cases. It's immoral, to begin with. Acknowledging what is right and wrong is one of the things that make us what we are. Esther would have known that killing someone is wrong, but she did it anyway. That's why her actions can't be accepted. Also, it is one of the worst crime a person can do. There's a reason why societies around the world punish people who murder a fellow human being most heavily.

 

To sum up, I understand Esther's feeling of hatred and the sense of betrayal she would have felt towards Laurence caused her to kill Laurence. However, her actions can't be accepted as we all know that killing is morally wrong and is one of the worst crimes that deserve punishment.

 

Jeeny Jung/ Chapter 2 Part2 B1/ Wed 1-2

 This story shows the relationships of three people which is Esther, Laurence and Father Paul. Esther fell in love with Laurence which is disturbed by Father Paul. Father Paul opposes Esther and Laurence's marriage because of racism. Esther is shocked by the conversation between Father Paul and Laurence discriminating her because of her skin color and commits murder, killing Laurence.

 

 In my opinion, I understand why Esther killed Laurence. Esther had a sense of betrayal to the two people who she had most loved. To Esther, Father Paul was her white father, her life-long friend, who loved and cared for her happiness but turned out to be a racist. Also, Laurence was Esther's only and real support to her life away from home but also made her disappointed by complying to Father Paul. By hearing and getting to know about their real thoughts, Esther would have wanted revenge feeling hatred against Laurence and Father Paul. Nevertheless, in my point of view she still loved and wanted to marry Laurence. Hence, she decided to kill Laurence so that nobody else could love or marry him ever and at the same time cause pain to Father Paul of the loss of his nephew.

 

 Although I understand why Esther killed Laurence, I cannot accept her murder. I believe that there was a better way than killing Laurence. I admit that racist is a bad thing and a thought that must be changed. Thus, Father Paul's prejudice on skin color is a poor opinion but in my view, his thoughts could have been changed by Esther. Though Father Paul disagreed to Laurence and Esther's wedding because Esther was an Indian, he truly was fond of her and loved her. So in my perspectives, if she had proved and explained to him that Indian's are not noncivilized as he thinks and are same as white as in they are all people, he might have changed his thoughts. It might take a lot of time, but as a result she might have married Laurence. Nevertheless, instead she killed Laurence which would have only intensified Father Paul's prejudice on races and losing her love at the same time.

 

In conclusion, I understand her intentions in murdering Laurence but I believe that in cannot be justified.

Hyobin Jeon/ Chapter 2 Part 2 B1/ Wed 1~2

Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

 

    First of all, to explain the situation of this story briefly, Esther is the daughter of pagan Indian. Father Paul, who tried to separate her from pagan influence, had twofold attitude for her and finally she came to know that truth. Being largely shocked for that, she killed Laurence, who is a nephew of Father Paul and denied his love for her because of the fact that she is the a daughter of pagan Indian.

 

    Isn't it obviously enraged situation where a boy who said "I love you" suddenly changes his mind because a girl is the daughter of pagan Indian? This would be very shocking for Esther. So I can understand the reason why she killed Laurence. Because I have not experienced true love, I can't definitely know about feelings she had at that moment, but I can understand to some extent how she was miserable and furious.

 

    Also, in my opinion, love for Laurence is not the only factor affecting Esther to kill him. Father Paul was the most supporting person for her in the past. When she overheard the conversation between two men, a sense of betrayal that she felt would be enormous. So, her thought that she had been left out by her precious one also affected Esther's desire to want to kill Laurence.

 

    For these two reasons, betrayal of her loved one and her most supporting man, I can understand why Esther killed Laurence. (But, if I were in her situation, I would not kill anybody!)

 

Hyun Seo Jung/ Chapter 2 Part 2 B1/ Wed 1~2

Written by E. Pauline Jonson, this shows the love and betrayal story of a man named Laurence and a woman named Esther. To summarize briefly, Esther is a woman who was suffering homesick and Laurence is a man who love Esther. Esther and Laurence used to love each other and they were about to marry. But this dream was broken all of a sudden by one obstructor; Father Paul who was the one of the protectors of Esther. Eventually, Laurence decided to follow Paul's opinion and give up his love. But Easter accidentally overheard what they were saying and was shocked by their thought. So in the end, the story was ended with Esther killing Laurence.

 

Actually in this story, it does not mention why Esther killed Laurence clearly. But we can assume that it was because of her sense of betrayal and too much dependence.

 

First Father paul was a person who took care of Easter kindly and regarded as a venerable teacher to her. But eventually Father Paul told Laurence that she comes from uncertain blood; specifically her blood is bad and bad mixture. Also he doubt her that she might any day break from Laurence to return to her prairies and he buckskins. At this point she might feel a sense of betrayal and be shocked. Moreover her love who was always with her and almost thought about marriage, Laurence, didn't resist to Paul's suggestion. He just conform to him passively saying he will forget her and thanks for bringing him to himself. After considering all of these conversations and her sense of betrayal, her murder can be understandable.

 

Next, her murder is behind the comprehension with the common belief but it can be explainable because of her overdependence. As years go by, she felt more homesick. She started miss her hometown, and past. In this circumstances, two people, Esther and Father Paul, were the only she could believe and depend on. But when she noticed these staunch supporters are useless, she might be in the state of deep depression. We can notice her belief and disappointment on last two lines of the story; "They account for it by the fact that I am a Redskin. They seem to have forgotten I am a woman". On this phrase, we can notice that she wanted to be treated and regarded as a ordinary person to them.

Considering her overdependence as she was suffering severe homesick and two supporter's betrayal, I could understand her murder.

 

U Yong Chung/ Chapter 2 Part 2 B1/ Wed 1~2

1. Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

 

In this story, it shows that people's relationships are very complicated. We can't think about what will be happen after the incident break out in this relationship. Here Esther, Laurence and Father Paul they all have different background, so they have a different thought about their relationship. One major event of this story is that Esther killed Laurence. Esther was in emotional instability situation because she was suffering from homesickness. However, what deepen Esther's emotion was Father Paul's statements which is composed of discriminative context. At last, when this emotional instability reaches its peak, she committed a murder.

I could understand about why she has suffered from emotional instability, but nothing can justify the murder. She could have emotional instability about the life in missionary school and what Father Paul said. However, she should have relieved her emotional conflict in other way, not killing Laurence.

 I had either experienced when I was suffering from emotional instability like loneliness and feeling betrayal to someone who I believed. In this situation, no one could take a back step and consider about the problem rationally. In my case, I had my own time and not thinking about the situation and just doing something else which make me forget about the uncomfortable memory.

 In conclusion, I can understand the situation which she is placed in. However, what she had committed isn't vindicable to say that was a good way to releasing her emotional conflict inside her. Therefore, the action which took Laurence's life away is not acceptable.

Minyong Han/Chapter 2 Part 2/Wed 1-2

What does Esther mean by the last two lines of the story, speaking about the murder? "They account for it by the fact that I am a Redskin. They seem to have forgotten I am a woman."

Esther has been suffering tremendously from extreme racism; she got turned down when she requested that she come back home and also she had to let her lover go. It's tragic she couldn't be in love with Laurence because of where she's from and she couldn't love anyone across race. I found it very hard to understand that Father Paul would separate his own blood from Native Americans despite the fact that he was there as a missionary and supposed to take care of and love Native Americans. I can't possibly imagine how I would take in Father Paul's disgust for Native Americans if it were me.

The last two lines of the story mean that although racists claim she killed him due to the characteristics of her skin color, she did so because she loved him as a woman. It's ludicrous to judge a person by a group he/she belongs to, which is called 'generalization.' No matter what the skin color is, some people commit crimes and other people do their best to help others. No one can possibly label anyone just because someone he is close to did something that is traditionally unacceptable in that case.

It's absolutely horrible that something distressful like this had happened no more than a century before. I realized that skin color was a major factor in how people lived their lives then. This read got me thinking about skin color and that racism shouldn't exist.

Sungtae KIm/ Chapter 2 Part 2 B1/ Wed 1~2

   Controlling a feeling can be especially hard when a person suffers. A famous writer once wrote that, "The heart is more treacherous than anything else." When a feeling becomes stronger than logical thinking, it can cause a radical behavior such as murdering. Esther's behavior can be explained in terms of her suffering from disregard of Father Paul.

   Esther's emotion was irregular. In the story, she was going through home sickness. Loneliness is one of the causes of this emotional struggle, so to solve this she needed someone to care about her feelings and help her overcome. But there was no one to do that job. Instead of trying to help her, Father Paul kept refusing her wish to go back to her hometown.

   In the story, she tries to get out of the loneliness by love. She starts to rely on Laurence and her suffering seemed to ease. However, Father Paul intercepts into the situation, reminding his son to think about the future. This made the situation even worse than before. It added despair and the feeling that herself is discarded. She even felt jealous of the Hudson's Bay factor's daughter. These strong emotional struggles caused her to make an awful decision.

   Her behavior should be criticized. Killing another cannot be justified regardless of the reason. However, considering the situation and her feelings, makes it understandable of her behavior. It gives an important lesson that a behavior lacking consideration can severely hurt one's feeling.

Aya Bekkouche/Chapter2 part 2 B1/ Wed 1-2

     Not only was Esther forced to hate her own origins, she also had to repress her longing to go home and all her feelings toward her real family. While reading, I realized that the only reason why she was doing so was her love for Laurence, if denying who she really is was the only way for her to be with him then she was ready to do it. So you can imagine the shock it can cause to hear the person you sacrificed everything for giving up on you and claiming that you are not worth of either his love nor his respect. If it was me the loss, anger and disappointment it would cause might lead me to consider killing myself. The worst feeling someone can feel is the loss of a life you had imagined for yourself, taken away by the one person you love and that was nowhere near deserving it. 

   

    But I am afraid this goes much further than a broken heart. Esther did not kill Laurence out of love and jealousy. She was the victim of a monstrous racism, a twisted racism that crashed her self confidence, a racism she unconsciously accepted from the people she considered her new family. People she trusted and respected unconditionally.

As a woman, I was myself outraged and incredulous going through the reading and I myself wanted both Laurence and his uncle punished. Who do they think they are to consider Esther, a woman, an actual human being,  as an animal they were taming, like some kind of hypocrite charity for their hypocrite faith? So yes, I totally and completely understand Why Esther killed Laurence. 

Now, no matter how justified was Esther's desire to kill Laurence, the question of whether it is acceptable or not is very debatable. The action of killing itself is wrong, regardless of the context.  But violence, in all its forms, leads to violence and as all of us know, racism is a common form of violence. It is only fair to say that Laurence's death is the consequence of both him and his uncle's own actions. 

Christina Woo/Chapter2 B1/Wed1-2

Can you understand why Esther killed Laurence? Can you accept that she did so?

              Relationship is a sensitive topic. Different individuals go through such different experiences in relationships that it is almost impossible for someone else to judge or even make a comment about one's relationship. So I'm careful to write about my thoughts.

Well, if you ask me about the action that Esther made in the end, I would say that it was a devastating ending. I felt dark and gloomy with mixed emotions after reading the story. I believe that the disappointment and devastation she felt caused her to act in such violence before she could even help herself.

 My answer to the first question is yes, I understand why Esther made such decision, but I do not and did not want to accept the fact that she did. No matter how frustrating the situation must have been for Esther, I still believe she could have controlled herself by making another choice, instead of choosing to murder him. Especially since she was a converted Christian, I think she should have maybe, spoken to God first.

It is difficult to imagine her feelings and emotions at that very moment. But one thing that clarifies the illegal action that she made, is that Esther was deeply and madly in love with Laurence.

The murder she made was out of jealously. If she could not have Laurence, there was no way she would allow the factor's daughter to be by his side. Jealously is an extremely scary feeling. Not just that, but the feeling of being betrayed by the one whom you love so much, and by the venerable person whom you respected more than anything is simply unimaginable.

The anger stroked upon me and I tried to imagine the situation in Esther's shoes. It was extremely frustrating having to read Laurence being persuaded by Father Paul so easily. If Laurence stood up for his own thought, Esther would not have murdered him. If father Paul had not mentioned about the factor's daughter, the disappointment and pain would still exist, but she would not have killed him.

 If Laurence truly loved Esther, he should have stood by his own thought no matter what negative comments Father Paul gave Laurence. Being a good nephew is one thing, but seeing Laurence giving up rather easily showed weakness and what a coward he was.

The conversation between the two men basically took away Esther's hope and dream to become a wonderful woman that she could have had become. Like Esther mentioned on the last two sentences, they judged her redskin, her background, and even her parents. Forgetting the most important part that she is a woman.  

In conclusion, I understand her point of view, but it is upsetting that she let the evil overcome the goodness of her.

U Yong Chung/Chapter1 Part5 B2 2nd draft/ Wed 1~2

The two similar topic essay "How Your Birth Order Influences Your Life Adjustment" and "Born for Each Other" are talking about birth orders that influences in our given life. Birth order could influences a lots of kind of aspects like role in society, faith in religion, personalities. I agree with the authors because birth orders are also a factor that can influences people's environment which effect the one's personality. This personality helps to classify the person. However, what Lucille K.Forer and Pamela Withers said is slight different in my case.

 First of all, I'm the youngest child of my family but first topic of essay shows that youngest child tends to think they are less able to do many things than other people. However, I usually do my house works by myself. Therefore, I tend to behave like parental in my house. I live with my older brother together but he is not a good house worker, so I usually tell him what to do or I just do the works instead of him what is he's responsibility in home. Therefore as the youngest child of my family I think that my role and my older brother's role is reversed.

 Secondly, Pamela Withers who is the writer of second topic of essay said that a youngest brother of brothers will match best with whom he will allow to control his life in a unobtrusive manner. I totally agree with this idea because I prefer a unobtrusive manner than some kind of manner like hovering over people. However, some of my friends who are youngest brother of brothers prefer a obtrusive manner which require care or interest to them similar in their home. In addition, I think it is overgeneralization about the birth order and a pair. What decides to match is not a birth order instead their personality. Birth order might affect be of his/her mind, but in my opinion it is very tinge to affect it.

 Two author's opinion about relations between birth order and life style, I was interested to this topic and learned new things about it. I cannot say I totally agree with the author's opinion about the youngest one of the family but it is pretty similar in generality of cases. It was easy to understand the relation between birth order and our social activities. I cannot say that the whole author's idea matches with my case, but this topic and essay give a chance to reminding me of the role in my family and birth order which could have influenced my personality.

Jin, Hayeon / Chapter 1 part 5 B-2 2nd draft / wed 1-2

Both the articles written by Forer and Wither depict the importance of birth order in determining one's personality. They claim that parents treat their children differently according to children's birth hierarchy. For instance, oldest child is expected to act maturely and care his/her younger siblings. The youngest child, on the other hand, is free from those strains. I agree that birth order play a role in determining or building children's characteristic. However, I do not think that a person's birth order is a critical and ultimate factor in determining one's personality.



Aside from one's birth order, other environment can change how person behaves. A perfect example is me. I am the only child, and according to Forer, the only child does not need to take parental role and therefore is childish. However, that is completely incorrect. Since I am the only child, I need to be very responsible and take care of myself all the times. The feeling that all the eyes of parents are on me makes me behave as excellent as I can. I always have the burden that I should be obedient and extraordinary.


As people grow up, they do not just stay at their home. Instead, they experience and learn many things outside the world. Thus, birth order could be the element in determining one's characteristic, but it is never an absolute factor. For such reason, saying that birth order is straightly related to child's personality is committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.

Aya BEKKOUCHE/ draft2-Chap1B2/Prose and Paragraphs/Wed12

While this reading makes sense and provides a lot of logical facts and assumptions, I was a bit skeptical about it. Birth order is one of the many ways we can use to explain people's behaviors and personalities but it is not an absolute method and it certainly is not applicable everywhere.

 

In order to clarify my point, let me start by giving you a quick description of myself, as the oldest child of my family, according to the readings.

As stated by Forer, being the oldest child turns me into a responsible proud child with a constant need for perfection and a parental behavior and a reserved nature that leads into discomfort when it comes to making friends.

As for withers, she assumes that my birth order makes me more content with fewer people if not one companion so visibly according to her the best match for me would be a youngest, that way I could act like a leader and wouldn't have to let go of my parental behavior.

What Forer and Withers have to say about my personality as the oldest child of my family is correct but only to a certain extent and in a conventional perspective.  

 First, it is true that I am a bit perfectionist and I do worry too much. Overthinking is my second name which leads to stress, anxiety and reluctance into taking initiative. However, I have no particular struggle to approach people or socialize with people. Alone time is certainly a necessity but till, I like having friends and I wouldn't say that it is hard for me to make them.

 Second I do have a bit of a high ego and criticism does dent my pride at first, but with time I always try to listen to what I am accused of being or doing too much (or too little) and accept it.

Third, I am quite confident about my abilities, but I am also very realistic about it. So even if I assume that I fit better than X or Y in certain situations I try to stay realistic and have no problem admitting when someone is better at dealing with a situation better than I am. Even when I didn't think so at the beginning.

Now going back to Withers, let me just say that the farther I went into the reading, the more irrelevant it was to me. Denying all of it would be unfair, indeed. I admit that I feel more comfortable when I control, lead and nurture all at once. But, as far as I am concerned, and that might be totally out of point, I think that a relationship is not about finding the best match for you but finding someone you care about enough to change some aspects of your temper and personality in order to match them. As my heart wasn't into it, I was not able to make an objective comparison.

Not to say that the reading is completely wrong, it makes some good points and is applicable but only to a certain extent. There are so many elements that could or could not play a role in building one's personality and obviously covering them up would take a lifetime, I believe two readings take one perspective and focus on it, leaving us readers free to relate or not and that itself is not a bad thing.

 

 

In conclusion, studying humans and their behaviors is a difficult task and if we ever decide to actually endorse that kind of responsibility, we shouldn't base our studies on ideologies like birth order, especially nowadays. A person shouldn't be limited by their birth order, nor their ethnicity, nor their social class, but a mix of everything that makes them what they really are.

Christina Woo. Chapter part 5 B2. Wed 12

I think this discussion is what the majority of people unconsciously believe in. Both of the author's discussions are logical, but I oppose to a lot of their ideas. We are all made different, and there is no way that this discussion applies to all families.

Some of the points both author's mentioned are accurate if you see the big picture. For example, Forer thinks that the later children has many advantages because parents are more used to the idea of raising a child. I agree that parents who struggled with the first child are more capable with raising the second child. It is also true that the oldest child can be more independent and responsible. However there are parts that I didn't quite agree with. For example, the part where the author mentions that parents may not welcome their later child as much as they did with their first child. I felt offended reading this line, because I strongly don't agree with Forer. Also with Wither, where she mentions that the later child are less ambitious. Reading the sentences about the youngest child made me feel as if both authors were judging the younger ones, making it seem as if they are all immature and rather light.

I also don't agree with Forer where the author mentioned that the later children don't feel a strong sense of loneliness even when the parent's attention is elsewhere nor do they feel much pressure as the older ones when they don't meet their parent's standards. I disagree. I am the youngest in the family and I'm used to getting attention that once I am left alone, I get the feeling of loneliness to the extreme that I get depressed. In my point of view, I believe that because the later children is always accompanied by someone, it can be easier for them to feel lonely once they are left by themselves, unlike the older child who is usually more independent and mature. My older brother is a good example. I'm sure he feels lonely at times as he is also a human being, but he doesn't show the fact that he is. However, like Wither mentioned, I, the youngest, know how to win my parents over, by either pouting or being charming. I am also much more expressive than my older brother.

Another thing I don't agree is that the youngest child doesn't feel the pressure as much when they don't meet the parents' standards, because I do. I get anxious when I don't meet my parents' standards, and I get very stressed out. Meaning, I want to meet my parents' standards as much as my older brother does.

Going back to Forer's discussion. The last thing I disagree with, is the part that mentions that the oldest child becomes parental towards the younger sibling. This isn't the case, at least not in my family. Speaking of family, I believe that "I" am the one to become more parental towards my brother. My protective instinct increases especially when my parents aren't around. This isn't mentioned in the discussion, but I think it also has to do with the gender. I heard women has more protective instinct, especially when it comes to family.

So in conclusion, I believe people are so used to hearing the birth order characteristics that it may come off as if every family's birth order and hierarchy are the same, when it really depends on the one's personality, their education, family atmosphere, and the environment that they were raised in.

 

Yejee Oh/ ch1 part 5 B2 /Wed 1-2

One's personality can be determined through his role in society, his faith in religion, heredity, his family or many other factors. Two passages suggested that birth order plays role  in establishing peoples' personalities. If you are the oldest, you tend to imitate parents' behaviors, to be more independent and to take more responsibility as the younger sibling arrives. The middle child, who is relatively more lenient on his parents because he feels less pressure to behave mature than the oldest does. The youngest one has no distinct difference to the middle child, if so, he tends to raise self-reliance to be independent if there is no around to help him out. 

The only child has close and intense relationship with his parents, which is overly protected. That results in strong feeling of being a child even in his adulthood. 

 

What the passage pointed out about the different birth order affect different personalities was logical and somewhat convincing, however it should not be standardized. To reiterate, the topic should not be generalized since every family has different issues, social backgrounds, and many factors to represent. It might be too limiting to conclude that every eldest child is independent or every only child is incapable of being responsible and independent. 

 

In my case, I have an older sister who is capable of doing everything on her own but still needs parents' attention and affection more than I do. She is far from being parental, nor does she takes more responsibility just because she is the oldest. Everyone only takes one birth role, thus it is hard to understand to be in other peoples' shoes. 

Crossing the lines and determine that each birth role leads to certain personalities are too extreme. Some of the personalities are irrefutable and mostly we end up behaving the way that it mentioned, however it should be agreed to an extent.

 In other words, personalities are not goods that are listed on the criterion. Everyone could have different ways of thinking and different personalities regardless of their birth role.

So Young Woo/Chapter1 Part5 B-2/Wed 1-2

Forer's says that birth order influences people's life very well. I agree with his opinion that argues that birth order influences even people's personality, achivement, futhermore.


He says that The oldest child is more capable and more responsible and more parental than the younger children and The middle children also think that he is more capable than his younger children. but sometimes he requests for help to his parents or siblings than The oldest child do. Also he says that The youngest child tends to have a lack of confidence and tends to think that he needs not be concerned because there are always others around to take care of the youngest child.



So I had a question that who be live a better life than the others in the same family. After careful consideration, I arrived at a conclusion that The oldest child's life is beetter than The younger children. because The oldest tends to be more competent and more experienced than his younger siblings. At the first glance, The oldest seems to be lonely because he tends to hide his weakness and difficulties he experiences in his life. But while overcoming his adversities by himself, he will learn a method of overcoming.



For example, my oldest brother is more independent and more responsible than my older brother and me. He tends to try to be more capable and ease the burden my parents have. so usually most adults like him and expect to him more and more. my oldest brother ends up trying for his parents. In conclusion, if he learn to confide his difficulties to his family or friends, I think he will be live excellent life rather than my younger brother and me.

Taehun Kim/Chapter 1 part 5 B-2/ Wed 1-2

In two articles written by my Lucille Forer and Pamela Withers, they both discuss 'birth order'. Forer talks about how birth order influences personality, and Withers introduces characteristics in each birth order and the best matches for it. The common ground for both of them is that birth order plays a role in the person's life, making it either difficult, easy, or happy. In my opinion, being the oldest child, especially the male oldest child, is the most difficult. I have three main reasons why I think this way.

 

To begin with, you don't get as much attention as the younger siblings. As you can see in the paragraph above, adults expect the oldest child to be more mature and responsible. Therefore, adults believe that the oldest children can do their job without being asked, thus not requiring as much attention as the younger siblings. However, most children crave for attention from their parents. That's why I think being the oldest, who wants attention just like the younger sibling, may be difficult. I saw in a documentary which featured a family of 12 children. In that documentary, the oldest child said that since there were so many siblings, he grew up without getting much attention from his parents. He also said that especially during puberty, he went through a hard time since there were so many siblings to take care of, and little attention from his parents.

 

Additionally, being the oldest requires a lot of responsibility. Being the oldest, you would have to take care of your siblings when the parents are not present. Also, you'd be responsible for all the family related activities when you grow up. In the case of confucian societies like Korea, for example, being the oldest, especially if you're male, is strenuous. In these kinds of societies, the oldest male child has to be in charge of all the important family events like ancestral rites and traditional holidays. Leading a family isn't easy. It's a difficult job, which demands a lot of responsibility.

 

Finally, other adults expect a lot from you and set stereotyped images of the oldest child. Just because you're the oldest, you're expected to be more mature, and more responsible, and are scolded when you do not act like the oldest. This could be a stress factor among the oldest, as they may not welcome these kinds of 'roles' given by adults. For instance, a friend of mine, who is the oldest of three, fits the situation I mentioned. His parents scold him very harshly when he fights with his brother. The main reason is because since he's the oldest, he should be more mature and yield to his sisters. Without any doubt, being forced to live in roles set by adults would be a stressful, and difficult experience.

 

In conclusion, judging from the fact that being the oldest means not getting as much attention from their parents, being the oldest child meaning requiring a lot of responsibility, and getting expectations from adults to be more mature, I believe that being the oldest child in the family means living the most difficult life among siblings.