What Really Happened During the JFK Assassination

Recently, I was thinking about the Kennedy assassination, and I realized, what if all this conspiracy theory stuff about Cuba and the Bay of Pigs and its relationship to Oswald and the assassination was all just false. What if Oswald was just a sick person, who managed to pull off one of the most legendary assassinations? What if Jack Ruby really was just a disgruntled man, who in his passion shot and killed Oswald? Maybe we don’t have to dive into this murky area, because the answer is right in front of us.

First off, what are the odds that the CIA really wanted to nearly assassinate Kennedy. It’s true that they did have a lot of power and ambition. However, I feel like all those ex-CIA agents, like the characters the Don DeLillo writes about in Libra just wouldn’t exist. I feel like someone would at least get suspicious off their activities. After all, they must have a risk attached to them, and I am sure there must be checks and balances within the CIA. Then we have Lee Harvey Oswald. I feel like the spy thing that DeLillo writes him as couldn’t be true. The thing is that if all the things that DeLillo writes about Oswald being this triple agent was true, Oswald would have been much more carefully monitored, and wouldn’t have had a chance to shoot Kennedy. I just feel as though Oswald was just a man who suffered some kind of trauma during his stay in the Marines, and was just sick in the mind. Then we have Jack Ruby. Is it really a surprise that he shot Oswald? I feel that DeLillo is really pushing things with this conspiracy and setup stuff. I actually think that someone was bound to shoot Oswald. After all, we have crazy fans who murder their favorite music artists. It really isn’t much of a stretch to say that someone get really passionate, and decided to take matters into their own hands.

Overall, we may never know what really happened on November 11, 1963. There is just too much evidence and circumstance and people for us to really know what happened. Maybe some of those conspiracy theories were right. Maybe it was a time traveler who killed Kennedy to prevent a dark future. The world may never know. All we are left with are our thoughts and beliefs.

Is Rufus Truly Evil?

Throughout Kindred, we have this recurring character named Rufus who is always seen causing trouble. He is portrayed as an evil rapist, who isn’t afraid to guilt trip Dana into doing things that he wants. However, I am not sure that we can call him pure evil. It seems to me that he is a victim of circumstance. It through his experiences that he became the dangerous man he is seen as.

At the beginning of the book, we first meet Rufus as a boy. He a perfectly normal boy by today’s standards and is very nice to Dana. He has made a friend in Alice, and it seems that Alice trusts him when she states “mister Rufe won’t tell” when Dana questions if Rufus will tell his dad about Dana. However, as time passes by, Rufus gets worse and worse. He goes from being a kind little boy to a literal rapist. He moves from being very nice and timid around Dana, to yelling and threatening her when he doesn’t get what he wants. However, I don’t believe that Rufus was born evil as seen by his portrayal in his earlier years. He was simply changed as time went on.

There are two very big factors that changed Rufus. The first one is the time period that he grew up in. As the white son of a plantation owner pre-civil war, he must have grown up with beliefs that people of color are inferior to him. He must have seen other white people yelling and whipping slaves, so he thought that being mean to them was perfectly normal. As time went on, he started to change his beliefs. Even Kevin, who is person born in an era where slavery was considered evil had changed after his five years stuck in the past. It is conceivable that someone who lived in a period of slavery for their whole life would change.

The second big factor was Rufus’s father. Early in the book, we learn that Tom Weylin beat his son for disobeying him. This must have contributed to Rufus’s change. His father wanted him to be more like him, so whenever Rufus stepped out of line, he was punished. Because of this, Rufus gradually became more and more cruel, if only to avoid getting beaten. Eventually this change became permanent, and became a part of Rufus’s character.

Overall, I think that Rufus is kind of a victim here. I don’t think that him being the person who us readers see him as is necessarily his fault. Rufus’s behavior is just the result of living in an era of slavery, with a very harsh father. It is his experiences that forced him to become the man we see him as.

Dana's Dilemma

Throughout the whole book, we see that Dana has this huge internal conflict with herself. She has to decide between making a morally correct choice, and the preservation of her own life. As an African-American woman who has lived in a time of freedom, it must be incredibly hard living in the pre-civil war era. She is constantly stuck with a choice between playing nice with white people, and appealing to the slaves. On one hand, if she takes and stand with the people of her own race, she risks her very own life. However, if she constant sucks up to the slave owners and become complicit in the various tortures that slave go through, she will be going against her own morals. This has lead a huge dilemma that Dana faces.

As a person living far past the end of the civil war, it must be hard watching people suffer. She must find it incredibly repulsing to have to negotiate with Rufus and his actions towards Alice. She is given the option to either be complicit in Rufus’s desire to rape Alice, or take a stand against him, and risk getting beaten. Morally, there is an obvious choice here. It is preventing the rape of a fellow human being. However, that action has its consequences. As seen in the scene where Rufus tries to convince Dana to help him rape Alice, Rufus is prone to this seemingly bipolar disorder. At the flip of a switch, he can turn from a demur individual to a raging bully. He yells “You talk to her- talk some sense into her or you’re going to watch while Jake Edwards beats some sense into her!” (Butler 163). Dana is at risk of getting whipped for her actions. However, for me, if I were in Dana’s place, I might still defy Rufus. I might even so far as to kill Rufus. It seems to me that despite Dana’s best efforts, Rufus is just going to end up being another terrible human being. However, this course of action leads to another problem. Since Dana is a time traveler, things are somewhat complicated. We know that Rufus and Alice eventually give birth to one of Dana’s ancestors. Simply killing Rufus might end up creating a paradox, and it might erase Dana’s existence. This leads to a huge moral quandary. Should Dana allow Rufus to rape Alice so that she can continue to survive? Or should she put a stop to it, and deliver justice to a would-be rapist? As readers, what would you do if you were in Dana’s shoes?

Slaughterhouse Five as an Anti-war Novel

            

               “Slaughterhouse Five” by Kurt Vonnegut is a book about his experience at the bombing of the city of Dresden during World War Two. Using a fictional character named Billy Pilgrim, Vonnegut describes his reaction to the war while making the book seem more fictional than nonfiction. While writing about the events that Billy experiences, Vonnegut is sending out a big anti-war message. He is stating that war isn’t all about glory and heroism; it is about human suffering and loss.

               First off, the title of the book isn’t just Slaughterhouse Five. The book also has another title called The Children’s Crusade. This is important in that Vonnegut is sending the message that the war wasn’t fought by men, it was fought by people who were too young to be experience the horrors of war. In the beginning chapter of the Book, Vonnegut tells us the story about how the title came to be. When he was meeting with fellow veteran O’Hare, the wife of O’Hare got angry. She didn’t want Vonnegut to write about how he marched off to Europe and claimed a lot of glory. She says, “You'll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you'll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and John Wayne or some of those other glamorous, war-loving, dirty old men. And war will look just wonderful, so we'll have a lot more of them. And they'll be fought by babies like the babies upstairs”. She wanted him to write the book in a way that it wouldn’t encourage others to go off to war. By including this story, Vonnegut is taking a more serious stance on the war. He is stating that the events that happened in the book shouldn’t be taken lightly, and should be respect in their brutal nature.

               In the actual text that features Billy Pilgrim, Vonnegut keeps his promise to O’Hare’s wife. Rather than having the events in the book seem heroic, he makes everything brutal and states that heroism has no place in the book. One stand-out scene is the capture of Robert Weary and Billy Pilgrim by German soldiers. At first, you get sense of their being almost this fantasy happening with Weary and the two scouts. Vonnegut writes that the trio call themselves the Three Musketeers. This gives us an image of three heroes marching off the fight the big bad Germans. Unfortunately, this comes to a sad, and realistic end. The two scouts get shot in the back, while Weary ends up dying from Gangrene. Vonnegut is stating that fantasy and happy endings don’t exist in war. Instead, you just get lots of death. He writes “Three inoffensive bangs came from far away. They came from German rifles. The two scouts who had ditched Billy and Weary had just been shot”. Vonnegut has this casual tone of voice, almost like the deaths of the scouts were just another statistic. This sends the message that war isn’t all fun and games, it is just a game of death.

               Overall, Slaughterhouse Five really has this anti-war vibe to it. The mere descriptions of what happens to Billy is enough to almost frighten readers away. The discussing the reality of war, Vonnegut sends a message that states that war is not fun for anybody.  

Is Set really the Bad Guy?

Egyptian Mythology is a religion that is filled with many gods and goddesses. One such god is named Set. In Mumbo Jumbo by Ishmael Reed, Set is introduced to us as one of few gods who were around during the creation of Jes Grew. He is portrayed as totally evil and just someone who seems awful to be around. He is in constant conflict with his more laidback brother, who often went around dancing a lot. However, we as readers shouldn’t so quickly jump aboard the Set hate train. I think that an argument can be made that Set isn’t necessarily all at fault in the way he handled Jes Grew.

First off, Set isn’t really like this total madman hell-bent on controlling the world. He is actually very structured, almost like someone in the military. “He yearned for the old days when he went out to tell the people to “Move that chariot to the side of the road, O.K. where’s your license” (Reed 165) It seems that Set had a very strict personality, which would naturally clash with his brothers seemingly more laid back personality. Despite this part of his character, it still feels like Set really loves Egypt. He still wants to constantly expand Egypt and bring it to new heights. He just doesn’t feel that Osiris know “how to deal firmly with the enemies of the Egyptian People” (Reed 162). He just has a harsh way of punishing them.

               

However, despite all of the love he has for Egypt, Set still ends up suffering. “The people would plant during the day and at night would celebrate dancing singing shaking sistrums and carrying on so that Set couldn’t get sleep and was tired when he went out on the field and drilled marched and gave commands to others” (Reed 162). Generally speaking, if I was in Set’s position, I would be pretty mad. He is constantly disturbed by peopling dancing, and just wants a good night of sleep. However, the people go a step further and end up bullying Set. “He became the laughing stock of the country. Set can’t dance became the cry:” (Reed 163) I think that this was just the last straw, and ended up making Set so mad that he was forced to take drastic measures. He didn’t originally want to be evil, he was provoked into doing it.

              

Set’s descent into madness wasn’t necessarily his fault. I’m not saying that him murdering his brother is a good thing, but it seems to me that he was almost forced into doing it. Set was constantly suffering from the abuse of others, and he just reached his snapping point. I think that an argument can be made on Set’s behalf that he wasn’t the one responsible for the death of Osiris. It was all the people who ended up hurting him.

The Ending of Ragtime

At the end of Ragtime, we get this conclusion of what happens to all the characters. We find out that Mother and Father divorce and that Mother gets married to Tateh. We discover the endings to Emma Goldman and Evelyn Nesbit. In the finale chapter, Doctorow doesn’t hold back, and just hits us with all these blunt statements of what happens to all the characters that we met throughout his book. Yet, the ending still seems almost unsatisfactory.

To be honest, I kind of disliked the ending. After having read so many fiction stories, I kind of almost expected like a fairy tale ending where there was either a cliffhanger ending that gives readers something to dwell on, or even an ending where everyone lived happily ever after. Instead, we get statements like “The anarchist Emma Goldman had been deported. The beautiful and passionate Evelyn Nesbit had lost her looks and fallen into obscurity” (Doctorow 320). Everything just seemed so bland like it doesn’t really matter what happens to the characters. In a way, that’s kind of true.

               

This is because Doctorow tries make the book seem realistic. He wants the ending to be representative of history. In real life, people don’t end up having these fantastical endings that everyone thinks they have. For example, after the American Revolution and presidency, George Washington didn’t go on some new adventure. Instead, retired to his plantation to live out the rest of his life. Nobody really cares about Washington in his post-presidency. Life just moves on. The same happens in Ragtime. Doctorow doesn’t end on a high note. Instead, he makes the book seem realistic by making the characters almost ordinary in their endings. It gives the illusion that the book itself isn’t really a work of fiction, but rather a series of chapters in someone’s life. 

The Representation of Class Division Through Houdini

In the book “Ragtime” E.L. Doctorow introduces Houdini as one of the characters. Instead of just portraying him as a mere historical character, Doctorow uses him to demonstrate class conflict. He gives Houdini a purpose other than entertaining crowds with his wild escapes. By writing the encounters that Houdini has with the upper class, Doctorow creates the analogy in which Houdini represents the lower class who can never fit in with the aristocrats, no matter how much money or fame they acquire.

As a real person, Harry Houdini came from very humble beginnings. He was originally born as Erich Weiss, in Budapest, and moved to the United States when he was four years old. Before he has become famous, Houdini he worked at a small circus. At the time, performers were not highly regarded, even if they were highly entertaining. It was only later in his life, when he began doing his escapes, that he become incredibly famous and wealthy. However, despite all of his success, Houdini never really became part of America’s aristocratic class.

This rejection from the aristocracy is incredibly apparent in Houdini’s interactions at Mrs. Stuyvesant Fish’s party. At the very beginning when Houdini arrives, he wasn’t even allowed to walk through the front door. Instead, “the entourage was shown to the trade entrance” (Doctorow 32). This is almost exactly like Coalhouse Walker’s interaction with the family. Instead of going through the front door like most people, he has to go through the back door. It’s like Houdini is forced to remember his humble background. Just like Walker, Houdini still has to abide by these class rules, even though both of them are incredibly successful. It’s like even though they have come so far, no matter what they do, they can never fit in with America’s elite. To add even more disrespect, Mrs. Fish shoves Houdini aside almost like a second-rate act by hiring the Barnum and Bailey. Personally, I think that if you hire top-level entertainment, you should stick with it. You shouldn’t be buying out a ton of them like they’re going out of fashion. By introducing all the freaks, Doctorow has sent a message about societal cliques. You have the super-rich and aristocratic class, and then you have everyone else. At the end of the day, Houdini only interacts with the circus freaks, even though he was paid to entertain the party. “When he felt he had discharged his responsibilities, Houdini rose and told his manage he would not perform for Mrs. Stuyvesant Fish” (Doctorow 34). This shows us that even though Houdini was a world-class act, he will never fit in with the aristocracy. He can only fit and perform for the freaks and lower class. This shows us that there was this huge canyon between the elite and everyone else, and that no one could ever cross it.

I think that Doctorow was trying to send the readers a message. This message was to critique the upper class. He makes them seem so petty and arrogant with his scene with Houdini. He tries to tell us that at the time, there was this huge social divide, and that the people at the top were just flat-out bigots who could never accept that someone who wasn’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth could ever become like them.