Characters in a Courtroom

As you followed the action in the courtroom, which character did you empathise with most? Least? Explain.

As I folllowed the action in the courtroom, I empathized with Atticus Finch the most. He was fighting for a good cause that everyone else should have been supporting, yet, it was unlikely that the judge would support him and in the end, the judge still found Tom Robinson guilty. I have been through this experience many times - I would have a good idea and am trying to promote it but in the end, very few or no people would support it and instead, support another less effective initiative which in the end, does not prove as effective. In fact, most people have also gone through this experience before, a situation where they fight for something where they know they are unlikely to achieve, or where they would try to get people to support something that they believe will work very well, but which no one would listen to until perhaps later on, when the other plan which they listened to, has failed. This is a rather frustrating experience surely for all of us, but even more so for Atticus since a man's life depends on him, instead of trivial objects and matters.

The person I empathise with the least is Mayella Ewell. I think that instead of being scared of being beaten up by her father and thus, telling a lie to the court, she should have more honour and pride and not lie about such matters. A person's life depends on her, how could she have just ignore that fact and lie just to save her own skin? Even her life is not in danger, she is just in danger of being beaten up, so how could she sacrifice a human life just to spare herself discomfort? If she had not lied to the court and told the truth, they may have even detained her father and she would not be in danger at all! That is the part I do not empathise with her, that is, her cowardice. People may fear many things, and try to do whatever they can to avoid facing that fear, that is understandable, but how can one sacrifice someone else's life in order to avoid one's own fear? That is not moral, how could Mayella not feel guilty at all? And even if she did, why did she not repent and admit to the judges that she lied if she truly felt guilty and sorry for what she had done?

A Witness In Crime

Reflect on the phrase, 'Anyone is guilty who watches this and does nothing'. What have you done when you have seen people being discriminated against? What more can you do the next time you witness discrimination taking place?

Depending on the victim, I have either helped the victim who is being discriminated against, supported the discriminators, be neutral and watch, or pity the victim but not do anything.

Some people help the victim because the victim happens to be a friend, the discriminators happen to be an enemy, the discrimination is extremely unreasonable or a combination of these factors. These are natural reactions - if it was a friend, you may want to protect the friendship, or you understand your friend very well and feel that these discriminations are not valid. If the discriminator is an enemy, one would naturally be opposed to whatever that person does and if the discrimination is unreasonable, a person may protect the victim because he has been through a similar experience. Similarly, people remain neutral and watch because of the lack of these factors - they do not know either parties well and do not want to interrupt as they will miss a good show.

What I would like to emphasise on, however, are that some people support the discriminators or watch what is happening with pity. People do not want to be outcasts of a group, even if they want to stand out, it is merely to gain popularity and fame and thus, be more accepted into a certain group. Due to the fact that people do not want to be outcasts, when they see someone being discriminated, they would rather join the group of discriminators and be socially accepted instead of helping the discriminated, who is apparently the outcast of the socially popular group. Thus, even if a person pities the victim, he may not help because he does not want to be like victim and be rejected by the group. Everyone has a natural desire to want to have emotional security, to be accepted and to not be rejected, thus, people would naturally want to help the majority than the minority since the majority also holds more power. However, I regret the times when I did this. I should have just helped the victim, after all, the situation and context of discrimination is not as serious as in other countries, and especially not in relatively good school. You do not get rejected from a group of people in school just because you oppose one of the things they do. Thus, I feel that the next time I see discrimination taking place, I would not just stand aside and ignore the incident, instead I would step in and help the victim.

A review of "Mississippi Burning"

Did you like the movie? Why or why not?

I did not really enjoy movie's series of events, but I did think that the plot and cinematography was rather interesting. However, before going into these details, I would like to summarise the movie to refresh our memories, or enlighten those who did not watch the movie.

Three Civil Rights activists have been missing for a few weeks and are believed to be killed by the Ku Klux Klan. Two agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Anderson and Ward, and have different personalities and methods, have been sent to investigate and decide to call in a hundred other agents to look for the bodies. This results in the Ku Klux Klan burning down the churches of the Negroes, and beating up the Negroes as well. Anderson and Ward manage to convince the Negroes to bring the three arsonists to court, but the Judge releases them and they burn down more churches and even hang one of the persecutors. In the end, Anderson and Ward manage to arrest the Ku Klux Klan, made up mostly of the city Sheriff, even thought the head Sheriff manages to escape imprisonment.

As you read this, you probably have a few questions. The FBI agents already know who were in the Ku Klux Klan since the middle of the story, so why did they not arrest them sooner? What was different in the middle of the movie and toward the end of the movie? If you ask me, I would say that I have not the slightest clue, and that I only have a general idea of what the movie was about. Perhaps it was not the series of events that was confusing, but instead, the heavy American accent that was used. As I was not that used to such a heavy American accent, and because the level of the accent kept changing from person to person, I did not truly understand what was happening and thus, could not truly appreciate the movie.

I shall now move on to why I think the plot and cinematography was interesting. The plot is rather interesting because instead of telling to the audience outright who was in the Ku Klux Klan, the audience was supposed to infer from the actions and behaviours of the individuals. An interesting about the cinematography was the comparing and contrasting of scenes. For example, there was a scene at night where the Ku Klux Klan beat up several Negroes. This was contrasted near the end with a scene at night of Negroes chasing after the Ku Klux Klan. Another rather interesting feature of the movie was the motif of something being burned. There were at least four scenes of houses and churches being burned down, as well as two scenes of a cross burning. This was probably meant to emphasise the destruction caused by the Ku Klux Klan, and the burning cross could also signify that the Ku Klux Klan were betraying the God they believed in as both parties probably believed in the same God yet one burned the other's church.

The End

Did the ending of the novel surprise you? If you were the author, would you have ended the story differently?

The ending of the novel surprised me, because having read many books, I expected that Bob Ewell be sentenced to jail or be persuaded to have a change of heart. Instead, he dies accidentally, either by falling on his own knife or getting killed by Jem accidentally. Usually, in a novel, the antagonist has a definite death, instead of a mysterious one which requires the reader to decide how they think Bob Ewell died. In a novel, the antagonist usually dies in the hands of the protagonist purposefully, instead of accidentally, which resulted in this novel being rather confusing and interesting, a new experience instead of being, as I mentioned above, a usual novel.

If I were the author, I would not have ended the story differently. The mysterious ending of the novel lets the reader decide how they would prefer Bob Ewell to die, instead of telling the reader directly, this mystery causing people to keep thinking about the novel or discussing about it and thus, the message of the novel would stick in the mind instead of just forgetting the novel and thus, the message, the next day. The ending of the story, other than inspiring thought due to the accidental death, is also rather different from other usual novels, thus, people would not be bored and feel that it is just a common novel with an often-repeated message.

Empathy-- Putting oneself into another person's shoes

What does it mean to "put yourself in another person's shoes"? What personal qualities are necessary to be able to see things as someone else does?

What is the difference between pity, sympathy and empathy? To a common person, there is probably not much of a difference, however, if we examine these, we find that there are quite a lot of difference between these three words. They can even be viewed as stage one, stage two, and stage three of truly feeling sorry for a person.

Stage One - Pity: Pity is relief and feeling sorry for a person. You feel sorry that anyone has to suffer such a disastrous fate, but it is superficial, you do not actually understand them and only feel sorry as any humane person would. However, at the same time, you are rather relieved that you are not that person and do not have to endure what he did, that you do not have to experience that tragedy.

Stage Two - Sympathy: When you sympathise for someone, you feel compassion for a person and actually want to help him, instead of just being relieved that you are not him. Instead of just being superficial, you go down one layer and feel like helping that person.

Stage Three - Empathy: Empathy is when you truly understand a person, either because you have had a similar experience or because you are able to put yourself in that person's shoes and "walk around in it". What is meant by putting yourself into a person's shoes is that you view the situation from his point of view instead of from your own point of view. Only by viewing things from a persons point of view are you truly able to understand that person as you will see the problem he faces and the troubles he had to go through, thus, you will be able to understand his decisions and actions. Yet, not everyone can truly put oneself into another person's shoes as certain qualities have to be present in that person. Even some people who put themselves into someone else's shoes still bring about their own point of view and do not truly understand the person, still thinking that that person is wrong. If you want to put yourself into another person's shoes, you have to be patient, so that you do not get irritated and continue thinking that the person should not have done what he did. Other qualities that have to be possessed by the person is having an open mind, as without an open mind, you would not accept whatever the other person's point of view are. Thus, both patience and an open mind are needed to be an understanding person.

Fair Judgements

What do you think is involved in making a fair judgement about a person or situation? Explain.

In my opinion, there are only two things that affect the making of a fair judgement: circumstances and the mindset of the person making the decision. I shall elaborate on these in my following paragraphs.

Firstly, a fair judgement shall require the person making the decision to have an unbiased mindset. Only through having an untainted view of the world, without letting past experiences and incidents cloud your vision, can you make a fair, unbiased judgement. Yet, how many of us can truly not let past incidents affect our decisions? Many people may claim, "I am unbiased. I view things from both perspectives and I think that person XXX is in the wrong". However, how sure are we that we are truly unbiased? Whenever we look at an event, or think of a word, certain memories would definitely be triggered. For example, one could be looking at a dark-skinned construction worker and subconsciously or consciously think of how you had seen a construction worker sleeping in the void deck. Our mind works extremely quickly and yet, because it has to work so quickly, the operations by our mind are relatively simple. If we see a construction worker, we may trigger a stereotype that they do not work hard, then our mind would start finding instances of that, before reinstating that construction workers are lazy people. This happens instantly, be it consciously or unconsciously, and affects our way of thinking whether we want to or not. Even if we start thinking "I shall not be biased," we may associate it with being harsher/less harsh to the person we are judging and thus, give them a biased judgement that is different from how you would judge a stranger who does the exact same thing. Thus, my point would be that prejudice and unfair judgements is always because we have experiences, which would always taint our judgement one way or another, no matter what we do. What we can do, however is to at least try not to be biased, that is, not be extremely biased such like "I dislike Chinese, he is a Chinese, and thus I dislike him."

Next, you may ask why not have a fixed set of guidelines, that is, rules. However, fair judgement also depends on the circumstances to make a fair judgement. We have to look at the situation and find out what is going on in order to make a judgement that is fair. If we ignore the circumstances and evidence and judge solely based on our beliefs, our judgement would be unlikely to be fair. However, extreme circumstances may force a person to make a judgement which may be fair to the majority, but is not fair to individuals. For example, if a father murders someone and gets the death sentence for committing the crime, it would be fair in the public's eye -- after all, he should not have committed that particular crime if he did not want to get the death sentence. However, is it fair to the child? What if the child does not have a mother or someone who is willing to be a guardian? Is it fair to the child that his father be killed and instead of having a normal life, he becomes an orphan? Should another judgement be passed instead so that instead of just killing that father, they reach a compromise? You may say that having a murderer for a father is worse than having no father, but how do we know? Have we actually experienced what the child must feel? Although circumstances in our daily lives are not that extreme, there are some judgements we have to pass about people and situations which are hard to be fair to everyone involved. A compromise could be reached by all parties, but many people will be unlikely to do that. Everyone wants the best themselves and are naturally unwilling to sacrifice even a bit of their benefits.

Prejudice in Singapore

Have you ever been part of a group of people that were unkind to one or more individuals? Describe the circumstances. What caused you to behave the way you did? How did you feel then? How do you feel about the circumstances / events in retrospect?

I have been part of many groups of people that were unkind to one or more individuals -- marginalization is extremely common in society and will exist in almost every social group. There will always be an outcast, one who is disliked by all, because, although it sounds cruel, its a way for people to relieve their stress, by laughing at helpless individuals, even if the individual may be an innocent person. The group I was in disliked a person called James (Not Real Name) because he was different, in his way of speech, and as to his way of presenting himself. He would be apologetic and kind to a person for one moment, then start scolding and insulting that person the next moment, even if that person had not done anything wrong. His changes in mood were extreme and unexpected, and gradually, he started to be marginalized, with people laughing at his behavior, or reprimanding him for being a socially inept person. Disliking him for being immature and rather rude, I also joined in at laughing at that person. He had scolded and insulted me without reason several times and of course, I felt angry, as well as a need to defend my pride, thus I joined in the unkindness towards James, which did not seem to affect that person much as he continued his behavior without showing signs of changing. Viewing these events in retrospect however, I realize that instead of making fun of James, what I should have done was to understand James and advise him on how to change for the better instead of just making fun of him. I could have perhaps also persuaded the group I was in to not be so unfair an prejudiced against people who seem different.

People who are different are usually judged as "bad" simply because they do not understand that person. If people started understanding other people and start trying to change and be better, I am sure that less prejudice would exist and the world would be a better place. Unfortunately, this is not how the world works, and people would rather stick to their pre-judgments of people than change their perspectives and thus, admit they are wrong.