A moral to the story?

[Peter Cohen]

I thought the ending was almost ironic. The moral seemed to be; the
good guy always wins in the end. The man got outwitted in the
beginning and middle, as the animals used him to build them shelter.
But in the end, the man outwits the animals by pitting them against
each other. The animals took the shelters from the man through greed
and cunning, but their greed led them to their downfall as they were
outwitted by the man. The more powerful race ended up dead, while the
overmatched man walked away unharmed. I thought it was ironic how the
story ended.

Any thoughts? What does this imply for colonialism and European
expansion? Do the innocent always come out on top? Is this a
representation of how colonialism fell? If it is, what lessons do we
take from colonialism?

[oschultz]

Peter, while I believe that your synopsis is very valid, and while I
do agree with your questioning of the plot, I'd also have to say that
you'd need look from more than one side of the story in order to get
your answer. The morale of the story may seem to show us that the
person with the most progress and the best work ethic may be the
victor of the time. While that may be a good lesson to take out of
this whole ordeal is that no single culture can take over and expand
upon another culture no matter how much power or potential the culture
may have. Also, to answer your question of innocence, it seems like it
is quite the contrary in most cases since innocence denotes a lack of
knowledge in the society around you and usually the winner in the very
end of a conflict has much more knowledge. Not to say that colonists
were innocent to a certain extent when they thought that they were
helping out the natives, but for the most part, the people whom
profited from the expansion into Africa and other countries usually
knew what they were doing and knew how to do it in order to get
profits.

[Dixie Morrison]

I found the ending very Brothers Grimm--the good guys prevail, but so
gruesomely! In all seriousness, though, from what we know of Jomo
Kenyatta (successful freedom fighter through use of violence), I'd say
he found this ending both happy and realistic. It's a sad fact, but I
think that the majority (not all) of successful rebellions are
accomplished through some violence. If there is any moral to the
story, I think it is that you need to shed some blood to make changes
in the world. There are many examples to refute this, of course, but
Kenyatta's own experiences validate it. I think the story captured
very shrewdly the main reasons why colonialism always fails in the
end. It is very difficult to keep a country oppressed when the
majority of the population does not want to be oppressed. In this
sense, perhaps you could say that the "innocent" (the "good guys"--I
mean to say, the victimized) do prevail in the end, because I believe
colonialism always falls. But genuine innocence always coming out on
top? Except in Disneyfied fairy tales, I think not.

[Maya Allen]

I agree with Dixie's explanation of the story. The moral of the story
seems to be that sometimes you need to make things happen and take
action. This will probably end up happening violently because if non-
violence is tried and failed, sadly, it may be the only way. The
"good" or "innocent" do not necessarily just win, but it is those who
take action and are aware of what they need to do that succeed, no
matter who they are. As Dixie said, it's very difficult to colonize
another area forcefully when most of the people do not want you
there. The people you are colonizing are probably the majority and
when people are united as one, they have more power than you would
think.

[btay...@colonial.net]

This story was very interesting because it seemed to me that it
personified the colonists as animals of the jungle, and brought them
to the level of mere beasts. In the story, the animals kept abusing
the man, taking all of his work for themselves to benefit from (like
the colonists did to the africans). This is very inhumane and i
thought it was very clever for the author to catch this and write
about the colonists in this manner. It was effective and funny. Also,
it was interesting how the animals never gave the man a say in the
case. There seemed to be deeper meaning in here as well...However, we
can take away a lot from the story, or a moral of sorts. It is that
the oppressed will always have the desire to triumph over the
oppressor, like in the story, and like many colonized nations who
tried to gain independence. People who are mistreated and oppressed
will always strive to be free, and they will take any means they deem
valid to become free.

[Kyle Calabria]

I thought it was interesting that the author had the man (africans)
use the colonists technique of bringing different groups within a
larger one against each other. When the european countries colonized
African countries they would create conflict between neighboring
tribes. It was very effective, because the tribes battled and weakened
each other making them very vulnerable to the colonists. In the story
the man brought the animals against each other over spacing in the new
hut which weakened them by distracting them enough for him to be able
to burn the hut down. I think there are many morals to be learned from
the story, but perhaps one is live by the sword die by the sword. The
colonists find that the same technique they had once used to conquer
was now being used against them to liberate.

On Oct 5, 3:28 pm, "btaylo...@colonial.net" <btaylo...@colonial.net>
wrote:

[Mark B]

i thought that the idea of creating conflict was also fascinating
however i thought it was particularly interesting that the conflict
between Africans in Things falls apart is an internal struggle for the
characters of nervous conditions. The whole idea of an identity
crisis created by the colonist trying to force the natives to conform
and therefore creating the tension in the family in nervous
conditions.

[Dominic Ryder]

One thing that i saw as being part of the moral of the story was the
loss of innocence on the part of the man; he tries again and again to
get fair treatment from the animals, and fails every time. It is only
then that he realizes that he has to take independent action to get
his due. I think this is the author trying to say that one can only
opress someone, or treat them badly, for so long, before it reaches a
breaking point, and they take action to get what they want.

[Jake White]

I completely agree with Maya in that, when searching for justice non-
violently fails, you must resort to violence in order to create change
and make a difference. Had the man not reacted to these unfair acts
committed by the animals, violently, he would not have seen change and
wouldn't have been able to live peacefully in his own home.

[Lucas Morrill]

It appears to me that Kenyatta is expressing regret that his ancestors
did not fight back against the Europeans. He glorifies the man who,
after being frustrated by the jungle animals several times, learns to
fight back and tricks them all. He expresses regret that his ancestors
could not learn the tricks of the white man. They could not find a way
to rise above the colonists and fight back. Instead they fought
against themselves, so they stood no chance against the more
technologically advanced Europeans. Had they learned from their
mistakes it might have been possible to fight the Europeans

[jmcke...@colonial.net]

I don't know if the man can be considered "innocent" in the story. was
he really justified in killing all of the animals because his
territory was being taken away? I will say however that this is indeed
how colonialism fell, not by a band of knights in shining armor, but
by groups who I'm sure had the best intentions, and did accomplish a
lot, but did so in a more gray manner than either side displays them
as. This story also does not do justice to the other side of the
conflict, the colonizers, who are also not seen as deep, but instead
purely greedy, which could not be true for every single colonist. In
terms of what this can teach us about colonialism, it certainly
teaches us that the fight for independance is much more nuanced that
it appears, and that in the end, those who inhabit the country will
overcome the stronger power if given enough time.

[Nick Jessee]

I think that the ending was also ironic, as peter said. It seemed to
show that for a colonized nation to get rid of colonization, they must
destroy their culture and roots to obtain freedom. This was
represented in the ending where the man burned down his hut, and it
took the animals with it. Although he had to abandon his home, and
get rid of what he had worked very hard for, in the end he still got
freedom, which is most important. I enjoyed the last quote about how
peace is costly and it is worth it because he is saying that he is
willing to sacrifice nearly anything as long as he gets justice.