Benjamin C.
When Kino finds that his canoe has been destroyed, he reacts with horrr that such a heinous crime could exist. He declares that this crime is worse than murder, for the canoe is helpless and cannot reltaliate. This shows he has a sense of vengeance and balance, where everything must be 'paid back.' He reveals that he values fairness, the sense that if the world cannot beperfect, it ought to be fair. Murder is horrible, but relatives can bring justice to the perpetrator. Therefore, when he sees the canoe destoryed, it is lower than murder in his eyes. People pass away, but canoes endure; however, his canoe had been destroyed, and it will never healt. Great is the power of the pearl if it can drive people to commit crimes previously too horrible to consider possible.
The canoe was Kino's greatest possession. Kino thought that to kill a man was not as bad as killing a canoe. In modern society, everyone would think that he was wrong because it was a crime to murder, but in theory Kino was slightly right. The man had connections. He had a family and friends. All the people that would remember him and even at one point revenge him. To kill the man did not actually put an end to the thought of him in other people's lives. But the canoe was gone. It was never to be thought of or spoken of again because it was just an inanimate object. You can just get a new canoe and never use the old canoe ever.
ReplyDeleteAs already stated, yes, in our contemporary society, at least where we live, killing a man is more severe than "killing" a canoe. But Kino's argues in his time that a canoe has not any heirs of its own to supersede it, nor to avenge it, that a boat cannot protect itself nor heal wounds. There is always a different ring to the ambience when one takes his revenge on another's property and not his kin or acquaintances. In an underlying sense, it is almost something more wicked to do, especially if the object were of value, to destroy one's things. However, this almost makes you think of the core idea of greed in this book, leaving me with some uncanny, hollow emotion of how a person, a living, conscious thing in so many ways is more vital than an object, yet we can still place material possessions above them.
ReplyDeleteKino is enraged when he finds that his canoe has been destroyed. He wants to kill who ever destroyed his canoe. In his mind the canoe was his most valuable possesion and for someone to destroy it made it feel like it destroyed a piece of him. This is an instince in which someone becomes so attached to something, so when its not there, they cannot cope without it.
ReplyDeleteCayman said
ReplyDeleteKino came running up to the cold ocean shore, where his prized canoe laid. When the sun came out from behind the clouds, it shined through a great hole in the bottom of it. Kino was bright red and he angrily thought “This is evil beyond thinking. The killing of a man was not so evil as the killing of a boat, for a boat does not have son, and a boat cannot protect itself, and a wounded boat does not heal.” Most people would think the opposite of Kino’s thoughts. The values that Kino are looking at are only what happens after death and that a human can revenge on the person that killed the guy. While when the canoe is dead, nothing can avenge it because it has no sons. He is not looking at the value of life that a human has. This is more important than anything and Kino does not realize this.
When Kino finds that his canoe is destroyed, he is infuriated. He believes that destroying a canoe is worse than murder because a canoe can not defend itself. Also, it has no relatives to kill the person who destroyed it. This shows that Kino believed in revenge and self defense. It also shows his sense of fairness. Without a canoe, it was harder to provide for your family in Kinos village. That was why the canoe was so important to him.
ReplyDelete-Jack L.