We read and discussed Ilunga's harvest in class, but didn't have time finish the story. After finishing, comment on Tidwell's assertation: "Like everyone else in Kalambayi, Ilunga needed badly the help fish culture could provide. What he didn't need, however, were lessons on how to stay alive. And that, I eventually grew to understand, was what all the sharing was really about. It was a survival strategy, an unwritten agreement by the group that no one would be allowed to fall off the societal boat no matter how low provisions ran on board....everyone stayed afloat."
Is this different than what you see in America? How? Which way is better?
Can you think of an example?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In America it's pretty much every man or company for themselves. Group survival in America is socialism period. Group survival would ruin our democracy and Illunga's village's system is a primitive form of socialism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with City Strider. In America it really is everyone for themselves and not all for one and one for all in the community. It seems nicer to have someone share their riches with everyone, but it sounds like it's spread out evenly and the provider has about the same share. I think that since the provider of the extra stuff should get more of it because they put the work into it.
ReplyDeleteI think that Kalambayi is very different from america. America is a self-run coutry and Kalambayi seems like people dont have to many freedoms. I think the way in America is better because you ge freedoms and rights. Except the people in Kalambayi seem more wholesome because they Ilunga shared all of his fish, even though he needed it to get his wife.
ReplyDeleteIn America we don't completely push away our homeless and hungry. We have shelters,food drives,donations,and government help. In Ilunga's case they don't have all these sources to use or receive. Kalambayi's people seem to be reliant on others when they need something,but also expect to be that other person who helps another.
ReplyDelete