Assimilation vs Seperation in Peony

"They are a strange people, not like ours. They are a sorrowful people, and they worship a cruel god" - Kung Chen (138)

A strong theme in Pearl S. Buck's novel Peony is the value of assimilating into a foreign culture in which you are living as compared to keeping your people's own values and customs. In the novel the main family are wealthy Jews living in Kaifeng, China. Unlike their brethren in Europe these Jewish communities are completely safe and accepted by the Chinese society. Without a monotheistic culture the idea of worshiping a different god is not well understood but not offensive to Chinese society. Instead, the Jews are seen a strange people following a harsh and invisible God, but they are still widely considered to be "good people" by the Chinese.

The arrival of Jews in Kaifeng is described as having been a steady stream, starting with traders and merchants. Later, Jews would come in larger numbers fleeing persecution. According to the novel, "The Chinese in the city viewed these modest invasions with tolerant eyes. They were a clever people, these Jews, full of energy and wit" (Buck 7). Essentially the Jews were accepted into Chinese cities for the same reason they were invited to live in the Ottoman Empire following the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain: they could read, write, and do math. However, despite the family's wealth and the great tolerance of the Chinese, the matriarch of the family is extraordinarily concerned about losing the traditions of her people and falling into Chinese heathenism. She frequently yearns to return to the Promised Land, but the men in her family do not see any reason to leave China, which is their home.

Madame Ezra is convinced that the Chinese are being kind to destroy Jewish culture and lead to assimilation without violence. This brings up a classic point in minority communities: to what level is it extent is it possible to integrate into a community without giving up unique cultural values? According to Madame Ezra, "Because the Chinese have not murdered us, does that mean they are not destroying us...there is an unchangeable difference between them and us. We are the children of the true God, and they are heathen. They worship images of clay" (68). However, the Jews were so safe in China that the children of the Jewish community did not understand the persecution which their people were facing until a trader came back with a story of Jews being massacred in the West.

The narrator describes that the trader could not, "Make this young David understand, who had all his life lived in safety and peace? What ancient curse was upon their people elsewhere that did not hold under these Eastern skies?"; At news of the massacre Ezra states, "As long as we live here, we are safe (78). It is in many ways difficult to imagine Madame Ezra's chagrin at a continuing life amongst the Chinese even if it requires intermarriage; further, it does not seem it would be particularly difficult for trade caravans to return with Jews fleeing violence in order to keep the community strong. However, even without persecution the Jewish community continued to shrink, as Madame Ezra saw it, "It was, of course, easier to sink into becoming a Chinese, easier to take on easygoing godless ways, than it was to remain a Jew (112). This gives a better idea of her issues with living in China, as she does not think that the Jews can contain morality in a heathen society (of course, Jews had been doing so for thousands of years.)

One of the defining features of Jewish and Chinese interactions in the novel is a mutual ignorance of closely held customs. While David studies both Confucius and the Torah, his mother has little understanding of the Chinese lifestyle, and the Chinese know very little about their Jewish neighbors other than that they are foreigners. When David wants to marry a Chinese girl who father explains his feelings about his daughter marrying a foreigner, "When foreigners come into a nation, the best way is to make them no longer foreign. That is to say, let us marry our young together and let there be children. War is costly, love is cheap (102). His daughter feels the same way, hoping she can save David from the fate of his people, "She would take him away from the dark, sorrowful people to whom he had been born and bring him into the pleasant sunshine in which her people lived. He would forget death and learn to love life" (103). What is strange about these statements is that despite a lack of cultural understanding Madame Ezra and the Chinese seem to feel the same way: their lives would be better, or at least easier, if they were Chinese. Madame Ezra's faith is the only obstacle to her assimilation.

It is difficult to know where the rest of this novel will go in terms of this theme. It is particularly interesting to compare this to America in the early 20th century when there were masses of unassimilated immigrants in the country, including Jews and Catholics. Both natives and immigrants had trouble deciding how to handle the situation. While many public schools taught in German even until the First World War, increasing action with government agents made the English language particularly necessary. In the case of the Jews of Kaifeng, it seems that being able to write in both Hebrew and Chinese would contain extraordinary benefits in terms of trade, especially as knowing Hebrew would make it easier to learn Arabic and further increase ones ability for communication. It seems that if life was so much better in China but they were still a dying people they should have told other Jews they were in contact with to come to China.


S., Buck, Pearl. Peony (Oriental Novels of Pearl S. Buck Series). London: Moyer Bell, 2004. Print.

Race in Heart of Darkness

Note: Instead of citing directly any of the essays which I read in the Norton Critical Edition of Heart of Darkness and will instead generally discuss racial issues in the novella.




The issue of race in Conrad's work has been a subject of extensive discussion. There is a clear disparity between the portrayal of Europeans and Africans in Heart of Darkness which has been criticized for the absence of African characters who possess unique traits. While it is easy to look at this as racism, there are a variety of things which Conrad was discussing. While he is clearly not giving Africans the same interest as the European characters, he is examining a society destroyed by violent exploitation. The disparity of a civilized and calm Europe and a turbulent central African reeling under violent oppression is not an unfair comparison.

There are several intentions which Conrad could have had for his novel. For one thing, within the text there is clearly an in depth discussion of late 19th century imperialism which does not hold imperialism in high regards. Unlike Kipling, Conrad does not feel that there is a "white burden" which Europeans have to fulfill. Instead, Conrad shows that imperialism is not helping either party; the expense is not worth it to Europeans and the devastating toll on Africans does not need to be further described. While Africans could have greatly benefited from trade for European goods, instead Africans were enslaved and slaughtered in order to steal their land and resources. Further, the Belgian were not allowing Africans to trade with anyone but Belgian government officials.

Whether or not Conrad views Africans as being a "lesser race" the system of capitalism is designed as such that it would help everyone; regardless of the abilities of central Africans in economic production, and actual system of free trade would have helped Africans significantly. The system of setting up trading posts and trading with the natives in a mutually agreeable fashion benefits everyone, however the Belgians did not follow a remotely similar policy. Instead the Belgians looted the country dry.

There was a distinct reason that being in Africa was destroying the soul of Europeans, and it was witnessing the brutal oppression of Africans. It is hard to imagine the experience of going up the Congo river at the time to be anything but ghoulish; it seems something that a generally sympathetic person could not emotionally handle. Instead, Kurtz tries to take control of Africans and protect them from other colonizers. Whether or not he does that successfully, it seems that Kurtz is trying to save the people from the violence they were already facing. The primary reason which Europeans seem so disturbed is the violence which they are surrounded by.

Conrad shows no illusions about imperialism, and instead Marlowe sees it as a purely for-profit adventure. As he moves further up the river, it becomes increasingly apparent that this situation is destroying Europeans involved in it while devastating African society. Imperialism in Africa was often a horrific experience, it stands to reason that Marlowe would not see an inspiring pinnacle of human civilization in an area ravaged by marauders.

Freedom of the Press in Ten Days

Despite John Reed's obvious enthusiasm for Bolshevism he is more than willing to explain Bolshevik acts which he would presumably be against. The best example of this is Lenin's suppression of the press. However, it is always difficult to know by what extent Reed is being taken in by Lenin's political sophistry. At the time of writing Reed seems to attribute infinite wisdom to Lenin and Trotsky, though later in life he was very dissatisfied with the results. Lenin's excuses for suppressing the freedom of the press are an interesting example of political rhetoric as Lenin seeks to justify suppressing newspapers after years of being strong defenders of freedom of the press while in a minority.

In the chapter notes following chapter seven Reed provides a document written by Lenin justifying suppressing newspapers. Lenin admits that there are cries that, "the new Socialist authority is in this vioalting the essential principles of its own programme by an attempt against the freedom of the press" (Reed 250). Lenin goes on to explain that the problem is that the wealthy segment of the population are able to "seize a lion's share of the whole press" and in doing so "poison" the minds of the population (Reed 250). Lenin claims that as soon as order is restored so will measures against the press, however he later goes on to argue that this cannot be allowed.

Lenin's arguments against a free press also provide an example of the idea that freedom of the press is meaningless without respect for private property. The Bolsheviks officially supported a policy of seizing all supplies related to printing as "property of the people." One Bolshevik says directly, "it is as private property that we must examine the question of the press" (Reed 354). The Bolshevik resolution argues that there needs to be a new printing regime, "under which the capitalist owners of printing-presses and of paper cannot be the all powerful and exclusive manufacturers of public opinion" (Reed 354). This is a criticism which falls flatly on its face, as communist groups were regularly able to print underground newspaper and pamphlets, a consistent feature in the text. Though they argue that political groups should be allowed representation through the use of state-controlled printing presses, this would obviously not be the case. They argue, "The reestablishment of the so-called 'freedom of the press,' the simple return of printing pressed and paper to the capitalists,--poisoners of the mind of the people--...would be a measure of unquestionably counter-revolutionary nature" (Reed 354). It is difficult to imagine that anyone would believe the Bolsheviks about re-opening newspapers; the idea of a party in power controlling printing presses and not abusing the situation is completely unrealistic.

A consistent feature of Ten Days that Shook the World is the inclusion of fantastic primary documents such as speeches and fliers. The reader is able to get a concept of the actual rhetoric that Bolsheviks were using to justify their actions. While these occasionally seem like something which would win over an uninformed and uncritical voter, other claims are simply outlandish. It is really quite difficult to imagine how Reed could have supported these men, but he was allegedly heartbroken about the horrors of Bolshevism in practice.

Propaganda and Ten Days

Ten Days That Shook the World is fascinating in a variety of ways, but one of the most interesting in analyzing the political slant to the text. This is particularly interesting due to John Reeds clear political association and a lack of time to reflect on the consequences of Bolshevik governance. In the author's introduction he explains, "In the struggle my sympathies were not neutral. But in telling the story of those great days I have tried to see the events with the eye of a conscientious reporter, interested in setting down the truth (Reed liii). While it would seem obvious where a socialist would stand during the Russian Revolution, in fact socialist factions in Russia could not have been more split.

It is easy to understand why Lenin would have approved of Reed's book since in many ways it seems to prove the Bolsheviks right. For example, he states, "That the Bolsheviki would remain in power longer than three days never occurred to anybody--except perhaps to Lenin, Trotsky, the Petrograd workers and the simpler soldiers..." (Reed 162). In relation to whether or not the Bolsheviks would take power, Ten Days That Shook the World seems to show a remarkable amount of foresight by Lenin and Trotsky in deciding when to take power. However, this is an accurate portrayal of the Bolshevik strategy (as they were anticipating the inability of building strong resistance) and does not represent a justification of the Bolshevik cause.

In many instances Reed relies on primary documents in order to explain history, which adds a great amount to the validity of his merit. For example, it contains many proclamations from various groups. For example, it includes a Bolshevik pronouncement exclaiming that, Either--the power will remain in the hands of the bourgeois-landlord...repression for the workers, soldiers and peasants...inevitable hunger and death. Or--the power will be transferred to the hands of the revolutionary workers, soldiers and peasants; and in that case it will mean a complete abolition of landlord tyranny, immediate check of the capitalists...then land is assured to the peasants..." (qtd Reed 112). This quotation is not surrounded by any sort of commentary from Reed, and instead he continues his historical narrative. This style allows the reader to view the text from an existing viewpoint; the reader can either be impressed or disgusted by the Bolshevik world view and in most instances Reed does not insert commentary. Either way, the idea that a Bolshevik would say such a thing is not even slightly contentious.

In other instances the absolute hypocrisy of the Bolsheviks is explained in clear deal and not followed by justification. For example, in nearly the same breath Bolsheviks abolished capital punishment in the army while, "All pillage, disorder and speculation were forbidden under pain of death" (Reed 137). While the absurdity of these conflicting values is obvious: Bolsheviks would continue to praise themselves for abolishing capital punishment while issuing death threats to anyone opposing revolution.

Ten Days That Shook the World is an amazing primary document in 20th Century history. It both presents documents produced by competing groups and tells the narrative of an American in Russia during tumultuous times. John Reed left the revolution with a reinvigorated sense of wealth redistribution. The reader, knowing what Bolshevism brought about, is likely to leave with a different opinion.

Reed, John. Ten Days that Shook the World. 1960. Ed Wolfe, Bertram. Vintage Books. New York.


P.S. This edition of the text does not use Oxford commas. I have no idea why I maintained faith to this in quotations despite the fact that it drives me insane and I'm convinced it's quite simply wrong despite what some British people believe.

Looting Africa

Marlow, the main character in Heart of Darkness, does not see any noble intentions in Europe's African expeditions. While colonization may have initially allowed Africans to trade for goods which they did not previously have access too and could not make, by the late 19th century European military dominance made trade with natives unnecessary. In theory, Europeans purchasing land and increasing the economic productivity would improve the state of Africans, like all empires, Europeans began sending in expeditionary forces to loot the country side and weaken local kingdoms. Following this, these areas would either be brought under direct European control or turned into vassal states. Marlow has no illusions, and is simply going to Africa for a sense of adventure, but what he finds is an occupational insanity caused by the decivilizing effect looting Africa had on Europeans.

During the late 19th century there was a significant amount of discussion about "civilizing the world" and Christianizing Africa. While native peoples can benefit from new technology, skills, livestock, and crops, it is not productive to force native peoples to behave in a more European fashion; it is neither good for the native peoples or for Europeans. Instead of being taken in by idealism or ideology, Marlow see colonialism from a very cynical viewpoint, explaining the purpose of European expeditions in Africa as, "to tear treasure out of the bowels of the land...with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe" (Conrad 133). However, unlike Marlow, his aunt is taken in by the idealistic viewpoint stating that Europeans are, "weaning those ignorant millions from their horrid ways" (Conrad 113). Marlow tries to mention that the idea of these companies in Africa is to turn a profit, and is surprised by how out of touch with reality women can be. This statement could certainly be more broadly applied, as it seems like a lot of dialogue is generally based on idealism and not facts.

Clearly, like other things there were positive and negative aspects of the European presence in Africa. For example, the Congo as a personal possession of King Leopold II received some of the most brutal treatment in the history of colonialism. Europeans could have legitimately helped Africans by simply creating industry in Africa and taking advantage of cheap labor. The main thing that is difficult to assess about colonialism is the quality of life which colonized people were experiencing prior to European arrival. While it has been popular since Romanticism to lionize the "noble savage" it seems that most hunter-gatherers would realistically live hard lives, frequently go hungry, and face many dangers. For example, around the turn of the century in India the average life expectancy for an Indian male was 20, appalling low, however when one considers disease, sanitation, starvation, et cetera it is difficult to know how much that would have gone down under British occupation. Similarly, a large percentage of Africans probably did not live in permanent homes or own more than they carried with them, and presumably frequently did not have food for more than a few days. This is by any measure dire poverty.

While Europeans certainly could have behaved in a better fashion during the colonial period, it is really difficult to guage the effect it had on local populations when one considered that a large percentage of the population were either enslaved or in dire policy upon European arrival.