Candy And His Dog In The Novel Of Mice And Men Free Essay

In the novel Of Mice and Men, written by John Steinbeck, various themes such as friendship, sacrifice, loneliness, and insecurities are explored. These themes are particularly evident in the scene involving Candy and his dog. Both Candy and his dog are portrayed as old, lonely, and insecure individuals who heavily depend on each other. They have been each other’s only companions for a considerable amount of time, but this dynamic is set to change as progress takes its course. The death of Candy’s dog serves as a symbol for the fate of Lennie, who is George’s closest companion.

In both cases, the characters relied on each other and disregarded the opinions of others. For example, Candy’s dog is old and disliked by everyone. However, Candy doesn’t care about what they say. As an illustration, when Carlson comments on the dog’s smell, Candy responds, “Well hell! I had him for so long. Had him since he was a pup. I herded sheep with him… he was the best damn sheep dog I ever seen.” Similarly, George stands up for Lennie by highlighting his strength and work ethic: “…but he’s sure a hell of a good worker. Strong as a bull.” Both friendships ultimately lead to the killing of their best friend. Carlson persistently tries to convince Candy to let him shoot his dog, who is seen as the weakest member of their group. For instance, he suggests, “Look Candy. This ol’ dog jus’ suffers hisself all the time. If you [were to] take him out and shoot him right in the back of the head… right there, why he’d never know what hit him.” Additionally, Carlson subtly influences George to take on the responsibility of killing Lennie himself. For instance, when Carlson says, “I’ll get my Luger,” he implies that he wants to kill Lennie (who is currently in a vulnerable state), but George ultimately decides to take matters into his own hands.

Both Candy and George made sacrifices for the person who meant everything to them, whether it be for better or worse. The death of Candy’s dog foreshadows Lennie’s death, as they were both shot in the back of the head, completely unaware of what was coming. For instance, Carlson remarks, “right in the back of the head,” and in Lennie’s case, George raises the gun and aims it at the back of Lennie’s head. George kills his friend to ensure a peaceful and happy death, sparing him from further suffering. Candy agrees to let Carlson do it, but this doesn’t change the fact that they both didn’t know what would happen. Candy relied heavily on his dog because he recognized that his own fate was linked to his dog’s. Once the dog became old and useless, Candy realized he would also be treated as such. By not defending his dog, Candy effectively gives up on himself as well.

These deaths foreshadow the death of Curley’s wife; in all cases, the back of their head was injured. Notably, many deaths occur by this means. Additionally, both friendships contain an animalistic element. Lennie, despite his immense strength, acts childishly and resembles a big baby. Similarly, Candy’s relationship involves a dog who is no longer useful due to age and becomes a nuisance with its foul odor. Consequently, with permission from the owner, Carlson ends the dog’s life, as it poses problems for everyone involved.

Candy gave Carlson permission to kill his dog because he believed it was time to end its suffering. Similarly, after Lennie accidentally killed Curley’s wife, he tried to hide to avoid trouble. However, Curley’s wife’s death upset many people, leading them to pursue Lennie with the intention of killing him. George decided to take matters into his own hands and ensure that Lennie died peacefully and unaware of his fate. Despite knowing that this decision would bring trouble, George believed it was necessary and the right thing to do. It is common for us to seek out and kill animals when necessary.

Both deaths share commonalities in the sense that both individuals were pursued in a manner that ultimately resulted in their demise. The bonds of friendship between them were exceptionally strong and difficult to sever. The decision to let them go was prompted by similar circumstances and underlying purposes. Additionally, they both exhibited signs that foreshadowed their impending demise, indicating similarities between their situations. Both the dog and Lennie posed more challenges than benefits, leading to their eventual release over time. Tragically, the victims perished without knowledge of the impending harm that awaited them. Would you willingly end the life of someone you have cherished and known for countless years?

Collective Rights Of Canadians And Policies That Support Them

Collective rights are rights Canadians hold because they belong to one of several groups in society. They are rights held by groups (peoples) in Canadian society that are recognized and protected by Canada’s constitution. Those groups include Aboriginals, Francophones and Anglophones.

Collective rights are different than individual rights. Every Canadian citizen and permanent resident has individual rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as the right to live anywhere in Canada. Collective rights set Canada apart from other nations. For example, no groups (peoples) in the United States have rights recognized in the American constitution.

Collective rights reflect the idea of mutual respect among peoples. This idea has a long history in Canada. For example, it shaped the Great Peace of Montreal in 1701, among thirty-nine First Nations and the French. What legislation establishes the collective rights of groups in Canada? Aboriginal peoples Treaty 6, 7, 8 states that the aboriginals could have health care, education, hunting and fishing rights, reserves, farming assistance, payments annuities, and special benefits. All in return for the first nations to share their land and agree to obeying the government.

Having the government, and the first nations agree to these terms is very important because first nations are their own people and deserve to be treated as such.

  • First Nations
  • Indian Act
  • Historic Treaties
  • Modern Treaties
  • Canada’s constitution Metis
  • Modern Treaties
  • Manitoba Act

Canada’s constitution In 1869-1879, the Metis started the red river resistance, resulting in the Manitoba act, passed by Canada’s Parliament; it established Manitoba as bilingual province, with the education right for Catholics, Protestants, and the Metis’ land rights. By 1875-1879, Canada’s Government sent a scrip to the Metis, instead of establishing the Metis lands in Manitoba. This gave the Metis a choice to either accept the scrip or to become ‘treaty Indian’. In 1982, Metis had lobbied for Metis rights in Canada’s constitution. Once the constitution was patriated, it stated that Metis was one of Canada’s Aboriginal people that had rights.

  • Inuit
  • Modern Treaties
  • Canada’s constitution Francophones
  • Canada’s constitution

The charter meets the needs of Francophones in Quebec by understanding that Francophones are equal to Anglophones in every way but are a different group and deserve different rights than the Anglophones. The government also meets the French-speaking peoples’ needs by adjusting the way the government carries out their business to recognize the different cultures involved with the government and working hard to break down the language barrier.


Canada’s constitution Law vs. Policy

Laws and policies are very needed in our society as they help in maintaining law and order in the society and help in shaping political and social aspects of the society. Though policies and laws can be interrelated, they are definitely two terms having different purposes. No nation can go forward without having certain laws and policies. A policy is that which outlines what a government is going to do and what it can achieve for the society as a whole. “Policy” also means what a government does not intend to do. It also evolves the principles that are needed for achieving the goal.

Policies are only documents and not law, but these policies can lead to new laws. Laws are set standards, principles, and procedures that must be followed in society. Law is mainly made for implementing justice in the society. There are various types of laws framed like criminal laws, civil laws, and international laws. While a law is framed for bringing justice to the society, a policy is framed for achieving certain goals. Laws are for the people, and policies are made in the name of the people. Policies can be called a set of rules that guide any government or any organization. Laws are administered through the courts.

Laws are enforceable in which the policies comply. A law is more formal as it is a system of rules and guidelines that are derived for the welfare and equity in society. A policy is just informal as it is just a statement or a document of what is intended to be done in the future. Why do some groups have collective rights and not others?

  • Collective rights recognize the founding peoples of Canada. Canada would not exist today without the contribution of these peoples.
  • Collective rights come from the roots of Aboriginal peoples, Francophones and Anglophones in the land and history of Canada. Certain groups have collective rights due to historical and constitutional reasons. Why are collective rights important to all Canadians?

Collective rights are important to all Canadians because each group in Canadian society is different in its own unique way; having collective rights is a lot like having an outfit completely custom made to fit your type of person and style; collective rights are manufactured to uphold each groups individual culture, style, and to meet every groups needs according to the groups’ unique structure. How do collective rights, in the past and today, define who we are as Canadians?

In the past, women and First Nations Peoples had been deprived of rights and privileges such as the right to take political action, celebrate and worship their own cultures and traditions, etc. Over the years, the people of Canada decided to take action and pressure the government to make changes to the charter so that all Canadians are treated with equity and equality. This has shaped who we are as a bicultural and bilingual country by alerting us of the unique groups of people in this nation and setting us into action to alternate our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to meet the needs of every group in Canada.

Analyses And Interpretation Of Short Story 2BRO2B Analysis

Imagine if you could live in a perfect world. A world where there was no crime, no diseases, no evil and where people could live eternally. What if you could live in utopia? In Kurt Vonnegut’s short story, 2BRO2B, people are immortal, and the people in this society cannot have all the children they want because of the population control. Is living in this utopia a good thing, and is immortality a curse or a blessing? These are just a couple of the questions that are hypothetically asked in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story. This short story is written in a third person narrator.

The fact that it is a third person narrator, makes us unable to now what the different characters are thinking and feeling. We also have a switching point of view between Mr. Wehling and the painter. At the beginning of the story the point of view lies with Mr. Wehling, it then switches to the painter, again back to Mr. Wehling, and finally at the end of the story, the point of view is back with the painter. It is quite important to point out that the story starts out with a prologue. This is typical for a story which setting and environment takes place in the far future. The story has three main characters. The first one is called Edward K.

Wehling. He is in the hospital because of the fact that his wife is about to give birth to his three children. He is fifty-six years old. He dos not seem happy about the fact that he is becoming a father. He is described as colourless, rumpled and demoralized and has his face buried in his hands. (L. 15+16 P. 1). At the end of the story Mr. Wehling kills himself and two other persons because he realizes that he can’t keep all of them. He simply cannot choose between his children. The two other people that Mr. Wehling kills are Doctor Hitz and a woman called Laura. The second important main character is doctor Benjamin Hitz.

He is 240 years old, and is a blindingly handsome man. He is almost described as Zeus. He is on the other hand very happy with the new society. He was also one of the first guys to invent the gas chambers. The gas chambers are called the Federal Bureau of Termination and this is where people go to get killed. To book an appointment you have to dial 2BRO2B, which is the title of the text. Vonnegut probably chooses to use gas chambers to make his readers think of the holocaust. The tired and last main character is the painter. He is painting a mural on one of the walls in the hospital.

The mural he is painting depicts men and women in purple uniforms, but they do not have any faces. The painter is unhappy with his panting. He thinks the painting is not honest, because it doesn’t represent the real world, and the painter is a strong opponent of the new society he lives in. The mural almost seems like political propaganda. At the end of the story the painter tries to kill himself, but he fails. Instead he call’s the Federal Bureau of Termination and books an appointment for his own assassination. I think there is a major symbol in this text and that is Doctor Benjamin Hitz.

He is the perfect poster -child for the society they all live in. He is described as a hero, with the perfect look, and job. He is a symbol of the world they live in. After analyzing and interpreting Kurt Vonnegut’s short story 2BRO2B, I think that the message Mr. Vonnegut wants to send is that it is not a blessing to be immortal, it is more of a curse. You cannot live in a perfect world, because no matter how perfect the world gets there will always be consequences. There has to be a little bit of good, and a little bit of bad to even out the world. I think that this is the message he is trying to send.

error: Content is protected !!