Interviewer: Two renown authors, two incredible short-stories depicting american life. One pressing question. What Defines America?
Vonnegut: Ladies first.
Walker: Politically correct as always, Kurt.
Well, I’d start with a defining principle of the american ideals, equality. equality is-
Vonnegut: Alice, equality isn’t necessarily as grand as it’s always made out to be.
Walker: With all due respect, Kurt, you’re a white man. What could you know about equality? You’ve never lived with out it.
Vonnegut: While that may be true, my point is not to diminish the value of equality. My point is, humans are not perfect. Governmental equality is something created and destroyed by humans, and it too, is imperfect. Now, having just enough …show more content…
There is no doubt that in this story, equality has been achieved. But to what extent? In order to become equal, the government took it far enough as to make the beautiful ugly, the intelligent unable to think, the talented handicapped. To be equal should not mean to be the same. Some people are born with extraordinary gifts, while others are not. The government is not god, the government should not have the power to give and take natural ability. As Americans we desperately seek to become the perfect, equal country. To achieve this will damage humanity. It is unnatural for human beings to distribute power and wealth completely equally. Only by literally handicapping the brightest and best Americans can this completely misguided American goal of equal distribution be attained. I see my story, Harrison Bergeron as a prediction of what America will become if such ridiculous goals of political correctness and complete equality continue to be allowed to proliferate. A society that prizes a calm, ignorant happiness above art and intelligence will be doomed to a lack of intelligence, creative ability, and passion. Harrison Bergeron should be interpreted as a warning. It’s a hint at what happens when a good intention is taken too far. That the government is actually capable of hindering
Vonnegut: Ladies first.
Walker: Politically correct as always, Kurt.
Well, I’d start with a defining principle of the american ideals, equality. equality is-
Vonnegut: Alice, equality isn’t necessarily as grand as it’s always made out to be.
Walker: With all due respect, Kurt, you’re a white man. What could you know about equality? You’ve never lived with out it.
Vonnegut: While that may be true, my point is not to diminish the value of equality. My point is, humans are not perfect. Governmental equality is something created and destroyed by humans, and it too, is imperfect. Now, having just enough …show more content…
There is no doubt that in this story, equality has been achieved. But to what extent? In order to become equal, the government took it far enough as to make the beautiful ugly, the intelligent unable to think, the talented handicapped. To be equal should not mean to be the same. Some people are born with extraordinary gifts, while others are not. The government is not god, the government should not have the power to give and take natural ability. As Americans we desperately seek to become the perfect, equal country. To achieve this will damage humanity. It is unnatural for human beings to distribute power and wealth completely equally. Only by literally handicapping the brightest and best Americans can this completely misguided American goal of equal distribution be attained. I see my story, Harrison Bergeron as a prediction of what America will become if such ridiculous goals of political correctness and complete equality continue to be allowed to proliferate. A society that prizes a calm, ignorant happiness above art and intelligence will be doomed to a lack of intelligence, creative ability, and passion. Harrison Bergeron should be interpreted as a warning. It’s a hint at what happens when a good intention is taken too far. That the government is actually capable of hindering