Author: DustinP

The Lottery by Shirley Jackson poses a very difficult yet simple question. In the short story, the villagers come together once a year to sacrifice a randomly chosen person, believing that it will ensure a good harvest. Obviously, stoning a fellow villager has nothing to do with the success of their crops, but they still do it anyway because of tradition. Just like this “lottery”, many traditions in the real world are being questioned as if they should be abolished. I believe that there are two main factors to whether if a tradition should continue: practicality and morality.

First, I must explain what these two factors mean. Practicality refers to how successful the tradition is in actually doing something useful. For example, the goal of setting off firecrackers during Chinese New Year is to scare away evil spirits. The morality factor is basically what it sounds like. It takes into account how moral the tradition is. Many old cultures and some religions involve the sacrifice of animals or even humans to please their god(s). In return, they would ensure a plentiful harvest, good sailing, no natural disasters, etc. Now that the factors are clarified, next is how they come into play.

The way to evaluate whether a tradition should continue is by looking at these two factors. If it has both practicality and morality, then it can remain. That means that it can be applied in everyday life without the worry of offending anyone or futility. When a tradition only has morality but is obsolete/a waste of time, it is still acceptable. I will use the Chinese New Year example again. Everyone who celebrates the holiday knows that setting off fireworks doesn’t do crap, but people still do it anyway because it isn’t harming anyone for a nonexistent reason. Besides, it’s fun. However, when a tradition has utility but is somewhat immoral, it has to be considered. The ends must justify the means, and the two factors must be weighed. But when a tradition has neither one of these factors, it should end. The ancient Aztecs used to cut out people’s hearts to please their gods. Unlike setting off fireworks, it harms others while also having a nonexistent reason. It lacks practicality and morality, which is why people don’t do it anymore. I conclude by saying that before calling for an end or the maintaining of an age-old tradition, consider these factors.

Native American culture, although poorly represented, works in the background of the Ransom of the Red Chief. Since there was a perception that Native Americans are savages, Johnny is referred to as the “Red Chief” because he is also wild and untamed. He tried to literally scalp Bill, burn Sam, and threw giant rocks at them. When asked if he wanted to go back to the town, he said that he wants to stay out in the forest. This is comparable to how the Indian doesn’t want to go into civilization, and he prefers to live in the wild.

However, that isn’t the only thing that occurs frequently in the short story. Irony is a major part of it, and it comes up everywhere. First, the name of the town is Summit, although it is described as the flattest place imaginable. Second, the roles of the kidnapper and the kidnapee are flipped. Normally, the one being kidnapped wants nothing to do with their abductors and hopes to return home. In Ransom of the Red Chief, it is the opposite. Bill and Sam towards the end desperately want to get rid of Johnny, while the boy enjoys the time with his captors. Last, the roles within the ransom scheme are reversed as well. Instead of Ebenezer paying Bill and Sam, he proposes that they pay him. Surprisingly, they agree, and Ebenezer reluctantly takes his son back.