Honors Summer Read 2024: Rules of Engagement

"The Magdalen Reading" (1445) by Rogier van der Weyden

Welcome to the East Central University Honors Program's Enduring Questions website!

If you are enrolled in an Honors Enduring Questions class for the fall semester of 2024 at ECU (EQ1 or EQ3), this website is for you. Read on!

Ten percent of each student's grade in both EQ1 and EQ3 will be largely based on your responses to the questions raised here.

This website is designed to spark conversation. The sort of conversation we're looking to create with this website is academic in character. Thus, your responses should consist of clear, concise statements of your ideas crafted in standard English (not text-speak!). They should be long enough to convey your thoughts, but short enough for other readers to read and respond to fairly quickly. In short, you don't want your responses to be so long that you monopolize (or kill) the conversation by going on, and on, and on.....(we all know how irritating that can be!).

Obviously, responses should not use profanity. They should be civil and respectful. People do not always agree. Responses can be critical; however, all communication is expected to be courteous and professional. Contributors' positions may be questioned; their character should not.

The objective here is to reflect on some of the issues raised by the text, to connect the reading to your personal experience, and to help first- and second-year Honors students get to know each other better.

When should I begin posting my responses?
As soon as you have begin reading The Great Escape by Saket Soni. Answer questions after you have read the corresponding chapter (and all preceding chapters). Don't skip around.

When is this assignment due?
This writing assignment is designed to be completed before classes begin in August.  Details about where and how to account for and submit your word count total will be provided in class when the semester starts (preview: you will compile your comments into a Google Form survey that will be due after classes begin).

How many questions should I respond to?

We do not expect you to respond to each question, but you should respond to several representing different sections of the book. We hope that by the time all the class has completed the assignment, every question will have at least one or two responses.

Are there any questions I have to answer?

Yes: "The Takeaway." Only answer "The Takeaway" when you have finished reading the book. When you answer the Takeaway, you are also testifying that you have read the entire book.

How will you know if I have read the book? Will we be tested on it?

We won't test you. We'll trust you. These questions are not designed to show whether or not someone has read the book. They are designed to enrich your engagement with the book and with other Honors students. But if your answers somehow raise suspicions about whether you've read the book or not, you may get further questions. Academic dishonesty of any kind may result in expulsion from the program and loss of an Honors scholarship. Academic dishonesty becomes a greater temptation the later you wait to start (and finish) this assignment.

How much should I write?

Your responses should add up to a sum total of not less than 750 words.  Don't try to load up all 750 words into one or two comments.  You should also respond to comments left by other readers. And pose questions to other readers. (Check back later to see if anyone has responded to your comments-and respond to their responses.)  All of this writing will count toward your 750-word total.  Students are responsible for keeping track of their word total (eventually, we will ask you to cut and paste your responses into a Microsoft Word document, which has a word count feature).  This is not just a writing assignment, though; it's a reading assignment, too.  Every student is responsible for reading every word of the assigned text.

Where do I post my responses?
At the bottom of each question post, you will find a "comment" link. If it has a "0" beside it, that means no one has commented yet; as more people comment, the number will go up. When you're ready to weigh in, click on the "comments" button, read any previous comments, and start writing. Please sign your posts. And use your real name--not a nickname--so we can get to know each other).

More questions?
E-mail us at sbenton@ecok.edu!

Now, go here!

Engaging the Great Escape

P2, C1, 1: "The Immigrant's Best Friend"

In this post, you will find links to questions about Saket Soni's The Great Escape. These questions are identified by the chapters they refer to in the book and are listed in the order in which the issues they address are raised by the text.

Once you've started reading the chapters listed below, click on the links, read the corresponding questions and comments other readers may have left (click on the "comment" button beneath each post to see them), and then join the discussion (or initiate it).

Most posts have several questions. You may answer any of them you wish. It is not necessary to answer all of them.

 

There is only one question that every student is required to answer.  That's the last one, referred to here as “The Takeaway.” Don't answer it until you've finished reading the book. Your answer is your promise that you have read the entire book. 

As you are reading, underline any passages that you consider to be thought-provoking, insightful, or artfully expressed (unless you're reading a library copy, in which case, you may want to just make note). You may want to refer to one of the passages you have underlined in "The Takeaway."

After you've finished the book, be prepared to discuss it at the 2024 Honors Burkean Parlor, which will meet from 7-8:30 pm on Monday, August 26th in the Ataloa Theatre.

Links to questions will be posted here ...

PROLOGUE

1. Prologue, 1: 'The Call"
2. Prologue, 2: "The Call"

PART ONE: DREAMS
3. Chapter 1: "Schemes"

4. Chapter 4, 1: "Eid"

5. Chapter 4, 2: "Eid"

PART TWO: MAN CAMP

6. Chapter 1, 1: "The Immigrant's Best Friend"

7. Chapter 1, 2: "The Immigrant's Best Friend"
8. Chapter 3, 1: "Signal"

9. Chapter 3, 2: "Signal"

10. Chapter 5, 1: "Rot"

11. Chapter 5, 2: "Rot"

12. Chapter 9, 1: "Captives"

13. Chapter 9, 2: "Captives"

14. Chapter 10: "Carrot and Stick

PART THREE: ESCAPE

15. Chapter 1: "Get Out"

16. Chapter 2: "Big Man"

17. Chapter 3: "Genius"

18. Chapter 4: "Elders"

19. Chapter 5: "Freedom Papers"

20. Chapter 6: "The Last Cashew"

21. Chapter 8, "Paradise"

22. Chapter 9, 1: "Restless"

23. Chapter 9, 2: "Restless"

PART FOUR: TRUTH MARCH

24. Chapter 2: "Satyagraha"

25. Chapter 3, 1: "Greensboro, USA"

26. Chapter 3, 2: "Greensboro, USA"

27. Chapter 3, 3: "Greensboro, USA"

28. Chapter 3, 4: "Greensboro, USA"

29. Chapter 4, 4: "Alarm"

30. Chapter 6, 1: "The Diplomat and the Coolies"

31. Chapter 6, 2: "The Diplomat and the Coolies"

32. Chapter 7: "A Conditional Resident"

33. Chapter 8: Food of Wanderers

PART FIVE: HUNTED

34. Chapter 4: "Fargo"

35. Chapter 5: "Death of a Friendship"

36. Chapter 6, 1: "India"

37. Chapter 6, 2: "India"

PART SIX: FAITH

38. Chapter 2: "Belief"

39. Chapter 3, 1: "Smoking Gun"

40. Chapter 3, 2: "Smoking Gun"

41. Chapter 8: "Thanksgiving"

42. Chapter 9, 1: "Alvin Ladner's America"

43. Chapter 9, 2: "Alvin Ladner's America"

EPILOGUE

44. "Forgetting"null

The Takeaway

Prologue, 1: "The Call"

"Abraham is Going to Sacrifice His Son" (1931) by Marc Chagall

Author Saket Soni opens the book with an account of a man who agreed to pay $2000 to a human smuggler who was holding his nephew captive.

Consider the moral implications of this scenario.

Read the entire prologue before you give your answer.

On the one hand, you could say that giving money to a criminal is immoral and encourages further criminal behavior. It is also risky since someone who commits crimes is unlikely to care much about keeping up their end of the deal.

On the other hand, you could say that in matters like this, abstract questions of morality are less important than doing everything you can to increase the odds that a loved one will be protected from further suffering.

The question:

How do you determine when doing the right thing in a general moral sense is more important than doing the right thing for your family and loved ones? "It is wrong to pay a human smuggler and kidnapper" vs. "It is right to protect your family"?

Prologue, 2: "The Call"

"Contract Sealed with Blood" (1896-7) by Bertalan Szekely

This prompt has two parts: The Scenario and then The Questions. There are four questions. You can answer any number of the questions, but make sure you read the entire prologue in book and the scenario described below before you answer the questions.

The Scenario

Part of author Saket Soni's job as a labor organizer is to help undocumented workers who have been victimized by contractors who hire them but refuse to pay them, either "disappearing" before payday or threatening to turn the workers in to the police or to immigration agents.

Consider the moral implications of this scenario.

On the one hand, you could say that the workers have no right to complain. Any "contract" they agreed to (work for pay) was invalid. They did not have a right to work if they were "undocumented," meaning their were either not U.S. citizens or they did not have a work visa. Whether you consider them to be deceitful criminals or simply foolish risk-takers, they have no one to blame but themselves for their misfortune.

In a way, you could even argue that since word travels, the contractors who refuse to pay them are actually helping the country (and those who have legal permission to work) by discouraging future undocumented workers from taking the same path.

On the other hand, you could say that the the contractors are morally bound to pay the workers and uphold their end of the bargain. If the contractors said they would pay the workers, and the workers did the work they said they would do, that is enough. Perhaps they shouldn't have hired the undocumented workers in the first place, but two wrongs don't make a right.

The Questions:
1. How do you measure the relative value of empathy and justice in such a scenario? Who deserves the most empathy? What does justice require?
2. Should the breach of contract on the part of the contractors (their refusal to pay) be treated separately from the matter of the workers' legal status? If a contractor said they didn't pay the workers because the workers were undocumented, would it be fair for a judge to say that is irrelevant to the case? 
3. To what degree is the government responsible for making sure people uphold contracts they agree to? To what degree are individuals responsible for themselves in such matters? How much does the amount of money and effort involved matter? How much does the relative wealth and power of the contracted parties matter?
4. With regard to the courts, is this scenario (hiring undocumented workers/mistreating undocumented workers) understood best as a matter of individuals making bad decisions or is it understood best as a larger societal problem--a practice that must be discontinued for the benefit of society as a whole?

Number your answers. (It is not necessary answer all four of them; answer the ones you want.)

P1, C1: "Schemes"

Click here for further reading on arranged marriages in India.

In Chapter One, Soni describes a common practice in India, whereby parents help their children find a marriage partner.

In America, most young people would vigorously oppose such a practice.

THE CHALLENGE:

This prompt is not so much a question as it is challenge. Putting your own personal beliefs aside and taking this argument as a kind of lawyer for one side, what claims could you make to defend this Indian practice? What is necessary to make such a practice work effectively for all involved?

Consider, for starters, that in India today approximately 1% of marriages end in divorce.

Only answer this question after you have read chapter one and all preceding chapters (including the prologue).

P1, C2: "Love Marriage"

Still from West Side Story (2021), directed by Steven Spielberg

In chapter 2, Soni describes how, at different times, Hemant Khuttan and his girlfriend deceived their parents so they could continue seeing each other, and Hemant planned to lie to Shruti in order to convince her to accept his plan to apply for a job in America.

Assuming Soni accurately depicts Hemant's love for Shruti as genuine, that Hemant had no intention of harming Shruti, that Hemant only wanted to protect their relationship from any potential effort from their parents to make them break up, is it morally defensible to lie and deceive others?

Is it sometimes acceptable to lie to a loved one if you have their best interests at heart?

Is lying to a loved one worse--or is it more acceptable--than lying to someone you have a professional relationship with, such as an employer, a teacher, or a government official?

Don't answer this question before you've read this chapter and all preceding chapters.

P1, C4, 1: "Eid"

"The Elders Plea with King Hormuzd to Forgive His Son Khusraw" (1494) by Kamal ud-Din Behzad

In chapters 3 and 4, Soni describes how Murugan Khandasamy and Shawkat Al Sheikh were told that they needed to tell a lie if they wanted the U.S. government to grant them a visa that would allow them to work in the United States.

Don't answer this question set before you've read these and previous chapters.

As always, it is not necessary to require to every question in the question set.

Questions:

To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if you're doing so for a good reason, such as in order to provide your family?

To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if no particular individual is harmed by the lie?

To what extent is it morally defensible to lie about commiting a crime if you believe that the law you have violated is unfair or nonsensical?

How many of these factors apply in the case of the lies Murugan and Shawkat felt compelled to lie about?

How much does it matter whether they were aware of the necessity of telling a lie before they were already $14,000 in debt?

P1, C4, 2: "Eid"

"Government Bureau" (1956) by George Tooker

In chapters 3 and 4, Soni describes how Murugan Khandasamy and Shawkat Al Sheikh were told that they needed to tell a lie if they wanted the U.S. government to grant them a visa that would allow them to work in the United States.

Don't answer this question set before you've read chapter four and all previous chapters.

As always, it is not necessary to require to every question in the question set.

Question Set #1:

To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if you're doing so for a good reason, such as in order to provide your family? To what extent is it acceptable to tell a lie if no particular individual is harmed by the lie? Is it morally defensible to lie about commiting a crime if you believe that the law you have violated is unfair or nonsensical?  How many of these factors apply in the case of the lies Murugan and Shawkat felt compelled to lie about? How much does it matter whether they were aware of the necessity of telling a lie before they were already $14,000 in debt?

Question Set:

Why should it be illegal for a citizen of another nation to pay a fee an American contractor, or a recruiter or lawyer who represents the contractor, if, in exchange, the American contractor submits a visa application on behalf of the potential employee? Couldn't it be argued that such a pre-employment fee payment represents a genuine commitment on behalf of the worker? Couldn't it be argued that such a payment requires the worker to put some "skin in the game," so to speak, that would reassure the contractor that the worker would in fact follow through on their work commitment rather than abandoning it after the work visa allowed them entry into the country? Couldn't it be argued that contractors should have the right to charge potential employees whatever the market allows? Shouldn't the contractors and their potential employees be free to enter into whatever contract they wish outside the purview of the U.S. government? Why should the U.S. government be allowed to reject a visa application because the applicant and the targeted contractor entered into a private contractor that did not involve the government at all?

P2, C1, 1: "The Immigrant's Best Friend"

"Shipyard Worker, Richmond, California" (c. 1943) by Dorothea Lange

In part two, chapter one, Soni describes a challenge faced by U.S. businesses that struggle to make a profit because of high labor costs and governmental regulations that limit their ability to hire skilled workers willing to work for lower pay.

Consider the perspective of the business owner. Why shouldn't the market, the employer, and the available workers be allowed to determine what is a fair price to pay a worker?

Why shouldn't the business owner be able to hire a qualified worker from another country to do a job if workers from the United States are demanding too much money?

Should the U.S. government have the right to restrict the freedom of a business to hire whomever they want to do a job?

Respond to these questions only after you have read part two, chapter one and all the preceding chapters.

P2, C1, 2: "The Immigrant's Best Friend"

"The Reception of Siamese Ambassadors by Emperor Napoleon III at the Palace of Fontainebleau, 27 June 1861" (1861) by Jean-Leon Gerome

If a citizen of another nation agrees to a contract with an American company, and the American company does not uphold its end of the contract (not paying that citizen what was promised for services rendered, for example), should that citizen be able to sue the company in an American court?

Should U.S. courts be empowered to punish U.S. companies that break contractual agreements with citizens of other nations?

Answer one or both of the questions above only after you have read part two, chapter one and all previous chapters.

Note: This is not a research question. Your challenge is not to identify laws that govern such scenarios (though you can do that if you wish). This is a moral justice question. Consult your sense of what is rational and fair, and your thoughts and beliefs about international relationships and the obligations, limitations, and responsibilities of governments. In other words, this is not about what the current laws are but what they should be.

P2, C3, 1: "Signal"

Still from The Fountainhead (1949), directed by King Vidor, starring Gary Cooper

According to Soni, Signal's "man camp" was built in an area with "toxic levels of lead" that threatened to poison the workers.

Governmental regulations require the company to apply to the "Department of Environmental Quality" for approval.

Do you agree that governments should have the power to impose regulations about where businesses can build? Or should businesses have the freedom to build wherever they want to?

Should it be the responsibility of the workers--not the government--to decide whether the working conditions (and any associated risks) are worth the compensation offered?

Answer these questions only after you've read part two, chapter three and all preceding chapters.

P2, C3, 2: "Signal"

"The Tea Drinkers" (1880) by Mary Cassatt

According to Soni, the camp manager warned the workers that they would be punished for drinking in the man camp.

If a company provides its workers with living quarters, should the company have to right to impose regulations like this? Or should the workers have freedom to decide what they want to do in their free time, when they are not "on the clock"?

Answer this question only after you've read part two, chapter three and all preceding chapters.

P2, C5, 1: "Rot"

Cover design for "Complaints, or, The Ills of Life, with Their Remedies" (n.d.) by Alfred Concanen

Sanders saved Signal a lot of money by hiring building contractors that charged $7 million instead of $10 million to build the "man camp." But Sanders later reported that the camp had "serious, endemic plumbing problems," "overflowing toilets," "broken showers," and "Wet floors that stank like petri dishes" becaue the contractors had "cut corners" (72). He added that the "unhealthful conditions" had produced a "bacterial breeding ground" that was making the workers sick.

According to Soni, Sanders also thought "the Indians weren't making it easy" with their complaints (72) and Schnoor believed they "were doing more whining than they were working" (76). Schnoor thought that the men should be "happy campers" because they could just "roll out of bed and walk to work" (75) and "life in India" hadn't been "pretty" (74).

Question set:

What is the difference between "whining," unhelpfully focusing on the negative, acting like a child, adopting a victim mentality and standing up for yourself, being honest, acting like an adult, and advocating for change? Is it merely a matter of perspective? If you're the one doing it, does it feel like righteous advocacy but if someone else is doing it, is it more likely to sound like whining? Is logic the only measure of whether the response is appropriate? How can whiners learn to "move on"? How can someone who hears "whining" learn to appreciate complaints as legitimate protest?

Generally speaking, do you think people don't stand up for themselves as much as they should? Or do people whine and complain too much? Are certain groups of people more prone to just put up with things?

Only answer this prompt after you've read part 2, chapter 5 and all the preceding chapters.

P2, C5, 2: "Rot"

"Feelings" (2004) by Martin Creed

When the lawyer, Burnett, gave Bingle instructions for dealing with the consulate in India, Bingle said "it didn't feel right" (76). When Sachin told Sanders that the workers were lying about how much money the workers were asked to pay, Sanders said he "felt . . . in his gut" that Sachin was the one who was lying (73). When Sanders first interacted with Pol, he said Pol "rubbed him the wrong way" (73).

These are examples of using emotional instinct as a moral compass.

Do you think emotional responses are reliable when it comes to moral judgement?

Consider the "disgust" Sanders detected in Signal employees who had gone over to India to test candidates and characterized the nation as "being like another planet" (65) or Schnoor's feeling about what life was like in India (which he had never visited) (85). Are these cases in which emotional responses are more likely to be influenced by cultural background and bias than judgements that are based on fact-based evidence, argument, and logic?

Generally speaking, would people be better off trusting their gut instincts more than they do now? Or are gut instincts more likely to be biased and prejudicial?

Answer only after you've read part two, chapter five and all the preceding chapters.

P2, C9, 1: "Captives"

"Farewell" (ca. 1900-02) by Joseph DeCamp

According to Soni, the workers inside the barbed wire compound at the labor camp are only allowed out "on Sunday mornings, for church, and on company-supervised trips to Walmart every week or so" (83). If the workers' performance was substandard or because they were complaining too much about their working conditions, and letting outsiders know about it, the company exercised the right to round up the men and fly them back to India without offering any reason or explanation  (91). Soni describes the men to be deported as "imprisoned" (93).

Question set:

Should a company have freedom to expel from the country any workers they choose at any time, if the company was responsible for their transportation into the country in the first place AND was responsible for sponsoring their work visas? Or should the workers--even non-citizens on work visas--have the right of free speech and the right to make their case before an impartial judge?

Again, this is not a legal question for you to look up on the internet. What do you consider to be fair and sensible?

Only answer this question after you have finished reading part two, chapter nine and all preceding chapters.

P2, C9, 2: "Captives"

According to Soni, the police officer suggests that the best solution would be for Jacob to run away and violate the terms of his work visa (97). According to him, Jacob "wouldn't be the only illegal in Mississippi" (98).

Consider whether the police officer might have made this suggestion to help out Jacob or the company or both. If both are helped by this solution, who is harmed? Is the suggestion morally defensible? Are you inclined to view the police officer as helpful or as corrupt? Why?

Answer the question only after you've finished reading part two, chapter nine and all preceding chapters.

P2, C10: "Carrot and Stick"

"Red Wall" (1910) by Karolyn Ferenczy

According to Soni, Indian workers are not allowed in the trailer of the foremen's office, which is, presumably for Americans only (105).

What reason might the company give for keeping the Americans and the Indians separate as much as possible?

Answer this question only after you've read Part Two, Chapter 10 and all the preceding chapters.

P3, C1: "Get Out"

"Karen, a drug addict, keeping a furtive eye out for detectives, hands a pusher $5 for a bag of heroin" (Life, 1964) Photo by Bill Eppridge

As Soni reports, when the Indian workers' visas expired, the company continued to pay them--illegally.
In discussion of illegal immigration in the United States, it is common to focus on the undocumented workers and not the employers who pay them and, effectively, encourage them to come.

Why do you think this is the case?
If law enforcement focused on the employers and not the workers, would that be an effective or helpful?
How is this dynamic different from focusing more on drug dealers than on drug users?

Answer this question only after you've read part three, chapter one.

P3, C2: "Big Man"

"And We Are Opening the Gates" (1922) by Nicolas Roerich

In an earlier chapter, Soni reported that workers were not allowed to leave the labor camp. In this chapter, he reports "Technically, the workers were allowed to venture out between shifts. But the guards wrote up the badge number of any man who set foot outside in a book the bosses scanned every day" (116). Presumably, the bosses could use this information to decide to fire any workers who ventured out more than they believed was necessary.

Do you think that the difference was merely "technical"? Is it fair to say the workers weren't free if they "technically" were?

Only answer this question after you've read part three, chapter two.

P3, C3: "Genius"

"The Rebellious Slave" (1513) by Michelangelo

These days, when Americans think about human trafficking, the images that come to mind are of sexual slavery or prostitution. They don't think about labor trafficking. But Soni claims that the Indian workers were victims of human trafficking because their recruitment involved "fraud, force [and] coercion" (120). The workers weren't free because of: 1) the debts they had incurred as a result of false promises made by the company; and 2) the crimes they had been compelled to commit (false testimony, visa fraud), which were also a result of false promises made by the company.

Based on what you've read so far, do you think the workers simply made bad business deals (trusting the labor broker and the lawyer who met them in India and giving them $14,000 they shouldn't have given them)? Are they criminals? Or are they victims? To what degree are they all three? Who deserves punishment in this case and what kind of punishment is warranted?

Only answer this question after you've read Part Three, Chapter Three and all the preceding chapters.

P3, C4: "Elders"

"Student Riots" (Paris, 1968) photo by Reg Lancaster

According to Hemant, protests rarely win anything other than "firings and beatings" (132).

Do you agree with Hemant? Do you think our society glorifies protests? Or do you think our society looks down on protestors? Under what conditions are protests effective? What kind of person is likely to be a protestor? Do you consider yourself to be such a person?

Only answer these questions after you've read part three, chapter four and all the preceding chapters.

P3, C5: "Freedom Papers"

"Human Dignity is Inviolable" (2016) by Case Maclaim in Manchester, UK

According to Soni, what ultimately inspired the workers to take action was Ted Quant's rousing speech about dignity and honor (136).

Do you think most people you know are motivated by abstract concepts like "dignity" and "honor"? Or do they respond to more tangible goals? Put another way, do you think most people you know are more idealistic or are they practical minded? What experiences are likely to make a person incline one way or the other?

If students are told that their "honor" is at stake when they are deciding whether to complete an assignment without cheating, are they likely to take that seriously? Or are most students more likely to do whatever they think they can get away with without getting caught? What percentage of students cheat when they can get away with it?

Only answer this question after you've read part three, chapter five and all the preceding chapters. If you answer this question or any subsequent questions without reading--not just skimming--the preceding chapters, that's cheating.

P3, C6: "The Last Cashew"

Soni reports that when a woman saw him a heavy backpack on a train, she guessed--based on his appearance--that he was a terrorist and that the backpack contained a bomb.

Based on your appearance, what wrong assumptions might strangers make about you?

P3, C8: "Paradise"

 

Soni reports that the workers entertained each other with talent shows.

If the Honors Program had a talent show, how likely is it that you would volunteer to share a talent? What talent would it be?

P3, C9, 1: "Restless"

"Old Man with a Young Boy" (c. 1490) by Domenico Ghirlandaio

Describing his relationship with his father, Soni characterizes himself as having "naive idealism" (155) and his father as having "formidable worldliness" (155).

On the one hand, you could say that "naive idealism" is foolish and uninformed and that wisdom comes with age. On the other hand, you could say that some kind of "naive idealism" is necessary in this world and that what counts as "wisdom" is cynicism, complacency and, in some cases, laziness.

Consider the people you admire. Would you say that they tend to be more "naive idealists" or "wise cynics"? Which end of that spectrum do you yourself identify with most? Would you agree that, generally speaking, older people undervalue "naive idealism"? Can you think of examples in which "naive idealism" has made things worse?

Only answer these questions after you've read part three, chapter nine and all the preceding chapters.

P3, C9, 2: "Restless"

 

"Triumph of Bacchus" (1628) by Diego Velasquez

According to Soni, the representatives from the embassy thought that since the workers were "semiskilled" and "uneducated," they might be lying (157).

Why might people tend to trust highly educated people more than they trust people who are not highly educated?

Answer this question after you've read part three, chapter nine and all the preceding chapters.

P4, C2: "Satyagraha"

Out of Many, One: Portraits of America's Immigrants (2022) by George W. Bush

According to Soni, President George Bush wanted to grant an amnesty to undocumented workers in the United States, but Southern Republicans defeated him.

It is easy to understand why someone would oppose an amnesty that forgives a large group of lawbreakers.

Putting your own personal views on the issue aside, why would someone like George Bush want to grant a general amnesty to undocumented workers?

Only answer this question after you have read all of part four, chapter two and all preceding chapters.

P4, C3, 1: "Greensboro, USA"

Two Christmas icons. (Photo via Midwestern Marx)

Soni reports that the Indian workers were given words of inspiration and caution by Reverend Nelson Johnson in Greensboro, North Carolina.  According to Soni, in the 1970s, Johnson was "comrades" with "members of a Communist workers' group" (170). Yet according to Johnson's online bio (he is still the director of the Beloved Community Center in Greensboro), he is a Christian (reverend), a U.S. Air Force veteran, and an advocate of "genuine participatory democracy."

Given that Communists have historically been denigrated as anti-American, anti-democratic, and anti-Christian, do you think it was a mistake for Johnson to work with such a group?

Is it possible to be a patriotic American Christian who supports Democracy and still be an ally of Communists?

Answer this question after you have read part four, chapter three and all the preceding chapters.

P4, C3, 2: "Greensboro, USA"

Screen capture from Virginia Commonwelath University's digital project "Mapping the Ku Klux Klan, 1915-1940" Click here to explore further

According to Soni, by the late 1970s, the Ku Klux Klan was a "dragon ghost" in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Have you heard of any Klan activity in your community recently or in the memory of some of your relatives? 

P4, C3, 3: "Greensboro, USA"

The 2011 CNN clip above, featuring Reverend Nelson Johnson, includes disturbing images from the 1979 Greensboro Massacre.

According to Soni, the Indian workers "had faith in America's institutions--more than most Americans" did (168).

Later, Soni reports that the Klansman and Nazis who shot and killed five peaceful, unarmed protestors in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1979 (look at the endnotes at the back of the book if you want to learn more about the massacre).

Do you think Americans don't have as much faith in the nation's institutions because Americans know so much more about U.S. history than citizens of other nations do?

Or do you think distrust of institutions is common among Americans whether they are well-informed or not?

P4, C3, 4: "Greensboro, USA"

According to Soni, Nelson Johnson has supported efforts to replace "decades of lies and evasions" about historic injustices in Greensboro and, presumably, elsewhere with "a ground of truth" (173).

Do you think such efforts to examine and discuss past injustices is usually helpful or do you think there is a tendency to dwell too much on the negative and not enough on what a community (or a nation) should be proud of?

Answer this question after you've read part four, chapter three and all the preceding chapters.

P4, C4: "Alarmed"

2015 Photo by John Moore / Getty

When Soni discovered that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and undercover agents had been surveilling the marchers and recording them, he produced and delivered "an enraged report" (177).

Why was he enraged?

Weren't the agents doing their jobs? 

Why didn't the agents simply arrest them because they were in the country illegally? 

Answer this question after you've read part four, chapter four.

P4, C6, #1: "The Diplomat and the Coolies"

Unframed photo installation at Ellis Island (2014) by J.R.

Soni describes Ambassador Sen's advocacy on behalf of "professional-class American--professors, entrepreneurs, doctors, lawyers, hoteliers" as a "classic American story: an aspirational class of immigrants" (185).

Do you personally know any aspirational immigrants to this country, perhaps members of your community (or your own family?), who might be considered part of such a "classic American story"? Where did they come from? When did they come to the States? What kind of work do they do? What kind of values do they model? 

Only answer this question after you've read part four, chapter six and all preceding chapters.

P4, C6, 2: "The Diplomat and the Coolies"

"Priam Pleading with Achilles for the Body of Hector" (1775) by Gavin Hamilton

Soni gets frustrated when the workers start telling the ambassador about their suffering. As he puts it, "We were here for action, not empathy. We needed to press him to use his authority in clear ways. With each new story, our advantage bled out" (188).

It is commonly believed that if you can get someone to empathize with your pain and suffering, they will be more inclined to help you out, but Soni felt strongly that asking for empathy in this situation would be entirely counterproductive. Why do you think he felt this way? When are pleas for empathy counterproductive?

Answer this question after you've read part four, chapter seven and all of the preceding chapters.

P4, C7: "A Conditional Resident"

"American Gothic" (1930) by Grant Wood

In this chapter, Soni describes how he fell in love with Tuyet, married her, and subsequently separated from her. Soni tells Rajan that his parents didn't play a role in his relationship with Tuyet. Soni's family life is so different from Rajan is familiar with that Rajan wonders aloud, "Are you actually an Indian?" (200).

Soni's therapist reassures Soni that she believes both that his love for Tuyet was real and that it was morally acceptable for him to leave his wife. He owed Tuyet the truth, but he wasn't compelled to stay in a marriage with her.

Do you think "true love" is always forever? If a marriage breaks up, does that mean that the love wasn't "true"? To what extent are relationships built on feelings (which can come and go, strengthen and fade) and to what extent are they built on sustained effort and commiment? And to what extent does effort and commitment affect feelings?

Consider the people you know: how common is it for parents to play an important role in sustaining and supporting their children's marriages? Do you think more American marriages would last if the role of parents were greater?

Answer these questions (the ones you choose) after you've read part four, chapter seven and the preceding chapters.

P4, C8: "Food of Wanderers"

"The Dangerous Cooks" (1896) by James Ensor

Soni reports that when Rajan was frustrated by the malnourishment he was enduring while working at Signal, he "grabbed a cook by the collar, yanked him off the serving line, and starting beating him" (205). Instead of being fired for this offense, Rajan was given permission to use the company's facilities to cook for himself.

Why do you think Signal didn't fire him? Why did they make a concession?

Why did Rajan take his anger out on the cook and not on the administrators responsible for managing the kitchen? Or those responsible for its budget? What might have happened to him if he did?

Answer these questions only after you've read part four, chapter eight.

P5, C4: "Fargo"

"Cosette" (1862) by Emile Antoine Bayard

When the undocumented Indians are arrested in Fargo for using fraudulent social security cards, Soni thinks it important to note that economic desperation had driven them to commit this crime (239)

Under what conditions does desperation justify breaking the law? To what extent should it mitigate any punishments given to the perpetrator?

Only answer this question after you've read part five, chapter four and all of the preceding chapters.

P5, C5: "Death of a Friendship"

"Survival" (2022) by Achraf Baznani 

According to Soni, Rajan reported that he was never motivated by principles. He was only motivated by a will to survive and to take care of himself and his family (248).

Do you think most people you know are like Rajan in this way? How common is it to find people who are deeply motivated by abstract moral principles? Would the world be better or worse off if people were more committed to abstract moral principles?

Only answer this question after you've read part five, chapter five and all of the preceding chapters.

P5, C6, 1: "India"

Saravanan's father reports that "Tamil boys and girls have always gone away to work . . . Especially from this area. Often, they haven't come back" (258)

If you were telling someone about people in your community and what young people "always" or "often" do, what would you say (in a sentence or two)? 

Only answer this question after you've read part five, chapter 6 and all preceding chapters. 

P5, C6, 2: "India"

When Soni returns home after a long absence, he finds his father newly willing to tell him personal stories about himself that he had never before shared.

For this prompt, your challenge is to spend at least half an hour talking to a family member. Ask questions. Listen. See if you can get them to tell you stories about their lives that you have never heard before (or new details about stories you have heard before).

You don't have to provide details about the stories you've heard (they may be somebody else's story to tell), but briefly describe the experience.

Only respond to this prompt after you have read part five, chapter two and all the preceding chapters.

P6, C2: "Belief"

"Friendship, Love, and Truth" (1874) by Currier and Ives

According to Soni, Shawkat believes that God "only permit[s] lies in defense of someone else's safety--not one's own selfishness" (274).

Do you see any potential problems with belief about lying?

Only answer this question after you have read part six, chapter 2 and all the preceding chapters.

P6, C3, 1: "Smoking Gun"

"British guard on duty near guardhouse at entrance to unused cotton mill which has been converted into POW housing for German prisoners of war" (1939) by William Vandivert

According to Soni, ICE and Border Patrol knew all Signal's workers were undocumented, but the only ones they arrested were those who escaped from the workcamp. As Soni explains, "The terror of being caught by ICE agents was exactly what kept the men trapped in the man camps" (284).

But why did the ICE agents participate in this scheme? What was their motivation? Why would they want to help a company that employed undocumented workers?

Only answer this question after you've read part six, chapter three and all of the preceding chapters.