Chapter 8
8. Human Rights
. Answer the following questions.
1. I puzzled within myself," says the narrator. What conclusion did he come to after this puzzling thought?
Answer: The narrator initially puzzled over why the little black boy obeyed the little white boy so unquestioningly. After much thought, he came to a painful and troubling conclusion: he feared that perhaps even at a young age, black children sensed they were inferior and subconsciously accepted a lower position in society, while white children naturally assumed dominance. This made the narrator question deeply whether racial inferiority was somehow ingrained — a thought that shook his faith in his people.
2. 'For a whole day my faith in my people was shaken. What do you think was the writer's faith? Why was it shaken?
Answer: The writer’s faith was his belief in the equality, strength, and dignity of his people — the Jamaican (and specifically Black Jamaican) community.
It was shaken because he witnessed what looked like a small Black boy obediently taking orders from a smaller white boy, even though they appeared to be equals. This made him question whether racial inequality was so deeply rooted that even children accepted it without question — a thought that deeply disturbed and saddened him.
3. Why did the game next morning astonish the author? What did he see?
Answer: The game the next morning astonished the author because it completely reversed what he had seen the day before and challenged all the troubling thoughts he had.
He saw the little dark boy now giving orders and the little white boy obeying him, just as the reverse had happened the previous day. The dark boy strode imperiously while the white boy walked abjectly behind him, fetched a banana, and even peeled it for him. This surprising role reversal made the author realize it was just a game — one where the boys took turns being "boss" and "servant" — not a reflection of racial inequality
4. The second day, the narrator smiled as he remembered something. What made him laugh?
Answer: The narrator smiled and laughed because he remembered that the dynamic he had witnessed between the two boys was not a reflection of real racial roles, but rather a game they were playing — a game where each boy took turns being the "boss" and the "servant."
He realized how silly it was for him to have spent the previous day puzzling over the racial implications of what he saw, when in fact, the boys were just playing a harmless, childhood game. His laughter came from the recognition of how easily adults, including himself, could overthink and impute deep meanings to innocent childhood actions.
5. Read the following sentences from the first paragraph:
"...I noticed two little boys playing in the garden..."
"The game, if it could be called a game, was not elaborate."
From these two sentences, we can understand that the writer knows it is a game, but then why was he puzzled?
Answer: The writer was puzzled not because he didn’t recognize that the boys were playing a game, but because of the unequal behavior he observed in the game. While he could see that the boys were playing, he was troubled by the fact that one boy (the white boy) seemed to be in a position of command, ordering the other (the black boy) around. This made him question if the black boy was somehow already aware of his inferior position in society, even at such a young age. The simplicity of the game and the fact that it was not elaborate made the power dynamic more noticeable and led the narrator to overthink its implications in terms of racial roles.
6. If the writer had seen the second day's game on the first day, what would he have thought about it?
Answer: If the writer had seen the second day's game on the first day, he would likely have immediately understood that it was simply a playful game with no deeper racial implications. He would have seen that the boys were just taking turns being in control, with each of them acting as the "boss" on alternate days.
In that case, he probably would have laughed off any concerns about racial dynamics and recognized that children often engage in such games for fun, without any preconceived notions about superiority or inferiority. His thoughts would not have been shaken or puzzled, as they were after seeing the first day's interaction
7. Why did the white man feel surprised at the narrator's outburst? Eventually, he also smiled. Why?
Answer: The white man felt surprised at the narrator's outburst because he had likely not considered the situation the way the narrator did. The narrator had assumed that the white boy’s dominance over the black boy was a reflection of a racial power dynamic, and he felt compelled to explain his thoughts to the white man. The white man, however, already knew the truth — that the two boys were brothers, and their behavior was part of a childish game where they alternated roles as "boss" and "servant."
The white man smiled because he found the narrator’s assumption about racial superiority amusing and perhaps a bit misguided. He understood that the boys’ interactions were innocent and playful, not indicative of any societal structure. The smile was likely a response to the narrator’s overthinking of the situation, as the white man knew it was a simple game, not a reflection of real-life racial roles.
8. Did the white man believe in white supremacy? How do you know?
Answer: No, the white man did not believe in white supremacy. We can tell because:
-
He was comfortable and nonchalant about the situation when the narrator assumed there was a racial hierarchy at play. He knew that the boys were brothers and that the game had no racial undertones.
-
He smiled in response to the narrator's concern, which indicates that he didn't see the need to explain or defend any racial superiority. He likely saw the game for what it was — a harmless, playful activity between children.
-
When he pointed out that the boys were brothers, it showed that he did not view race as a determining factor in their relationship or behavior. He did not consider their actions to be tied to any sense of racial dominance or inferiority.
This suggests that the white man did not subscribe to the ideas of racial superiority or inferiority that the narrator was initially grappling with.
9. How did the narrator come to the conclusion that grown-ups are silly?
Answer: The narrator came to the conclusion that grown-ups are silly after he realized how he had overanalyzed the situation and made an incorrect assumption about the boys’ behavior.
Initially, he had spent the entire day puzzling over what seemed like evidence of a racial hierarchy — wondering if the little dark boy was already aware of his inferiority. However, when he witnessed the second day's game and saw the role reversal, he understood that it was simply a childish game, with the boys alternating their roles as "boss" and "servant."
He then laughed at himself because he had imputed deep, serious meanings to something so innocent and simple. Grown-ups, he thought, tend to overthink and complicate things, while children just enjoy their games without attaching complex, adult interpretations. This led him to humorously label adults as silly for their tendency to read too much into situations.
10. How did the story begin? How did the writer take the story forward?
What is the point of conflict? How did the story end?
What are the characters you empathize with?
Answer: How the story began: The story began with the narrator describing his daily walk to the tramcar lines, where he observed two young boys playing in the garden of modest cottages. One boy, the white boy, appeared to be ordering the larger black boy around. The narrator was struck by the apparent power imbalance between the two, which led him to reflect on the implications of race and inequality.
How the writer took the story forward: The writer took the story forward by exploring the narrator's inner turmoil as he puzzled over the behavior he witnessed. The narrator questioned why the black boy, who seemed to be his social equal, was obedient to the white boy. This led him to consider whether racial inferiority was ingrained even at a young age. The conflict deepened when the narrator saw the same boys the next day, but this time, the roles were reversed: the black boy was giving orders, and the white boy was obedient. This shift in power dynamics made the narrator realize that it was merely a game, where they alternated roles.
Point of conflict: The point of conflict lies in the narrator's internal struggle to understand the behavior of the two boys. Initially, he believes the black boy’s obedience to the white boy reflects a deeper societal issue of racial inequality, making him question his faith in his people. The conflict resolves when the narrator realizes that the boys were simply playing a game, taking turns as "boss" and "servant."
How did the story end: The story ended with the narrator smiling at his own overthinking. When he spoke to the white man (the father of the boys), he learned that the boys were brothers, and the game was just an innocent childhood activity. The narrator realized that his fears about racial inferiority were unfounded, and he laughed at himself for imputing such deep meanings to the boys' behavior. The story ended with a sense of clarity and the narrator feeling reassured, both about the innocence of childhood and the strength of his own culture.
Characters you empathize with: I empathize with the narrator, as he struggles with his internal conflict and concerns about racial inequality. His reaction shows a deep sense of reflection and vulnerability, especially when he questions his faith in his people. The two little boys are also characters to empathize with, as they are innocent participants in a harmless game and unaware of the complex emotions and ideas that the adults project onto them. Additionally, the white man (the father) represents a person who is secure in his understanding of the situation and doesn't overcomplicate things, showing a more grounded approach to the situation.
II. Read the following sentences. Some of them are not in accordance with the story. Tick (✔) these sentences.
1. The narrator was worried that even a very young white boy commanded the older black boy which indicated racial domination.
Answer: Yes, the narrator was initially worried that the young white boy's behavior — ordering around the older black boy — was a sign of racial domination. He interpreted the scene as reflecting a deep-seated power imbalance that might even be evident from a young age. The narrator feared that this behavior showed that the black boy, despite being of equal social standing, was already subconsciously accepting his inferiority in society. This led him to question whether black people were inherently conditioned to submit to white authority, even in childhood.
His concern stemmed from his perception that the white boy was not just being a bossy child but that this power dynamic was somehow reflective of the broader racial inequality in society. However, as the story unfolded, he realized that the boys were simply playing a game, and the roles of "boss" and "servant" alternated, which made him reflect on how easily adults can overcomplicate or misinterpret innocent behavior.
2. The black boy played the role of the servant on both the days and followed his brother's commands meekly.
Answer: Actually, the black boy played the role of the servant on the first day, when the white boy was giving orders. The narrator observed this and became troubled, as he interpreted the boy’s obedience as a reflection of racial domination or an unconscious acceptance of inferiority.
However, the next day, the roles reversed: the black boy became the boss, and the white boy obediently followed his commands. This reversal of roles showed the narrator that the interaction was simply a game in which the boys alternated roles, not a reflection of real-life racial dynamics.
The black boy’s meekness on the first day was part of the game, where both children took turns being the dominant one, rather than an indication of a societal power imbalance.
3. The white boy who was younger of the two played the role of the master and the older boy who was a black played the role of the servant on the first day.
Answer: Yes, that's correct. On the first day, the white boy, who was the younger of the two, played the role of the master and ordered the older black boy, who was stronger and bigger, to do various tasks like picking up sticks and jumping into the flowers. The black boy obeyed meekly and followed the commands without question.
The narrator was deeply troubled by this because he interpreted the situation as a sign of racial domination, where even at such a young age, the black boy seemed to submit to the authority of the white boy. This led him to reflect on whether such a power dynamic was ingrained in society, making the black boy feel inferior.
However, the next day, when the roles reversed, the black boy became the boss, and the white boy obeyed his commands. This revealed that it was simply a game where the children alternated roles as "master" and "servant," challenging the narrator's earlier assumptions.
4. The narrator observed two boys playing a game one day when he was going for an evening walk
Answer: Actually, the narrator observed the two boys playing the game during his morning walk, not an evening walk. He was walking from his home to the tramcar lines when he saw the boys playing in the garden of some cottages.
The game they were playing initially struck the narrator as peculiar because the younger white boy was commanding the older black boy, who was following his orders meekly. This observation troubled the narrator, making him reflect on the implications of the power dynamic and question whether this was indicative of racial hierarchy, even at such a young age.
5. The little white boy commanded the black boy to perform a few tasks which the black boy did obediently.
Answer: Yes, that's correct. On the first day, the little white boy commanded the black boy to perform several tasks, such as picking up a stick, jumping into the flowers, and getting water. The black boy obeyed meekly and performed each task without hesitation, despite being physically larger and older than the white boy.
This behavior led the narrator to reflect on the racial implications of what he saw, as he interpreted the black boy's obedience as a sign of submissiveness or acceptance of a racial power dynamic. The narrator worried that even as a child, the black boy might be unconsciously accepting his inferior position in society.
I. Tick() the correct meaning of the words underlined below.
1. The game, if it could be called a game, was not elaborate.
a) simple
b) detailed
c) brief
d) mysterious
Answer: The correct answer is:
a) simple
The phrase "not elaborate" suggests that the game was simple, not complex or detailed.
2. The little boy strode imperiously up and down.
a) politely b) respectfully c) humbly
d) proudly
Answer: The correct answer is:
d) proudly
"Imperiously" means behaving in a commanding or dominant way, often with pride or arrogance. So, "strode imperiously" means he walked up and down proudly or authoritatively.
3. This man, I said to myself, will puzzle all day on whether the blacks will eventually rise and rule the world.
a) gradually
b) finally
c) immediately
d) temporarily
Answer: The correct answer is:
b) finally
In this context, “eventually” means in the end or finally — suggesting that the man might wonder if, someday, black people will rise and rule the world.
4. Could it be that the little dark boy was the son of a servant in the home and therefore had to do the white boy's bidding?
a) advice b) instruction c) order d) suggestion
Answer: The correct answer is:
c) order
In this context, “bidding” means order — something the white boy tells the black boy to do.
5. The white youngster walked abjectly behind him.
a) submissively
b) unhappily
c) miserably
d) secretly
Answer: The correct answer is:
a) submissively
"Abjectly" in this context means walking in a submissive or humble manner, without pride.
