Equiano uses a similar argument that Montaigne uses in his On Cannibals when Montaigne calls out the Western world for using religion to justify their acts against native people and slavery. 

Using a religious phrase that most common people would know is a way for Equiano to relate to Christians, who are the main group from Europe who are engaging in mass transatlantic slavery that Equiano went through. He wonders why it isn't enough for the slaves to leave their country and friends to toil for the white man's lust for greed. But that these slave traders have to separate families and friends on purpose. Slaves, like Equiano, find a small amount of comfort in being surrounded by their friends and family; but, these traders do everything in their power to strip these slaves of any positive, tender, or comforting feeling they may have. Equiano asks why the slavery that they are put through isn't enough for these traders, but that they have to do everything in their power to dehumanize them. 

I also was so internally angry when Equiano was describing the double standard when it came to women and how the white men would handle sexuality. He describes that if a black man was engaging with a white woman prostitute, that he was brutally murdered and put on display as an example. However, it was highly common for white men to rob an innocent African girl of her virtue with no crime or punishment involved. Because, once again, they do everything they can to dehumanize these people.

He set this account up with Enlightenment thoughts of liberty, the nature of man, reason, and freedom. However, unlike how Wollstonecraft did, he doesn't take the side of the white man or even try to appeal to him. He uses brutal storytelling, religious thought, and reason to explain his position on slavery and why it is wrong. I will say he does have a similar explorative nature like Zilia did in the Peruvian Woman, which adds a more realistic and relatable quality to his writing style. 

I was really interested in the way the princess decided to take revenge and the weapons she used to kill the magician. First, she uses her beauty and sexuality to her advantage. She got all dressed up, did her hair and makeup, and used her sexual femininity to appeal to the lust and desire of the magician. 

I also was intrigued by her use of poison to kill the sultan. This was a popular way for women to kill or seek revenge on their husbands during this time, as they didn't have access to many other things to help them. Because poison was more of a cunning act of revenge and was typically put in food/drink, which the women were more seen to take care of with the house, it was an easy way for them to kill the person of intent. It also required no act of physical violence, which made it more accessible for women to administer. 

While the princess might have seemed very submissive at the beginning of the novel and more under the whim of her father's wishes and that of the jinni which Aladdin controlled, she became a rich character toward the end. With her cleverness of using her beauty and poison to kill the magician, she showed bravery, wisdom, and loyalty to her husband. I also thought that her speech was intelligent, as it used the magicians's own words against him when she convinced him that she was a willing partner in his offer of marriage. However, it still seems that sometimes she is seen as naïve, as she is the one who gives the lamp to the magician in the first place and allows the magician's brother into the house.  So, I'm not sure whether the author was trying to paint her as a smart and loyal woman, or as someone naive and submissive. 

I had a lot of good and bad thoughts of this fairy tale. While it did bring up a lot of childhood nostalgia with the similarities to Swan Lake, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty. The transformation, curse, female villain, and the marriage to the prince all bring up memories of the fairy tales I grew up watching from Disney or reading in books. However, as Rheanna mentioned, there were also elements of Grimm's fairy tales in this story as well. Because of the Prince hunting down the Princess Doe and actually hurting her with an arrow, it was very symbolic of a male dominating a female and taking something from her (even though he claimed to love the deer so much and said it was his); he still hurt it. 

There was also a quote about how love conquers, saves, or helps all. Which is typical of a fairy tale to include, especially when there is a curse involved. And, there was a sense of urgency about the curse and about meeting the princess (or the prince would die). It felt like her marriage and transformation into womanhood was very rushed and had a huge focus on her virtue(s) that were given to her by the fairies. 

It was also interesting to note the author's background and how similar some of her circumstances were to that of the princess. She also sticks to cultural boundaries of the time with bringing up class, race, and gender stereotypes. As Grace I think mentioned, she also brings in mythological elements, Louis XIV (as the Sun King), and themes of high soceity that would have been highly understood for the time. 

In this quote specifically, God or Jesus (still a little lost on who it is exactly), say that He himself gave humans the gift of freedom. However, they themselves have the responsibility of their own fate. 

To me, this quote really resonated with me because it is how I justify a lot of my moral and social beliefs. I believe that God's greatest gift to humanity was free will, and it is our choice whether to use that free will to move closer toward him through goodness or further away from him through evil. However, in the end, the gift of freedom is ours to use in outcomes of our own fate. 

God says, in specific relation to Adam and Eve, that "they themselves ordained their fall" and they are "authors to themselves". Thus, giving them full responsibility for their fall, not even mentioning Satan here. No matter that Satan did persuade them, they still chose to disobey God. Previously in this epic, Satan explains that he really did nothing when it came to the fall of Adam and Eve, also not placing blame on himself, but on the humans. This, interestingly, is a similarity for God and Satan. As, they both believe that humans, because of their free will, are solely responsible for their triumph, or in this case, fall. 

I was very interested in the connection between martial (in the marriage sense) and martial (in the military sense). Grace L and Kitty explained how these two mirrored each other in and outside of the household for men. It mentions loyalty, obedience, subordination, and order are all similar features that relay to both circumstances. Grace L also wrote that a solider must control his sexual appetites, as it came off as seemly feminine, due to the social norm that women were more sexually urgent. They were also told to engage in no women, period. I also thought it honorable to include the "defiling" of a woman would be punishable by death. Perfectly put, Kitty mentioned the public world rules the domestic sphere. The duty and roles that men, especially those in the military, tend to take on also express themselves in the household with hierarchy and order. However, I think this section highlights the more appealing forms of respect that are carried over into the household.

As Evie put, if Othello would have proved or other people found out that Desdemona had an affair with Cassio, not only would his marriage be destroyed, but his job and reputation would be at risk. His entire life could turn on its head if Desdemona was proved to be in an affair. Because he would've been see to not be able to control his home life, and specifically his wife, he would have been seen as weak or unable to control his home. Because of this, he would've been questioned on whether he was fit to run an army into battle because of the parallels that marriage and the military possess. I never would have thought that an affair would affect the man's life so much. I understood the implications of becoming a "cuckhold" in this time period as a ruining of reputation for the man, but I always thought most of the shame went onto the woman who committed adultery. In my day and age, it is more on the person who cheated than on the one who was innocent in the relationship. Upon learning this stereotype of how martial and martial correlate, it makes more sense why Othello was so concerned and paranoid about whether Desdemona was cheating on him and why Iago was going for his wife instead of Othello himself for his job. If Iago could prove that Desdemona was cheating on Othello, Othello would lose his reputation and, most likely, his position in the military, which was what Iago was after the whole time. 

Montaigne seems very insistent that you can only have one true friend or "soul" tie. In his stipulation, they cannot be a woman or your child... which I will touch on later. But, I am interested in his take on only being able to have one true friend. Personally, I have many friends and each serve a different purpose in my life and make me feel fulfilled in different ways. While I do disagree with him in this manner, as he says these are only common friends, and not true ones, I do see his point. He clearly had a different relationship that extended beyond surface level and he even mentions that he was spiritual. However, he would see my friendships as fake and not true because of the understanding that you cannot divide them into two. 

On the whole thing about not being able to be friends with women... okay rude. However, he does have a point. I think, even in today's modern setting (at least in my age group), men and women have a hard time being JUST friends. It is a unwritten rule that typically men cannot be friends with women unless they find them attractive in some way. While this isn't always the case... in my own personal experience, it does hold true. We have defiantly grown a little bit past the misogynistic view that men and women are only able to be in relationships that are romantic. However, there are still underlying themes in his argument against friendship with women that are still in our unwritten societal Gen-Z law book. 

One of the most interesting things in Thomas More's Utopia was the question of whether Raphael Hythloday was a made up person or if Thomas More was actually inserting himself into the narrative as Raphael. With Hythloday literally translating to "No name", he seems to be inferring that he is this character or that this character isn't a real person. Either way, it makes us ask the question of do we think this Utopia was Thomas More's idea or someone else's idea that he gave a fake name to for the purpose of the book. If it was him inserting himself, I also wonder why he made a fake character and made it into a story rather than just writing about the concept of the world's concepts and philosophies to present to the public. Did he think this fictional story would go over better? Probably. Imagine creating up a society with VERY progressive ideas for the time and presenting it like a thesis... probably wouldn't go over very well. But because people think it is so preposterous, then maybe it was a social experiment for Thomas to see how his ideas would appeal to the public.  For me, this was a way for Thomas to present his ideas to the public without the scrutiny that might have followed because he made it "Raphael" saying it and not him directly. 

In the quote, I also think that it is interesting how he mentions that the envy of the princes wouldn't even cause this society to shake. As we know jealousy or conflict that the princes experience with other countries tend to lead to war or colonization. Does Thomas say this because he knows Utopia is fake so obviously it can't be threatened by princes or does he truly believe that if his society were to exist that no one would be able to destroy it?