Thursday, December 11, 2008

Traitors on the waterfront

In On the Waterfront every characters has there own definition of a traitor. The father feels very strongly about it. He recognizes the unjust ways of the mob by the docks and he wants change, but needs the help of the workers. He thinks that the workers have a moral obligation to rat for themselves and others, but many will not. When Doogan finally does step up, he doesn’t see him as a traitor, but as a hero. He doesn’t think that the men are bad people because they are rats, but rather they are bad because they are not ratting. He doesn’t see why the men wouldn’t want to get a decent pay everyday. He wants the mob to turn out like the poor longshoremen, so he tries to enlist the help of Terry. At the beginning, Terry feels sympathetic towards the people that he helped kill, but not enough to act on it. He begins to figure that what Johnny is doing is morally wrong and it begins to bother him. He wants to rat on them, but he is not ready to put away the man who brought him to ball games and employed him. To Terry, it is not being a traitor that bugs him, but rather who he is squealing on. He doesn’t think he can do it, but then the father came along and began to sway him. Between the father and Charlie’s death, Terry severs his bond with Johnny and is ready to take the stand for him and the workers on the dock.
I can understand what Johnny was going through. He wanted to help people and end the unethical behavior of Johnny, but his relationship with Johnny was like a roadblock. I personally hate it when my brothers and sisters tattle on me, but those things are tiny compared to the ethical decisions real whistleblowers face every day. The reason many people don’t say anything is the fear of retribution and I think that is wrong. If it is something significant like reporting company’s shady dealings then a whistleblower should be able to report without getting death threats. I am glad that they have the whistleblower act, but one shouldn’t be in trouble for doing what they believe in. If companies and businesses were not so greedy then these moral crusaders wouldn’t have to step up only to wonder why they ever opened their mouths.

2 comments:

Chris L said...

I completely agree with you. We shouldn't have any need of a "whistleblower act". The people of this country, and of the world, should be able to act morally correct. If and when they screw up, they should take the high road and come clean instead of hurting and threatening the whistleblower.
Great post, keep up the good work.

Ted M. said...

As chris said we shouldn't need one, but we don't live in a perfect world. I mean this is not what i would call perfect. Good job man, you are good.