You are on page 1of 2

A Modest Proposal Cannibalism vs.

Real Argument
In the beginning of Swifts A Modest Proposal, he depicts the current status of
Ireland. He describes the beggars in the streets, typically women, having numerous
children/babies at their sides. His argument is they do not provide the country with
anything, meaning they nor their children are of any use or can perform no service.
He then explains why they are of no use and offers an absurd solution.
Swifts real argument is what the British have done to his native country. He
explains those who are able to work move to Barbados to work for the British on
sugar plantations. They could be of service in Ireland; however, they chose to leave
or are forced to leave to help the British economy. Ireland at the time faced an
economic crisis due to British influence over the country. Swift speaks of trying to fix
the economy from within with his absurd proposal, excluding any and all possibility
of the British taking any of the profits. Ireland was in turmoil due to British influence
and law; the economy was failing, producing few jobs, leaving many homeless and
begging in the streets as a means of survival. His real underlying argument in the
story is the treatment of his native people by the British, which unbeknownst to
them (the British) because of their influence, the natives were suffering severely.
Swifts solution is cannibalism. He suggests taking the babies of the beggars and
selling them for food. He sarcastically believes this will help the economy recover.
With fewer useless natives the economy would improve. The economy would also
benefit from the sale of the babies; there would be fewer beggars, fewer mouths to
support, and delicate food for the rich.
As both of these depictions come to light in the story, you can tell Swift was being
facetious. First off, his proposal was absurd. I do not believe many, if any of his
natives would buy into the selling and eating of their young. Secondly, he describes
numerous dishes you could make and the different items you could sell from using
the left over carcasses. He then asks those who oppose his proposal to ask those if
it would have been better for them to have died in honor as a side dish or live the
miserable life they now faced. Those who are unable to cloth and feed themselves,
provide shelter, and provide clothing for their families, would they in fact have
chosen this route had it been offered? He offers this solution to bring into light not
only to the British, but also his countrymen, the effects British ruling has done to
Ireland.
RESPONSE 1:
Arnoldo,
Great interpretation! I believe his argument is in essence mocking England. Their
ruling or lack thereof has caused suffering amongst the Irish. They maintain great
control over Ireland, yet lack the ability or sight to see what their control has done
to the Irish. There are more poor people, hence the beggars on the streets in

swarms. Numerous fatherless children running the streets with their poor mothers;
most of which are unable to provide the basic necessities of life for themselves, let
alone their children.
His argument overall is candid. I think its purpose was to catch the attention of
those in control, all the while mocking them at the same time. He makes his
complaint with knowing if something as simple as the solution he proposes were
placed in affect, how drastically the economy would change. His argument is valid.
I do not believe any free nations desire to be ruled by outside lands. This is a prime
example of what is taking place in Afghanistan and Iraq. Muslims have been fighting
for hundreds of years, long before America was founded, and much for the same
reason as today, religion. America and her allies step in to intervene because we do
not agree with their way of living. In an attempt to make the world better, in many
ways we make their (Muslims) lives worse. I imagine they have ideas, not
necessarily similar in nature, but ideas which could make their lives better, at least
in their eyes.
RESPONSE 2:
John,
Your comparison was well written. I find it to be quite accurate. I think it is
unfortunate that one nation wishes its desires be pushed upon a foreign nation, as
America did in Iraq. The English rule over Ireland was not much different than our
occupation in Iraq. England took over the areas of government which they wanted
to. They failed to recognize the need to cover all bases and take everything over.
They also lacked the inability to control Ireland from hundreds or thousands of miles
away; they were also blind to the actual status of the Irish people and their
economy. America has made the same mistake in Iraq. WE have occupied and taken
over portions of their non-existent government and attempted to improve it. The
issue with their focus is they lack the ability to focus on all concerns in the nation.
Iraq has been around prior to the Americas, they have been fighting for hundreds of
years, they have succeeded and struggled with their way of living, yet it is their way
of living. We have now stepped in; altered the normal cycle of their nation and now
find ourselves struggling to repair the destruction we have cause. Good post
though, I think we could all talk on this topic for quite some time.

You might also like