Journal January 7th

Discussion today centered mainly around whether the recent political crisis in Nepal is a fairly accurate mirror to Yertle the Turtle's own crisis, or instead is a bit like those circus funhouse mirrors - distorted.

Kirsten was primarily concerned about the fact that the actions of the Maoist rebels, and specifically those of "Prachanda" their leader truly reflects the "small thing" that Mack did. Burping and tumbling a stack is not really comparative to Ak-47's and 13,000 dead. Also, she said, the better part of the civil war was conducted against King Birendra, who was happy with his role as figurehead and did not directly oppress people. So the force that people (Maoists anyway) consider oppressive is the monarchy. Which might work, but for the fact that there is no indication of the turtle's monarchy being abolished.

Katrya found an article indicating that Gyanendra ( the deposed king) has a cushy landing as his landholdings outside that which the state provided for are numerous and quite large. He appears to be an astute investor (or his personal accountants are) and while there aren't precise figures the income generated is hinted at being in the millions. Seuss did not say that Yertle landed in a Scandinavian hot mud spring spa, he just said mud.

Kirsten pointed out that where Yertle was trying to expand his territory (king of all I see!), Gyanendra was simply trying to keep control of what he already had, although through making a power gain, which is comparative. Either way, Nepal was impoverished before he came to power, with around 2 in 5 children siffering from malnourishment (0-5 yrs.). So Seuss's statement that all the turtles had plenty to eat does not apply. Mind, the same thing does not apply to 1930's Germany (or 1920's for that matter), and this was the original metaphor maker.