Skip to main content

Why did Aunt Alexandra want to fire Calpurnia in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Alexandra does not feel that Calpurnia is needed since Alexandra is there, and she considers herself a better person to raise Scout and Jem. 


Scout doesn’t really care for her Aunt Alexandra.  Alexandra complains about her wearing overalls and generally disapproves of her.  She has also been heard to say very derogatory things about Atticus, since he is defending a black man.  Like many in Maycomb, Alexandra’s response to this is racist. 


When the trial is getting underway, Alexandra just shows up one day at the Finch house.  She is there to help her brother.  Despite her comments about Atticus defending Tom Robinson, Alexandra does care about her brother and wants to support him. 


Unfortunately, Alexandra does not feel that Calpurnia should remain since she is there.  Alexandra does not feel that Scout and Jem are being properly raised, since Atticus does not have a wife and the children are on their own with Calpurnia.  She tries to get Atticus to let her go. 



“Atticus, it’s all right to be soft-hearted, you’re an easy man, but you have a daughter to think of. A daughter who’s growing up.”


“That’s what I am thinking of.”


“And don’t try to get around it. You’ve got to face it sooner or later and it might as well be tonight. We don’t need her now.” (Ch. 14)



Atticus disagrees.  He tells Alexandra that Calpurnia is not going anywhere until she wants to.  He knows she is part of the family, in a sense, and that they rely on her. 


This discussion comes up after Alexandra and Atticus learn that Scout and Jem went to church with Calpurnia.  Cal also offered to take them to her house, which Alexandra flatly refused to allow. As far as Alexandra is concerned, Calpurnia’s influence is not the one Scout needs.  She needs a woman in her life, but it needs to be a white woman who can show her the place in society she rightfully occupies.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more