# data[].attributes.body
I think that Kino felt Iike part of him was “killed”along with his boat as the boat was a part of his heritage, his life, and the days that have gone and flew by. Also, I think that in his opinion, a boat does not move, it cannot do anything and it is defenseless, and it has to depend on its owner to look after it.

# data[].attributes.body
I think Steinbeck means by this quote is that he is trying to tell us that boats have been a big part of Kino and the generations before him and Steinbeck said “The canoe of his grandfather, plastered over and over, had a splintered holebroken in it”(Steinbeck 62). I agree because if you had something that you tresured how would you feel. What rage would be put in you?

# data[].attributes.body
I think Steinbeck was trying to say that the boat was a special part of Kino, because it connected him to his ancestors, so when it was “killed” he lost an important part of himself. I do agree with the fact that a wounded boat doesn’t heal, and that a boat can’t protect itself. However, even though it was one of Kino’s most valuable possessions because it once belonged to his grandfather, I would never put the condition of a boat above that of a human being. Life is a miraculous thing, and you can’t retrieve it once it’s lost. A boat, no matter how important it once was, can be rebuilt.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that this quote has a deeper meaning than it seems. What I believe Steinbeck is trying to convey to us isn’t the straight up comparison of the death of a man to the death of a boat but a deeper comparison of which is more detrimental in the long term. After Steinbeck compares the killing of a boat and a man he says “For a boat does not have sons, and a boat cannot protect itself,”(Steinbeck 62). What I believe he means by that is that is if a man is killed, he still has a son to carry on his legacy but if a boat dies it has no one to carry on its legacy. Also in society as a whole a boat serves more purpose than a man. One reason why is that boats can outlive generations as said by Steinbeck on page 14 “it was very old. Kino’s grandfather had brought it from Nayarit, and he had given it to Kino’s father, and so it had come to Kino.” Also a canoe is the only means of transportation in the water. Without a boat there wouldn’t be a way to get pearls and many people wouldn’t be able to make a living. One reason why I feel that a lot of people will say it is worse to kill a man is the we oursleves are human. But the way Steinbeck is writing this isn’t from the perspective of one person but as society as a whole. So I believe that “killing” a boat is more detrimental to society as a whole than the killing of one man.

-Mehtab Singh

# data[].attributes.body
Kino’s boat had been passed down from generation to generation so it had a great importance towards Kino. “ Kino and Juana came slowly down to the beach and to Kino’s canoe, which was the one thing of value he owned in the world. It was very old. Kino’s grandfather had brought it from Nayarit, and he had given it to Kino‘s father, and so it had come to Kino. It was at once property and source of food, for a man with a boat can guarantee a woman that she will eat something. It is the bulwark against starvation”, (Steinbeck 14). So it has a great value to Kino but I still disagree that, “the killing of a man is not so evil as the killing of a boat”. A boat can be fixed but a dead man cannot live again. The boat was a source of food, but it still won’t help Kino, Juana, and Coyotito. There will be a price on Kino’s head for the killing of a man. Plus if he would’ve taken the boat his family would’ve drowned. “Kino is gone. If he went to the sea, he is drowned by now,” (Steinbeck 66).

-Zoe

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t know. For Kino, the boat was passed down from his grandfather and it “was the one thing of value he owned in the world” (Steinbeck 14). He loved the canoe very much. Perhaps he cared more about his canoe, than the man he killed. He treasured the canoe. Also, maybe a man isn’t trustworthy or kind, like the doctor, but a boat is always reliable and never lies or does any harm. Also, Kino never thought of taking someone else’s canoe (Steinbeck 62). Maybe because he knew that it was as special to his neighbors as it was to him.

-Addy

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t agree with Steinbeck because it is horrible to kill a person that will never live again. And with a boat even if it is old you can still fix it up with the nature around you.

# data[].attributes.body
I am on two sides of the spectrum. It is wrong to kill a man, because, well, it is a killing of a man. It is wrong on so many aspects. It is a ruin of your morals and honor codes as a human. You’re killing someone who has/had a son/daughter, wife/husband and just a family, loved ones. You’re taking their precious life away and that is not something to be okay with. But, on the other hand, I can see where Kino is coming from, “A boat can not protect itself, and a wounded boat does not heal,” (Steinbeck 62). It makes sense, where Kino is coming from. Boats is something that is very important to Kino’s people and their culture. This boat specifically was in Kino’s family for a long time and very treasured. The boat can’t protect itself, it’s defenseless against man. But, to wrap this whole thing up, I believe that Steinbeck’s opinion is a little strange or misplaced. Killing a man, you can never bring that man back, his family will forever be hurt, he will never come back. It’s a forever type of goodbye. For the boat, it would take some time, but you’d get over it, eventually.
- 🧀🍕🍗🥓🍿🍰🍛🥨

# data[].attributes.body
I don’t agree with Steinbeck becuase when someone dies you can’t fix that person or bring it back to life. Sure they could use another boat becuase they all seemed the same. The consequence of wrecking a boat is probably not as strict or big as killing a man that they don’t even know was doing anything wrong. That man could’ve also had a wife and a child so I disagree with Steinbeck becuase I think that the killing of a man is much more evil than the killing of a boat!

- Annie 🦄

# data[].attributes.body
I agree that “The killing of a man is not so evil as the killing of a boat” because Kino’s canoe was legacy since it had been passed down through many family generations. The man who was killed was greedy for the pearl and all the wealth and fame that went with it. In this chapter, the biggest loss was the boat since someone purposely sabotaged it for the wealth went straight to their heads. I also think this because a boat has way more purposes than a greedy man.

-Mika S.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that maybe in the time where where he lived that was true, for like in the book (Steinbeck 14) he claimed that a boat was what kept you alive and can “guarantee a woman that she will eat something. When they had to work for their food and had trouble living day to day with food then I could understand. I guess it just depends on if the family wants them to live healthy and happy or if their family loves on. Children cost money and use up food and if you don’t have a boat you don’t have food and then guarantee that you (possibly) and your family could die out.

# data[].attributes.body
The killing of a boat is not as important as a person because you can’t replace a person but you can replace a boat but this is different because the boat has been passed down many generations and has lots of people that care about it and cannot replace.

Max 👎

# data[].attributes.body
If a close one is found dead, that is extremely terrible and sad, but if someone close to you destroyed or got rid of something very precious to you, that person can be as good as dead to you. It’s really a matter of perspective. One could mean more to you than the other. I have no side in this argument.

-Tyler Plasschaert

# data[].attributes.body
He probably meant that the boat has so many irreplaceable memories and you can’t replace them, it been in his family forever. The memory of many is More important than 1 life. I disagree. I think that the only thing that matters is the present.

Annoumous
P.S chicken tenders