Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I think, from today's viewpoint, the treatment of the leper's family is unconscionable - I am really glad families no longer need to be torn apart like that.

It seems horrible, but at the time I guess they didn't know any other way to control the spread of the disease. I just think the children should have been able to have an adult family member with them. But even saying that, could the parent or adult leave their life behind to live in the colony?

It was horrible, but they acted out of fear and ignorance.

Of course they shouldn't have been banished, but is it really that different from the hysteria when people first became aware of AIDS? That wasn't very long ago, and yet some behavior was reprehensible.

Fear makes some people do very bad things.

I agree with Susan, what would have happened to the people that had AIDS. I felt really bad when she was taken away from her family, especially her mother. I was really happy with the treatment she received once at the home where she stayed. The nun that took care of her was like a mother, so that made me happy. The book had so many ups and downs that it kept me wanting to read more. I love the way this book ended and would definitely recommend it, specially young adult, so they can see that life isn't always that bad.

Judy wrote: "Susan wrote: "It seems horrible, but at the time I guess they didn't know any other way to control the spread of the disease. I just think the children should have been able to have an adult family..."

I think Dorothy vowed never to go through the same experience again when she found that her youngest son had leprosy as well - thus the decision to move away and seclude their family, away from the health officials and prying neighbors.

Yes it was wrong. But fear of the unknown makes people do ignorant stuff. You should read the Samurai's Garden which also has a leprosy story and see how they were treated in japan.

This was so heart-wrenching. This book had me in tears from the beginning. I cannot imagine having my child torn away from me like that. But I could never get over how Rachel's mother never even visited. Her father always stuck around and was so loving towards Rachel. I felt he was the better parent and i waws glad that throughout her life Rachel had so many people in her life that showed her love and a helped her feel like she had a normal life. This book made such an impact on me. A beautiful, beautiful story.

I understood that at the time people were thinking of the greater good, but that would not make it any easier for the child or parents. She was fortunate to have people she developed lasting relationships with and who cared for her.

I know my statement makes it seem that I agree with the treatment. In today's world I would not but we are talking about a different time with a different medical understanding. Having spent time in an orphanage as a child I could relate to some of the adjustments she had to make. I was always going to go back to my parents. My mom was very ill and was out of the home for 9 months and dad had to work. Even though I understand that time marked my life.

Mary, I do believe that you are right when you say that people thought they were doing the correct thing. I'm sure it was still hard for those involved but at the time they didn't know too much about leprosy. I didn't know much about it even in this day and age until I read this book. The only thing that really bothered me though was the fact that Rachel's mom disappeared completely out of her life. I just cannot imagine never seeing your child again. Even now, talking about it, this book brings back so many emotions. The same goes for Rachel's husband's parents (sorry, it's been a while since I read, cannot remember his name) who ostracized him and saw him as bringing shame to the family. I understand that it was part of their culture, but I feel that the bonds of mother-child should be strong enough to withstand many things. I know that is not always the case, but I find it so hard to accept this behavior. It's so heartbreaking.

I cannot imagine turning my back on my child however she was in a position where she felt she had to choose one child or her other children. I think that would be an even more difficult position to be in. It was a loose loose situation for her.

Yeah, I did think of that. I wish the author had cleaned that up a bit more at the end when Rachel met up with her sister again. Maybe hearing mom's side of the story would have helped. I felt so strongly for Rachel that I think I was putting myself in her position and needed a better resolution of why mom cut all ties with Rachel. But I suppose that just like in real life, you don't necessarily get all the answers to questions you have in your life.

It seemed like the only way to prevent further spread of the disease based on the knowledge they had at the time.

What I found more disheartening was in Rachel's later years when she received a release and returned to Honolulu that she was still considered an outcast and, even though science and medicine had come so far, the general perception had remained largely unchanged even in an urban setting.

I know even today with all we know about AIDS (and science and medicine), people with AIDS are discriminated against all the time. Fear is something that can be irrational. I was thinking about that comparison throughout my reading of this book.

Sam wrote: "It seemed like the only way to prevent further spread of the disease based on the knowledge they had at the time.

What I found more disheartening was in Rachel's later years when she received a r..."

Yes Sam what was more concerning was the mother's reaction and the distance she still kept with her daughter upon her return.
I am so grateful the sister had an open heart.

The book Honolulu is just as captivating.

This was such a good book, a little long in the ending.
Such a good book to read in the setting of this 'ebola' crisis, after seeing the 'aids epidemic', swine flu, etc. It is funny how history can slowly start repeating itself.

The interplay between modern medicine and human feelings is so powerful. You have a potentially communicable, life threatening disease but you also have communities, culture, family relationships.

To answer the question, I think the lepers should have been segregated- but not banished. The lepers did indeed endure a punishment. Move from the family yes, but not being allowed to touch and see your child...that may be worse than the disease itself.

From a practical standpoint. How does one do that? How does one help a community as it suffers from a disease that you are not sure how it is being transmitted.

I liked how despite circumstances, her banishment turned into a slow introduction of her new home

Licha wrote: "Mary, I do believe that you are right when you say that people thought they were doing the correct thing. I'm sure it was still hard for those involved but at the time they didn't know too much ab..."

When Rachel visited her sister, I took comfort in the fact that her mother was buried facing Molokai, She wanted to see her daughter even in death.
You are correct, as a mother I it would be heartbreaking to be torn away from your child- but as a mother of multiple children, I can understand having to sacrifice one for the well being of others.
My interpretation of the timeline was that shortly after Rachel was 'discovered' and taken. Her brother became ill. The mothers mourning and distress had to be cut short as she was called to action for another child. I understood when Rachels sister said, she wasn't going to let another one of children be taken.
I don't think Rachel was abandoned by her mother, but instead she was called to action for another child in the midst of seemingly losing the first one. Remember her brother became so ill so quickly, they just assumed that Rachel had already succumbed. Remember at the time it was called the island where people go to die. What was rachels mother to do, In a million years she never probably thought her daughter was alive and doing well.

Another spin, I think Rachels mother...and the fact that she harbored resentment to her husband...really bears some of the blame for 'losing' her child. I understand the feelings behind her divorce, however it demonstrates how divorce and resentment ends up stealing your children away. Even if you 'share custody' , you find lifes moments are slowly stolen from you. I am not against divorce. But I do feel she could have worked on her anger and resentment toward her husband. Just think, If she would have just been civil with her husband, she would have kept Rachel in her life. She would have heard about her welfare through her exhusbands correspondence . Rachels mother likely blamed her husband for the events. " They say it hides in the body" You can see that resentment growing, it cumulated into fights. I feel this story illustrates how anger and resentment can take more away from you, than what you think you originally lost. A chronically ill child, the death of a child is an enormous strain on a relationship and marriage. This book demonstrates how great the casualty can be.
The same goes for Rachel and the fight with her sister. But at least they both overcame resentment and were able to recoup their losses.

Great book. A heartwrenching one though.

Illiterate wrote: "When Rachel visited her sister, I took comfort in the fact that her mother was buried facing Molokai, She wanted to see her daughter even in death...."

I tried to be understanding because one never knows what they would do in a similar situation. You bring up a good point that she did have to think about her other children and so she was forced to sacrifice the one for the many. However, and I try, but it's just hard for me to not be angry at her mother, especially when Rachel's father never abandoned her. Those were some of my favorite parts of the book. I cried for that little girl feeling abandoned, but was always so happy for her when her dad would visit her. It made it hard for me to forgive her mom. But I do see your point in what you say. It's one of my favorite books ever, so it brings up a lot emotion.

It may help with forgiveness to recall that Rachels mother was forced to make an abrupt move in the midst of her daughter being sent off. She was at the mercy of a community who were on the hunt for new casualties of the disease ( remember the sermon delivered by the preacher that in essence encouraged neighbor to turn on neighbor, spouse to turn on spouse). Recall, from rachels sister, one day they returned home after visiting Rachel, to a sign placed by the health department on the door.
Now neighbors eyes are upon you. I am sure now the remainder of her kids were under extra scrutiny by the schools. And then to top it off another kid starts exhibiting symptoms.
I think she panicked and fled. I don't think she ever forgot about Rachel. Distance and the time period.. with letters being the only possible communication ...contributed to this sense of abandonment. Rachels mother couldn't risk contacting her daughter even after her move because with such a small island community - letters to and from moloakai would likely start rumors.

I too couldn't believe the abandonment by the mother early in the book. Was a little angry as well... but after Rachel reunited with her sister and was able to get the back story. I began thinking how much the mother likely suffered. Much more than Rachel ever did herself. Think about how she cared for Rachels rapidly deteriorating brother in the woods, bathing him, dressing wounds... in the manner that sister Catherine did.. but this was her own flesh and blood. watching Molokai from a distance, wondering if her daughter was getting the same care...wishing she could be in two places at once...thinking if her son went that quickly -her daughter who got sick first, Rachel, must surely be dead. A mothers burden does not end with the assumed death of her child.... think of having a child die and not being at the funeral. Not even being at her side to comfort her in her last moments. Every night she had to got to bed, racked with worry, guilt. It must have ripped her soul apart...She was So full of anger at her husband (for possibly bringing the disease upon Rachel from assumed transgressions during his travels).. she couldn't bring her self to even contact him. But if she would have just done so.... She would have found a thriving Rachel. So in essence, I agree- the mother was partly to blame for Rachels abandonment.

I think that is a powerful lesson of the book. Anger and resentment may serve to do the very thing you are trying to keep from happening.

Don't let Rachels father off the hook so easily... He seemingly never abandoned her. But could have done more to help Rachel remain in contact with the rest of the family. I understand the divide and divorce. But it would have been selfish of him to hold onto knowledge of Rachels thriving without telling her mother... I mean a wedding? You got to her wedding and send not even a notice to the exwife..... I hope he at least tried. as that would be almost unforgivable. Hopefully this was not the case. It is never really explained why Rachels father did not try to seek out his wife or at least seek out his wifes family and keep them informed. The mailbox opens both ways.

I agree it was a very emotional book. I think it did a good job of showing how culture and the circumstances of the society at hand rip people and families at apart. That there are no easy answers. You can mourn it, get angry, question..but in the end you must go on and keep living. It illustrates How "life is not fair. It just is " - One of my favorite quotes by Uncle Pono.

Illiterate wrote: " Think about how she cared for Rachels rapidly deteriorating brother in the woods, bathing him, dressing wounds... in the manner that sister Catherine did.. but this was her own flesh and blood. watching Molokai from a distance, wondering if her daughter was getting the same care...wishing she could be in two places at once...thinking if her son went that quickly -her daughter who got sick first, Rachel, must surely be dead ..."

Thank you. This is a reminder that to forgive one must look deeper than the surface. This passage helped me see things from a different perspective.

Natalie wrote: "Sam wrote: "It seemed like the only way to prevent further spread of the disease based on the knowledge they had at the time.

What I found more disheartening was in Rachel's later years when she ..."

I agree Natalie. It is sad that her mother still retained her distance. Why do you think she did so?

oh my time has flown by. i still love this book...and if you are still following back to Rachels mother reactions. she just wadnt able to accept her daughter with the stigma of the disease. her maternal instincts were flawed. why? well there wad something in het background. i can only assume. the author didnt provide that information.

At the time they thought it was by near or touching someone there's was a good chance that they would become lepers. Remeber when Aids started people were afraid to share the same bathrooms and they would be cast away. Anytime a new disease appears, we would be afraid to catch it.

You are so right Dom. Until the facts are medically presented to the public, we as a society go into panic mode. But as a mother, there is no way I would have banished my child.

But society in the book , yes needed to place those on the island. Good thing the nuns were there to assist.

Dom I actually recently moved back to Hawaii and live on Ohau. I want to visit Molakai one day.

Natalie wrote: "You are so right Dom. Until the facts are medically presented to the public, we as a society go into panic mode. But as a mother, there is no way I would have banished my child.

But society in the..."

Even though her mother left her and didn't give any news we know why and I understood what she did but still felt the guilt of leaving Rachel.

Natalie wrote: "Dom I actually recently moved back to Hawaii and live on Ohau. I want to visit Molakai one day."


My dream is to move to Hawaii. I've been dreaming of that for the past 20 years!

Plan it and do it...I moved back just 5 months ago and it is the best decision I have ever made. The people, weather and all around living is relaxing.
I am a teacher.
Dreams really do come true

Natalie wrote: "Plan it and do it...I moved back just 5 months ago and it is the best decision I have ever made. The people, weather and all around living is relaxing.
I am a teacher.
Dreams really do come true"

I plan on being there by the time it's time for me to retire!

Form a medical standpoint I can understand the banishment of the people with leprosy. The Hawaiians had no immune system to fight the disease. it is noted that in the book that some people got it, and others did not. Back then people did not understand how the disease worked or why some people got it and some people didn't. It wasn't until much later after years of research and experiments did they fully understand what the disease was and how it spread.
The people back then did the only thing they could think of. Was it fair for them to be labeled and sent out to one Moloka'i, hell no. But back then they didn't know how else to handle it.