Let me begin by saying that, even though I've read the book, I still don't know how I feel about W.E.B. Du Bois. But I know I like him better than Booker T. Washington.
I don't like Washington simply because I feel that he tends to alienate his own race in his "political" views, or whatever you want to call it. He's too quick to settle for inequality when, quite honestly, the African-American race already has endured such inequality for too long. Though I cannot say that I completely agree with everything Du Bois says, I can say that I agree with Du Bois' acknowledgement of Washington's "triple paradox," or so Du Bois calls it, where Washington advocates "Negro artisans business men and property owners" but not the right to vote; "thrift and self-respect" but expects "silent submission" to their white counterparts; and "common school and industrial training" rather than "higher learning" though even his own institute in Tuskegee needs its teachers to be of "higher learning" (49). In contrast to Washington, Du Bois outlines his three basic requests, as follows: "political power," "insistence on civil rights," and "higher education of the Negro youth" (48). In all honesty, I certainly don't find any of those conditions to be too demanding, so that is exactly why I find it so amazing that Washington would not also want that for his race. I guess that I just dislike how Washington puts so much emphasis on the "economics side" of rising within American culture in that time-period while completely disregarding the individual rights that the people definitely deserve.
I have decided that I will focus my last paper for the class on comparing Washington and Du Bois based on the two texts we've read. I'm not sure what kind of specific take I'll go with, but at any rate it interests me how different they are and yet how influential they are simultaneously during this time in history.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Literacy, Technology, and Monopoly Capital
Not going to lie, this was pretty heavy reading for me. I'm not too sure that I understood more than 25% of what he was talking about, but there were a few sections that "stuck out" to me... And, that's what I'll focus on since I'm not too sure I'd be able to give a very accurate general account of the text.
There were several important sections that pointed to previous works we've read in class thus far, with the first one being the following from the first page: "I would note that Stetson also fixes upon education as a cause, and possible cure, for crime: a purely 'intellectual' schooling has pushed out 'religious and moral training,' expanding literacy but not moral character (324-3)."
The other excerpt I plan on discussing is from the second page, as follows: "'Going to School... is Idleness, and the longer Boys continue in this easy sort of Life, the more unfit they'll be when grown up for downright Labour...'"
One of the major themes of this class is concerned with the struggle between the idea of the "school culture" and the "shop culture" in terms of education, not only directly referenced in the McMath essay we read at the beginning of the year but also very heavily by Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery. The McMath essay goes into detail about the origins of Georgia Tech and how the school was founded, putting an emphasis on the fact that Tech was originally defined as more of a "shop" school than "intellectual" one, where students used their hands to learn rather than be consumed by their textbooks so they could have a more realistic approach to enginneering and the like once they entered the "real world" after school. Washington also seems to put some stock into this approach by promoting labor from his students at Tuskegee Institute and criticizing the symbolic boy reading French grammar in a garden of weeds. As to my opinion on the issue, I am a proponent of "hands-on" work if it is a matter of personal choice; however, I do not believe I would have been cut out for somewhere like Tuskegee or the early Georgia Tech because I am not a "hands-on" kind of girl... Kind of a tangent, but I'll move on. The point I want to make is that it seems as if the quoted individuals above need to re-evaluate their situations... Lucky for Washington, he no longer had to do hard labor as Founder and President of Tuskegee, so I imagine it wasn't so difficult to make others do it when he did not. Additionally, the individual of the second quote probably came from a decent family, knew he was going to get an intellectual education and did not have to concern himself with the prospect of working in a coal mine or factory for the remainder of his life. Yes, if he did have that to look forward to, he might be a little more sympathetic to those individuals who simply want a taste of something else besides hard labor for the first and last time in their lives. I don't know what kind of point I'm trying to make here... Just want to draw attention to two sections that impacted me, for whatever reason.
Maybe I just wanted to rant. Who knows?
There were several important sections that pointed to previous works we've read in class thus far, with the first one being the following from the first page: "I would note that Stetson also fixes upon education as a cause, and possible cure, for crime: a purely 'intellectual' schooling has pushed out 'religious and moral training,' expanding literacy but not moral character (324-3)."
The other excerpt I plan on discussing is from the second page, as follows: "'Going to School... is Idleness, and the longer Boys continue in this easy sort of Life, the more unfit they'll be when grown up for downright Labour...'"
One of the major themes of this class is concerned with the struggle between the idea of the "school culture" and the "shop culture" in terms of education, not only directly referenced in the McMath essay we read at the beginning of the year but also very heavily by Booker T. Washington's Up From Slavery. The McMath essay goes into detail about the origins of Georgia Tech and how the school was founded, putting an emphasis on the fact that Tech was originally defined as more of a "shop" school than "intellectual" one, where students used their hands to learn rather than be consumed by their textbooks so they could have a more realistic approach to enginneering and the like once they entered the "real world" after school. Washington also seems to put some stock into this approach by promoting labor from his students at Tuskegee Institute and criticizing the symbolic boy reading French grammar in a garden of weeds. As to my opinion on the issue, I am a proponent of "hands-on" work if it is a matter of personal choice; however, I do not believe I would have been cut out for somewhere like Tuskegee or the early Georgia Tech because I am not a "hands-on" kind of girl... Kind of a tangent, but I'll move on. The point I want to make is that it seems as if the quoted individuals above need to re-evaluate their situations... Lucky for Washington, he no longer had to do hard labor as Founder and President of Tuskegee, so I imagine it wasn't so difficult to make others do it when he did not. Additionally, the individual of the second quote probably came from a decent family, knew he was going to get an intellectual education and did not have to concern himself with the prospect of working in a coal mine or factory for the remainder of his life. Yes, if he did have that to look forward to, he might be a little more sympathetic to those individuals who simply want a taste of something else besides hard labor for the first and last time in their lives. I don't know what kind of point I'm trying to make here... Just want to draw attention to two sections that impacted me, for whatever reason.
Maybe I just wanted to rant. Who knows?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Up From Slavery
Our assignment was to read the first four chapters of Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington -- I hope, or else I'll be a little behind in class today -- about his personal journey of literally coming out of slavery following the Emancipation Proclamation. I thoroughly enjoyed the entire reading assignment and can't wait to get a little further in the book, but by far my favorite part was when he was able to choose his name; therefore, that will be the primary focus of this blog.
"By the time the occasion came for the enrolling of my name, an idea occurred to me which I thought would make me equal to the situation; and so, when the teacher asked me what my full name was, I calmly told him "Booker Washington," as if I had been called that name all my life; and by that name I have since been known... I think there are not many men in our country who have had the privilege of naming themselves in the way that I have" (35).
Yes, the quote is a little long, but I couldn't bear to cut it short when there is so much significance in it. To consider that such an individual was a slave for his entire childhood, with no access to education, is surprising to me... How would someone in such a condition manage to rise above it? And when the Emancipation Proclamation was made, how did his family manage to survive on their own when so many were not? Not only that, but he worked in a salt furnace and then a coal-mine, but saved what little money he could and made his way to the Hampton Institute, "passed" his admission exam, and became a student after so much struggle in his lifetime. He constantly mentions how obtaining an education was the most profound desire he ever had in his life, how he wanted that more than anything in this world... And I love the fact that when he is first opened up to education when his community hires a local teacher, he also defines himself by it. There is no coincidence in that fact. He becomes a new person, with a new name and new identity, during the enrollment process... Maybe that's not much to anyone else, but it certainly affected me.
"By the time the occasion came for the enrolling of my name, an idea occurred to me which I thought would make me equal to the situation; and so, when the teacher asked me what my full name was, I calmly told him "Booker Washington," as if I had been called that name all my life; and by that name I have since been known... I think there are not many men in our country who have had the privilege of naming themselves in the way that I have" (35).
Yes, the quote is a little long, but I couldn't bear to cut it short when there is so much significance in it. To consider that such an individual was a slave for his entire childhood, with no access to education, is surprising to me... How would someone in such a condition manage to rise above it? And when the Emancipation Proclamation was made, how did his family manage to survive on their own when so many were not? Not only that, but he worked in a salt furnace and then a coal-mine, but saved what little money he could and made his way to the Hampton Institute, "passed" his admission exam, and became a student after so much struggle in his lifetime. He constantly mentions how obtaining an education was the most profound desire he ever had in his life, how he wanted that more than anything in this world... And I love the fact that when he is first opened up to education when his community hires a local teacher, he also defines himself by it. There is no coincidence in that fact. He becomes a new person, with a new name and new identity, during the enrollment process... Maybe that's not much to anyone else, but it certainly affected me.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Diary of a Shirtwaist Striker
I like how the text seems as if it's coming straight from the mouth of the author... I mean, literally, the way that it's written seems exactly how I would talk on day to day terms. I like the fact that it's a diary, which makes it far more personal and "in your face" than if it were prose or whatever you want to call it... It's just neat that it's in journal form. It certainly has an effect on the mood of the reader because you can hear the author fight within herself about whether she believes in the cause or not and see how she reaches her conclusions step by step. You feel more connected.
I guess the part so far that had the most significant impact on me was the conversation between the narrator and her father, and right afterwards with Jim, her boyfriend. I know that, at this point in time, women's rights and labor laws were really not on the political agenda; however, it's so strange to think that her father and her boyfriend would be so cruel and insensitive to 1) something her father has an active role in already, and 2) to the narrator when they are about to be married. Does Jim not care about the things the narrator does? Were men just "that way" back then when it came to the women they were around on a daily basis?
I liked the scene where she's talking with the Mayor, and she mentions how Rose is barely scraping by to take care of her family since her father died. Here's a pretty profound quote from the text:
" 'My child, there is no use of getting excited over it. We will look into the matter and try to punish the guilty.' Yes, I believe him -- we will be the guilty party and he'll surely punish us." (97)
It's just sad to think of how women were regarded during this time in history, and how the Mayor and so many others just turn a blind eye to how bad the situation is for some of the poorer class.
I guess the part so far that had the most significant impact on me was the conversation between the narrator and her father, and right afterwards with Jim, her boyfriend. I know that, at this point in time, women's rights and labor laws were really not on the political agenda; however, it's so strange to think that her father and her boyfriend would be so cruel and insensitive to 1) something her father has an active role in already, and 2) to the narrator when they are about to be married. Does Jim not care about the things the narrator does? Were men just "that way" back then when it came to the women they were around on a daily basis?
I liked the scene where she's talking with the Mayor, and she mentions how Rose is barely scraping by to take care of her family since her father died. Here's a pretty profound quote from the text:
" 'My child, there is no use of getting excited over it. We will look into the matter and try to punish the guilty.' Yes, I believe him -- we will be the guilty party and he'll surely punish us." (97)
It's just sad to think of how women were regarded during this time in history, and how the Mayor and so many others just turn a blind eye to how bad the situation is for some of the poorer class.
Monday, March 3, 2008
My Thoughts on "Technophobia"
I'm not too sure what I'm going to say about this particular reading... It seemed to reiterate the basic underlying themes of movies like Blade Runner and the Terminator films, and I don't have anything really "new" to add to what was said.
In all honesty, I don't consider myself to have a real "fear" of technology... My only problem with the concept of machines is how they seem to dehumanize people. When you're dealing with something like an assembly line and factory workers, you see that the people are completely interchangeable and, in reality, replaceable regardless of who they are, what they enjoy doing in their free time, what kind of family they have... So, in a way, you're saying that the machines are far more important than the people who work them.
When you talk about technology, or more specifically over the topics of technology that we've covered thus far, you continue to see the same basic themes: lack of individualism, freedom, choice... That machines turn "bad" and wreck havoc on the people and environment around them, and it's the people's fault for being too concerned with capitalism to restrain themselves from producing the technology that will eventually be their ruin. However, my opinion on such is that I have a much bigger fear of machines getting to the point that the worker no longer matters rather than machines becoming self-aware and killing people at random.
I really enjoy discussing these topics... It's a completely different approach to analyzing text than I've ever taken before, and I'm loving it so far. From the text, I found a line that "stuck out" to me, and I'll go ahead and include it though I've already discussed the meanings I gathered from it.
"Perhaps this accounts for the desire for for a more literal, natural world in conservative films. It is a reaction to the world they themselves help create through an ideal of efficient economic development."
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
In all honesty, I don't consider myself to have a real "fear" of technology... My only problem with the concept of machines is how they seem to dehumanize people. When you're dealing with something like an assembly line and factory workers, you see that the people are completely interchangeable and, in reality, replaceable regardless of who they are, what they enjoy doing in their free time, what kind of family they have... So, in a way, you're saying that the machines are far more important than the people who work them.
When you talk about technology, or more specifically over the topics of technology that we've covered thus far, you continue to see the same basic themes: lack of individualism, freedom, choice... That machines turn "bad" and wreck havoc on the people and environment around them, and it's the people's fault for being too concerned with capitalism to restrain themselves from producing the technology that will eventually be their ruin. However, my opinion on such is that I have a much bigger fear of machines getting to the point that the worker no longer matters rather than machines becoming self-aware and killing people at random.
I really enjoy discussing these topics... It's a completely different approach to analyzing text than I've ever taken before, and I'm loving it so far. From the text, I found a line that "stuck out" to me, and I'll go ahead and include it though I've already discussed the meanings I gathered from it.
"Perhaps this accounts for the desire for for a more literal, natural world in conservative films. It is a reaction to the world they themselves help create through an ideal of efficient economic development."
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Life In the Iron Mills
I'm a little depressed over the ending. However, I can imagine that I wouldn't fare so well in a situation like Hugh's either. Something that really impressed me was the use of really intense color imagery not long before he commits suicide, which makes sense because he's definitely looking at life with a different perspective than before. It's just sad that his only act of free will is his suicide.
Here's a quick example of what I mean. Right before he steals the money,
"There were times when the soft floods of color in the crimson and purple flames, or the clear depth of amber in the water below the bridge, had somehow given him a glimpse of another world than this..." And the passage continues on for quite awhile, with more and more color imagery... It's really a very beautiful passage but it has such a depressing tone that it kind of foreshadows what he's going to do.
And I don't believe it's a coincidence that the author uses the color "black" rather than "red" to describe the blood at the scene... It sets the tone yet again, showing how depressing and horrible the situation is. "Black" isn't the "happiest" color, by any means.
I'm wondering, though, why the author chooses to use so much religious imagery. Why is Hugh so affected by the church? Why does it take the Quaker woman to turn Deb's life around? And, there are two very distinct references from scripture.
"I only want to show you the mote in my brother's eye: then you can see clearly to take it out."
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" Words spoken from Jesus Christ's mouth as he died on the cross.
Why would Davis choose to compare, even if so lightly, the character Hugh and Jesus Christ as Hugh lay dying? It's kind of an ambitious idea, but she doesn't continue the comparison... It ends there.
That's all I've got.
Here's a quick example of what I mean. Right before he steals the money,
"There were times when the soft floods of color in the crimson and purple flames, or the clear depth of amber in the water below the bridge, had somehow given him a glimpse of another world than this..." And the passage continues on for quite awhile, with more and more color imagery... It's really a very beautiful passage but it has such a depressing tone that it kind of foreshadows what he's going to do.
And I don't believe it's a coincidence that the author uses the color "black" rather than "red" to describe the blood at the scene... It sets the tone yet again, showing how depressing and horrible the situation is. "Black" isn't the "happiest" color, by any means.
I'm wondering, though, why the author chooses to use so much religious imagery. Why is Hugh so affected by the church? Why does it take the Quaker woman to turn Deb's life around? And, there are two very distinct references from scripture.
"I only want to show you the mote in my brother's eye: then you can see clearly to take it out."
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" Words spoken from Jesus Christ's mouth as he died on the cross.
Why would Davis choose to compare, even if so lightly, the character Hugh and Jesus Christ as Hugh lay dying? It's kind of an ambitious idea, but she doesn't continue the comparison... It ends there.
That's all I've got.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Tale of Wall Street
I'll go over a few things that caught my attention.
My father's a criminal defense lawyer. I guess the reason that I'm mentioning this is that, of all the lawyers I know, none of them would dare go into something like contract, patent, or inheritance law... Whatever you want to call it, but basically "boring" law. My father would rather defend a child-molesting ax-murderer than sit at a desk writing out wills his entire life. That's why I found it so strange that the Narrator would be so keen to settle for something so dull, only because he considers it to be a "safe" profession. And while that very well may be true, what kind of person wants to do that?
So, I decided that I would focus primarily on what kind of character the Narrator is in Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Tale of Wall Street.
Why would someone want a job like that? Why would someone be so passive when it comes to getting rid of an employee that's unwilling to do anything? Why would someone keep employees that are only competent for a few hours a day, and then become intolerable thereafter?
Take a look at this: "I am one of those unambitious lawyers who never addresses a jury, or in any way draws down public applause; but in the cool tranquillity of a snug retreat, do a snug business among rich men’s bonds and mortgages and title-deeds."
And he's right... It is, in fact, a very good business for the lawyers that decide they wouldn't mind having a boring job since the money pays well. That sheds a little light into this character from the very beginning, showing that he would rather make steady money -- and probably good money -- doing something boring, maybe even a little depressing, than take a risk. I wonder, then, how much money means to him... I mean, he certainly makes comments on how badly Turkey dresses, but he's not very quick to shell out more money to remedy the situation.
Another one: "There are many singular coincidences I have known in the course of my life, not the least among which was the fact, that exactly when Turkey displayed his fullest beams from his red and radiant countenance, just then, too, at that critical moment, began the daily period when I considered his business capacities as seriously disturbed for the remainder of the twenty-four hours."
Not only is he boring, he might be a little stupid. It's clear that Turkey might be having a little too much fun on his lunch breaks, but the Narrator just sees it as "coincidence" -- which occur very often in his life, he notes -- that Turkey's work ethic diminishes after noon. And, he doesn't do anything about it! If I had an employee that was only good for half of his shift (or none at all, in the case of Bartleby), I would fire them immediately. But, the Narrator is either too lazy to do so or seems to know that not many people want a job like his... I'm going to go with the former, however, considering how naive this character can be at times.
I'll try to wrap this up. I just want to know the inspiration behind this character. I'm more intrigued by the Narrator than I am by Bartleby! He won't take risks, he's quick to criticize his employees but unwilling to fix the situation, he's obviously very naive, and he's horribly passive-aggressive about the whole Bartleby situation. He's always fighting within himself about what to do about Bartleby, only to come up with a resolution and then back down on it. I guess I'd just like to explore this character, and all the characters, a bit more.
My father's a criminal defense lawyer. I guess the reason that I'm mentioning this is that, of all the lawyers I know, none of them would dare go into something like contract, patent, or inheritance law... Whatever you want to call it, but basically "boring" law. My father would rather defend a child-molesting ax-murderer than sit at a desk writing out wills his entire life. That's why I found it so strange that the Narrator would be so keen to settle for something so dull, only because he considers it to be a "safe" profession. And while that very well may be true, what kind of person wants to do that?
So, I decided that I would focus primarily on what kind of character the Narrator is in Bartleby, the Scrivener: A Tale of Wall Street.
Why would someone want a job like that? Why would someone be so passive when it comes to getting rid of an employee that's unwilling to do anything? Why would someone keep employees that are only competent for a few hours a day, and then become intolerable thereafter?
Take a look at this: "I am one of those unambitious lawyers who never addresses a jury, or in any way draws down public applause; but in the cool tranquillity of a snug retreat, do a snug business among rich men’s bonds and mortgages and title-deeds."
And he's right... It is, in fact, a very good business for the lawyers that decide they wouldn't mind having a boring job since the money pays well. That sheds a little light into this character from the very beginning, showing that he would rather make steady money -- and probably good money -- doing something boring, maybe even a little depressing, than take a risk. I wonder, then, how much money means to him... I mean, he certainly makes comments on how badly Turkey dresses, but he's not very quick to shell out more money to remedy the situation.
Another one: "There are many singular coincidences I have known in the course of my life, not the least among which was the fact, that exactly when Turkey displayed his fullest beams from his red and radiant countenance, just then, too, at that critical moment, began the daily period when I considered his business capacities as seriously disturbed for the remainder of the twenty-four hours."
Not only is he boring, he might be a little stupid. It's clear that Turkey might be having a little too much fun on his lunch breaks, but the Narrator just sees it as "coincidence" -- which occur very often in his life, he notes -- that Turkey's work ethic diminishes after noon. And, he doesn't do anything about it! If I had an employee that was only good for half of his shift (or none at all, in the case of Bartleby), I would fire them immediately. But, the Narrator is either too lazy to do so or seems to know that not many people want a job like his... I'm going to go with the former, however, considering how naive this character can be at times.
I'll try to wrap this up. I just want to know the inspiration behind this character. I'm more intrigued by the Narrator than I am by Bartleby! He won't take risks, he's quick to criticize his employees but unwilling to fix the situation, he's obviously very naive, and he's horribly passive-aggressive about the whole Bartleby situation. He's always fighting within himself about what to do about Bartleby, only to come up with a resolution and then back down on it. I guess I'd just like to explore this character, and all the characters, a bit more.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Ragtime's Over and Done With
So, I finished Ragtime as part of our assignment over the weekend, and here are a few things that I found interesting.
Pg. 263 -- Comparison between the two children
I would just post the entire section, but it's a little long, so I'll just go ahead and discuss it. Basically, it details all of the situations the little girl has been in and the ones that the little boy has never experienced. I just liked the comparison, showing how one child has seen the world and how the other has, and the little girl is so young that it's shocking to see what's she been through lately. Not too far before this particular scene is the one where they are burying each other, and it was also shocking how they exaggerrated certain parts of each other's bodies in the sand... I mean, they're little kids. And already they're being manipulated by society in sexual terms. I don't know why it seemed so important to me, but it must be a sort of commentary on society. Evelyn Nesbit has been out of the picture for some time now, but it was the same situation for her. Her body was exploited, and little to no attention was given to who she actually was. However, she was an adult, and she probably could have made some changes in her life to avoid being objectified. But these kids... Already they're being built into a sort of adult prototype that's expected for the time period.
Pg. 277 -- "The oppressor is wealth, my friends. Wealth is the oppressor. Coalhouse Walker did not need Red Emma to learn that. He needed only to suffer."
There are a few points here that I would like to make. First of all, why is she referred to as "Red Emma" when the color red obviously references Communism rather than anarchism? I thought that was a little funny, and it may in fact be an allusion to how ignorant society was toward other systems of government at that time. I mean, the economy was pretty good at the time with all the new technologies and services coming about, so why would anyone even want to know about Communism or anarchism? Just seemed funny. Also, I liked the mention of how harmful wealth can be for some individuals and the impact it can have on others who don't have it. Pretty much the same concept that I think we face today... Greed is a big motivator, and it can cause some people to trample on others in their journey to attain wealth. If you think about it, Coalhouse Walker suffers at the hands of wealth because the white people around him cannot accept that he, a black man, can have it when they cannot. So, they ruin his car. "Red Emma" is disgusted with the capitalistic system and its greed for wealth, so her entire platform is to get rid of it through anarchism. Father is so preoccupied with his business that he doesn't even know his son, and he certainly doesn't know his wife anymore.
I guess that's it.
Pg. 263 -- Comparison between the two children
I would just post the entire section, but it's a little long, so I'll just go ahead and discuss it. Basically, it details all of the situations the little girl has been in and the ones that the little boy has never experienced. I just liked the comparison, showing how one child has seen the world and how the other has, and the little girl is so young that it's shocking to see what's she been through lately. Not too far before this particular scene is the one where they are burying each other, and it was also shocking how they exaggerrated certain parts of each other's bodies in the sand... I mean, they're little kids. And already they're being manipulated by society in sexual terms. I don't know why it seemed so important to me, but it must be a sort of commentary on society. Evelyn Nesbit has been out of the picture for some time now, but it was the same situation for her. Her body was exploited, and little to no attention was given to who she actually was. However, she was an adult, and she probably could have made some changes in her life to avoid being objectified. But these kids... Already they're being built into a sort of adult prototype that's expected for the time period.
Pg. 277 -- "The oppressor is wealth, my friends. Wealth is the oppressor. Coalhouse Walker did not need Red Emma to learn that. He needed only to suffer."
There are a few points here that I would like to make. First of all, why is she referred to as "Red Emma" when the color red obviously references Communism rather than anarchism? I thought that was a little funny, and it may in fact be an allusion to how ignorant society was toward other systems of government at that time. I mean, the economy was pretty good at the time with all the new technologies and services coming about, so why would anyone even want to know about Communism or anarchism? Just seemed funny. Also, I liked the mention of how harmful wealth can be for some individuals and the impact it can have on others who don't have it. Pretty much the same concept that I think we face today... Greed is a big motivator, and it can cause some people to trample on others in their journey to attain wealth. If you think about it, Coalhouse Walker suffers at the hands of wealth because the white people around him cannot accept that he, a black man, can have it when they cannot. So, they ruin his car. "Red Emma" is disgusted with the capitalistic system and its greed for wealth, so her entire platform is to get rid of it through anarchism. Father is so preoccupied with his business that he doesn't even know his son, and he certainly doesn't know his wife anymore.
I guess that's it.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
My First Impression of Ragtime
Here are two quotes that I really liked, that kind of stood out to me in the reading. I'll throw in a little explanation after each of them to let you know what I got out of them.
"A while later the Roosevelt passed an incoming transatlantic vessel packed to the railings with immigrants. Father watched the prow of the scaly broad-beamed vessel splash in the sea. Her decks were packed with people. Thousands of male heads in derbies. Thousands of female heads covered in shawls. It was a rag ship with a million dark eyes staring at him... Yet aboard her were only more customers, for the immigrant population set great store by the American flag."
I guess that while I was reading about "Father" and the rest of the family, I got this picture of wealth and of what it was like to be established, only to be directly contrasted with these immigrants coming into the picture. I read this part and felt like "Father" was looking down on these people, and in fact he was... Just seemed very ironic to me that he would be so condescending when America is defined by its immigrants, including his own ancestors who were immigrants, and also that he can expect the very same people to put a little money in his pocket because they're so excited about the opportunity of being in the United States that they're patriotic over it. I mean, not that they have much to be patriotic for... Tateh eventually takes his daughter and leaves NYC because he so's tired of "machines," which is all he can do to provide for his family. Not much opportunity in that. But, I guess the author has a reason for it. Just not entirely sure what that reason is yet. Thought it was interesting also how the Pinkertons are mentioned later during the strike... I may have read a little further than I should have, but I didn't realize it until it was too late. I don't know... Just interesting.
"He held up the flash pan and put his head under the hood, and a picture exploded. After he left, the family, not daring to move, remained in the position in which they had been photographed. They waited for life to change."
I guess that this particularly affected me because America is supposed to be the "Land of Opportunity," and some of those people probably never got to experience the opportunity that they expected. They expected it but just "waited for life to change," hoping it would, but who's to say it did for them? Who's to say that they didn't just remain in the lower working classes of America until the day they died? It's a sad thought, and it's still a problem today. It just seems like the book, even though describing past events, still corresponds with how things are today. Not sure what else to say about this... Just affected me pretty profoundly, and hopefully someone else felt the same way.
I'd really like to know why the author chose the title Ragtime rather than something else. Just seems an interesting title. I listened to the Scott Joplin mp3 on the wiki, and I've heard it before... It has its own style that I really can't describe very well... But, I wonder... Joplin was black, and the book follows an immigrant family as one of its main storylines, so maybe there's some kind of connection between that? Not sure what I'm getting at, but Joplin became a very popular musician in a timeperiod that did not favor people of color yet, which also includes those very immigrants I keep mentioning. The type of music that rag is seems a little too happy for the tone of this book, but maybe it's to incorporate some sense of irony... Again, not sure what I'm getting at but maybe there's something there.
"A while later the Roosevelt passed an incoming transatlantic vessel packed to the railings with immigrants. Father watched the prow of the scaly broad-beamed vessel splash in the sea. Her decks were packed with people. Thousands of male heads in derbies. Thousands of female heads covered in shawls. It was a rag ship with a million dark eyes staring at him... Yet aboard her were only more customers, for the immigrant population set great store by the American flag."
I guess that while I was reading about "Father" and the rest of the family, I got this picture of wealth and of what it was like to be established, only to be directly contrasted with these immigrants coming into the picture. I read this part and felt like "Father" was looking down on these people, and in fact he was... Just seemed very ironic to me that he would be so condescending when America is defined by its immigrants, including his own ancestors who were immigrants, and also that he can expect the very same people to put a little money in his pocket because they're so excited about the opportunity of being in the United States that they're patriotic over it. I mean, not that they have much to be patriotic for... Tateh eventually takes his daughter and leaves NYC because he so's tired of "machines," which is all he can do to provide for his family. Not much opportunity in that. But, I guess the author has a reason for it. Just not entirely sure what that reason is yet. Thought it was interesting also how the Pinkertons are mentioned later during the strike... I may have read a little further than I should have, but I didn't realize it until it was too late. I don't know... Just interesting.
"He held up the flash pan and put his head under the hood, and a picture exploded. After he left, the family, not daring to move, remained in the position in which they had been photographed. They waited for life to change."
I guess that this particularly affected me because America is supposed to be the "Land of Opportunity," and some of those people probably never got to experience the opportunity that they expected. They expected it but just "waited for life to change," hoping it would, but who's to say it did for them? Who's to say that they didn't just remain in the lower working classes of America until the day they died? It's a sad thought, and it's still a problem today. It just seems like the book, even though describing past events, still corresponds with how things are today. Not sure what else to say about this... Just affected me pretty profoundly, and hopefully someone else felt the same way.
I'd really like to know why the author chose the title Ragtime rather than something else. Just seems an interesting title. I listened to the Scott Joplin mp3 on the wiki, and I've heard it before... It has its own style that I really can't describe very well... But, I wonder... Joplin was black, and the book follows an immigrant family as one of its main storylines, so maybe there's some kind of connection between that? Not sure what I'm getting at, but Joplin became a very popular musician in a timeperiod that did not favor people of color yet, which also includes those very immigrants I keep mentioning. The type of music that rag is seems a little too happy for the tone of this book, but maybe it's to incorporate some sense of irony... Again, not sure what I'm getting at but maybe there's something there.
Friday, January 25, 2008
A Second Attempt
I actually might have picked up a little something this time around with the reading. My entire last blog was over how I couldn't understand any of it, so this should be a little bit of an improvement.
At this point, I don't like Hank much anymore. Here's the problem... On one hand, he tries to act as if he wants to make a difference, that he's disgusted by how things are done in the sixth century.
"To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags -- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy..." [65]
There you go. He obviously doesn't like it. And he makes these kind of similar statements throughout the entire thing. However, he still seems arrogant to me. Like the whole episode about the fountain in the Valley of Holiness or whatever it's called -- going out of his way to make a big show of it (kind of like the nobility about everything, cough cough) and humiliate Merlin. He takes advantage of the common people and the monks by degrading what they consider to be the cornerstone of their lives -- the Church -- into something that's fixable by plugging up a leak. Doesn't bother to explain it to them really, either. Then he goes on with all the fireworks... I don't know, but I just don't like him. Here he is, saying how he wants to make a difference, but then he still associates largely with the nobility and makes an effort to appease them, goes about spending all that money for dinner to humiliate Dowley... I mean, come on. Hypocrite. He even says at the beginning that he has a leg up on everyone else because he's more educated... I don't know how many times it's seemed like he's looked down on people when he finds out they can't read. I feel like I'm ranting, but I just want to say -- who does he think he is?!
At this point, I don't like Hank much anymore. Here's the problem... On one hand, he tries to act as if he wants to make a difference, that he's disgusted by how things are done in the sixth century.
"To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags -- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy..." [65]
There you go. He obviously doesn't like it. And he makes these kind of similar statements throughout the entire thing. However, he still seems arrogant to me. Like the whole episode about the fountain in the Valley of Holiness or whatever it's called -- going out of his way to make a big show of it (kind of like the nobility about everything, cough cough) and humiliate Merlin. He takes advantage of the common people and the monks by degrading what they consider to be the cornerstone of their lives -- the Church -- into something that's fixable by plugging up a leak. Doesn't bother to explain it to them really, either. Then he goes on with all the fireworks... I don't know, but I just don't like him. Here he is, saying how he wants to make a difference, but then he still associates largely with the nobility and makes an effort to appease them, goes about spending all that money for dinner to humiliate Dowley... I mean, come on. Hypocrite. He even says at the beginning that he has a leg up on everyone else because he's more educated... I don't know how many times it's seemed like he's looked down on people when he finds out they can't read. I feel like I'm ranting, but I just want to say -- who does he think he is?!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
A Little Mark Twain
I just finished reading through Ch. 10 of A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court...
And I have no idea what to make of it.
I've really never been in this situation before; in fact, I'm known to say far too much rather than not enough when it comes to anything literature-related. All my past English teachers both hated and loved me for that very reason.
But, I really can't seem to pick up on anything but the literal. I have to say that I find some passages really funny... Maybe detect a little irony, some sarcasm... Yeah, but that's it. The story just seems so literal that I can't figure out what to say about it. I don't know where to begin or even how I would begin if I wanted to analyze it.
What do I know about Mark Twain? Not much, other than what I've just vaguely heard from other people. I've read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and I loved both... But, I had a problem picking up on the language then, and it seems to not have corrected itself since that point. Feels like his writing is styled around the "off-the-cuff" feeling, kind of how I would consider my thought processes run. He'll -- meaning Twain as the main character's voice -- talk about one thing, maybe run off on a tangent that he claims we'll later understand better, and then go into another little "story" or whatever you want to call it.
I'll feel better when I get an idea of what everyone else thinks, and hopefully we'll all be a little lost... Not so much "lost" but instead a little "shallow"... Yeah, I just feel like all I'm getting from it is the shallow part of the story and missing some sort of deeper meaning.
Any ideas?
And I have no idea what to make of it.
I've really never been in this situation before; in fact, I'm known to say far too much rather than not enough when it comes to anything literature-related. All my past English teachers both hated and loved me for that very reason.
But, I really can't seem to pick up on anything but the literal. I have to say that I find some passages really funny... Maybe detect a little irony, some sarcasm... Yeah, but that's it. The story just seems so literal that I can't figure out what to say about it. I don't know where to begin or even how I would begin if I wanted to analyze it.
What do I know about Mark Twain? Not much, other than what I've just vaguely heard from other people. I've read Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, and I loved both... But, I had a problem picking up on the language then, and it seems to not have corrected itself since that point. Feels like his writing is styled around the "off-the-cuff" feeling, kind of how I would consider my thought processes run. He'll -- meaning Twain as the main character's voice -- talk about one thing, maybe run off on a tangent that he claims we'll later understand better, and then go into another little "story" or whatever you want to call it.
I'll feel better when I get an idea of what everyone else thinks, and hopefully we'll all be a little lost... Not so much "lost" but instead a little "shallow"... Yeah, I just feel like all I'm getting from it is the shallow part of the story and missing some sort of deeper meaning.
Any ideas?
Intro. to "Black Metropolis"
I was given two assigned readings for my English II class with the instruction to develop a blog on one of the two, expressing my initial reactions to the piece and discussing whatever else I found important about it. I chose to write on the second assigned piece, as indicated in the title. The introduction mentions discusses the writers' motivation behind the text, the writers being a Richard Wright, a St. Clair Drake, and a Horace R. Clayton, all African-American gentlemen living in Chicago in the post-WWII era, though only very shortly after such.
What interested me most was the constant use of paradoxical, opposing language... Constant mention of black vs. white, life vs. death, and other 'opposites' to set the tone for the work, with it being focused on how prejudice still plays an integral role and will continue to do so not only in terms of 'black vs. white' but on a much larger scale. Firstly the writers define their perspective of the city of Chicago during that time, with an "...open and raw beauty... that seems to either kill or endow one with the spirit of life." Even in that sentence, at the very beginning of the text, one can see the blending of opposites, which -- in that certain section of the text -- goes on to define Chicago as a city both impersonal and personal, complete with the unfeeling machine-aspect of industry that the city is so well known for and the emotional worker behind it. The theme of opposites continue, with the main writer saying, "... I found that sincere art and honest science were not far apart..." And, quite honestly, at this part of the essay the writer has moved on from discussing the city to the general understanding of Negro life... Just the same, there is a slight comparison between the city and the African-American population of Chicago that never is really made distinct.
I wish that I could go on further. I made so many more connections with how opposites defines the 'Negro' and his chosen city, the machine of class distinction and the industrial Chicago in general, that I could go on for far longer than 200-250 words... I mean, the writer throws so many polar opposites into one sentence so flawlessly that I sit amazed when the picture is still so clear, and then much later when he/they go on to, in a way, glorify Hitler... Really, it's a stunning piece of work.
I mean, why would a black man, in post-WWII society, choose to go to Chicago? I could not get that thought out of my head throughout the entire essay, and then my very question was answered in a beautiful way... Though the city of Chicago is so machinated, industrial, unfeeling, it allows someone to go toward that sense of unguaranteed success with the same freedom as that of a white man, of someone without boundaries and enslavement. It is simply free will that makes it so appealing.
I wish that I could go on! But, I guess I'll have to stop it there.
What interested me most was the constant use of paradoxical, opposing language... Constant mention of black vs. white, life vs. death, and other 'opposites' to set the tone for the work, with it being focused on how prejudice still plays an integral role and will continue to do so not only in terms of 'black vs. white' but on a much larger scale. Firstly the writers define their perspective of the city of Chicago during that time, with an "...open and raw beauty... that seems to either kill or endow one with the spirit of life." Even in that sentence, at the very beginning of the text, one can see the blending of opposites, which -- in that certain section of the text -- goes on to define Chicago as a city both impersonal and personal, complete with the unfeeling machine-aspect of industry that the city is so well known for and the emotional worker behind it. The theme of opposites continue, with the main writer saying, "... I found that sincere art and honest science were not far apart..." And, quite honestly, at this part of the essay the writer has moved on from discussing the city to the general understanding of Negro life... Just the same, there is a slight comparison between the city and the African-American population of Chicago that never is really made distinct.
I wish that I could go on further. I made so many more connections with how opposites defines the 'Negro' and his chosen city, the machine of class distinction and the industrial Chicago in general, that I could go on for far longer than 200-250 words... I mean, the writer throws so many polar opposites into one sentence so flawlessly that I sit amazed when the picture is still so clear, and then much later when he/they go on to, in a way, glorify Hitler... Really, it's a stunning piece of work.
I mean, why would a black man, in post-WWII society, choose to go to Chicago? I could not get that thought out of my head throughout the entire essay, and then my very question was answered in a beautiful way... Though the city of Chicago is so machinated, industrial, unfeeling, it allows someone to go toward that sense of unguaranteed success with the same freedom as that of a white man, of someone without boundaries and enslavement. It is simply free will that makes it so appealing.
I wish that I could go on! But, I guess I'll have to stop it there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)