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.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)