Throughout the semester, we've been reading story after story about the affects of colonialism throughout various parts of the world. While we have discussed the implications and effects of colonialism on both the colonizers and the colonized, we did not spend a great deal of time discussing the "why". My essay will focus on the "why" by looking at the root cause (reasons) of colonialism: Capitalism. Using the texts from our reading, along with additional material about U.S. colonialism I will be able to demonstrate that the single driving force behind all colonialism lies not with religion (although it is often used as justification) but greed, pure and simple.
The following is a list of works I currently plan to use:
Juan Gonzalez. "Harvest of Empire: A History of Latinos in America". New York: Penguin 2000.
Joseph Conrad. "Heart of Darkness". New York: Norton, 2005.
Jared Diamond. "Guns, Germs, and Steel". New York: Norton, 1997.
Bernard MacLaverty. "Cal". New York: Norton, 1995.
Achebe, Chinua. "Things Fall Apart". New York: Anchor, 1994.
Naipaul, V. S. "The Mimic Men". Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1969.
Jin, Ha. "After Cowboy Chickin Came To Town." Jin, Ha. The Bridegroom. New York: Vintage, 2000. 184-225.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Painful Case
I think the underlying theme of the story is how cities (and society) can give us an excuse to withdraw into our selves and forego dealing with other people on an emotional level. It's very easy to get lost in crowd and forget what its like to have an emotional attachment to anyone. The main character in this story definitely falls into this category.
However, a series of (chance?) encounters with Emily leads to friendship and his detachments begin to erode. For the first time (ever?) he begins to find a friendship and companion who he can share his thoughts and emotions with but at the same time feels safe because she's married. As I read this, I thought that he might actually have been using her marriage as an excuse NOT to get too close. Sure, she was married, and their relationship was "improper", but they did have a common bond.
It was when she touched his face to his that it all clicked for me. She got too close and he used his ability to emotional detach (hiding in a big city?) as an excuse to break off the relationship. The books he was reading suggest that he was conflicted about the relationship and was looking for a way to justify it. For example, when he wrote some quotes from Nietzche suggesting that men and women couldn't be friends because there was intercourse involved, he was using that as an excuse to justify his behavior.
Of course, after he found out that she was dead,it finally sank in. He was a cold hearted SOB and the one person whom he had an attachment to was now dead, possibly because of him. At this moment, he realized that he had blown it and that he may never find another. In her death, he was now unable to hide his emotions and detach. She had gotten to him in the same way he had gotten to her. He was heartbroken.
Friday, November 6, 2009
A Temporary Matter
Let me start this blog post off with "sorry I'm late to the party." I actually started to work on this last night but was a bit confused. I poked around at various blogs and didn't see anything related to Lahiri. I then cowardly looked at other peep's blogs and noticed that they hadn't posted either. I was waiting for someone to go so I could figure out what I was doing wrong. After a bit more poking around and scrolling way way way down, I finally saw the Lahiri posts. My bad...
This post is in response to Auggie's post on Lahiri and his idea that her writing suggests that marriages are fragile. To use Julie's analogy of viewing this under a different " lens", I'm going to take a closer look at their respective roles in a traditional Indian marriage.
While I don't disagree that Lahiri might be making the statement that marriage is a fragile thing, I think that the story delves deeper into issues of Indian culture in America. For example, if we buy into the idea that Indian women are to be subservient to their men, then we have to look at this story as being contrary to that.
What I mean is that in this story, we see a man and woman of Indian descent that are dealing with the loss of a child. Each person is dealing with (or not) this loss and the story revolves around not only how they dealt with it individually, but as a couple. However, in the story, we see that the stereotypical roles Indians are associated with simply do not apply. For example, it is the husband who is so distraught that he has had to stay home (can't teach) and work on his dissertation. The wife on the other hand goes back to work as soon as possible. This is our first clue that not only are the roles reversing, but that each is dealing with the issue differently.
The husband is actually trying to deal with it. He is clearly depressed and sad. However, in spite of this, he assumes the womanly role around the house and cooks the food and cleans the house. His wife on the other hand goes back to work almost immediately. She comes home late, throws her stuff around like she lives in a hotel (for him to clean up no doubt) and doesn't actually engage in the relationship. Sure sounds like role reversal to me.
It is when the power is out and they are eating by candlelight that they are able to finally break through the ice a bit and start communicating again. The naive husband is delighted by this and begins to feel as though they might actually be heading in the right direction. During their conversations we begin to learn some of their secrets. The wife details various secrets, which upon closer examination, detail her selfishness. The husbands' secrets however, detail his selflessness. For example, the wife mentions staying late to go out with a coworker for drinks. The husbands mentions forgetting to tip a waiter and driving all the way back to give him a tip. His motives were always for her benefit and her motives were for her own benefit.
Near the end of the story the husband learns that she has been staying late to find an apartment. While it certainly hurt him, his response was unselfish. He wanted her to deal with the problem and to face the fact that "they" had both lost a child. He told her that he had seen and held the child. He was at the hospital that day. He didn't say anything because he was keeping a promise to her that he wouldn't tell her the sex of the child. It wasn't until he felt that this was all he could do to help her did he betray his own promise.
In the end, I think we see a complete role reversal from a typical Indian couple. The husband becomes the nurturer and the wife becomes the typical stubborn male not willing to deal with her problems. Do they get back together? Who knows. But his unselfishness causes her to finally break down and feel something.
Any thoughts?
This post is in response to Auggie's post on Lahiri and his idea that her writing suggests that marriages are fragile. To use Julie's analogy of viewing this under a different " lens", I'm going to take a closer look at their respective roles in a traditional Indian marriage.
While I don't disagree that Lahiri might be making the statement that marriage is a fragile thing, I think that the story delves deeper into issues of Indian culture in America. For example, if we buy into the idea that Indian women are to be subservient to their men, then we have to look at this story as being contrary to that.
What I mean is that in this story, we see a man and woman of Indian descent that are dealing with the loss of a child. Each person is dealing with (or not) this loss and the story revolves around not only how they dealt with it individually, but as a couple. However, in the story, we see that the stereotypical roles Indians are associated with simply do not apply. For example, it is the husband who is so distraught that he has had to stay home (can't teach) and work on his dissertation. The wife on the other hand goes back to work as soon as possible. This is our first clue that not only are the roles reversing, but that each is dealing with the issue differently.
The husband is actually trying to deal with it. He is clearly depressed and sad. However, in spite of this, he assumes the womanly role around the house and cooks the food and cleans the house. His wife on the other hand goes back to work almost immediately. She comes home late, throws her stuff around like she lives in a hotel (for him to clean up no doubt) and doesn't actually engage in the relationship. Sure sounds like role reversal to me.
It is when the power is out and they are eating by candlelight that they are able to finally break through the ice a bit and start communicating again. The naive husband is delighted by this and begins to feel as though they might actually be heading in the right direction. During their conversations we begin to learn some of their secrets. The wife details various secrets, which upon closer examination, detail her selfishness. The husbands' secrets however, detail his selflessness. For example, the wife mentions staying late to go out with a coworker for drinks. The husbands mentions forgetting to tip a waiter and driving all the way back to give him a tip. His motives were always for her benefit and her motives were for her own benefit.
Near the end of the story the husband learns that she has been staying late to find an apartment. While it certainly hurt him, his response was unselfish. He wanted her to deal with the problem and to face the fact that "they" had both lost a child. He told her that he had seen and held the child. He was at the hospital that day. He didn't say anything because he was keeping a promise to her that he wouldn't tell her the sex of the child. It wasn't until he felt that this was all he could do to help her did he betray his own promise.
In the end, I think we see a complete role reversal from a typical Indian couple. The husband becomes the nurturer and the wife becomes the typical stubborn male not willing to deal with her problems. Do they get back together? Who knows. But his unselfishness causes her to finally break down and feel something.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
FA331 Group Art Project - Teamalicious
Hello all, welcome to group #1. Please post your email addresses so we can at least keep in touch.
maurice.smiley@email.wsu.edu
maurice.smiley@email.wsu.edu
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Conrad, Jin, and Postcolonial Literature
After spending a few days reading and discussing Jin's work, it's clear to me now that he had something to say and used English as his means of saying it. Had he chosen to write it in Chinese, he would have alienated the very audience for which (I believe) he intended his writing for. That is to say that Jin wanted westerners to gain a better understanding of the political and cultural differences between the east and west. What's interesting in his writing is that he is very careful and deliberate in painting a scene and telling a story without actually demonizing anyone. For example, in "Saboteur" he writes about the police have mistreated a Chiu. Instead of going on and on about how EVIL the state is, he balances the story with Chiu later purposefully spreading his hepatitis. In "Cowboy Chicken", he shows Mr. Shapiro as a greedy capitalist, but he then shows the Chinese actually doing the same things when they wanted to have Peter fired and his divided amongst them. He has had his feet firmly planted in both worlds and uses that knowledge to tell creative stories that reflect the realities of life in China.
Had Conrad written his novel in Polish there's almost every certainty that his writing would have fallen into that exclusive group of writers in Poland that had a lot to say, with no audience to read it. All kidding aside, I believe that Conrad made a conscious choice in writing in English because he knew very well that the majority of the powers most involved in colonialism at the time were in fact Western Europeans and almost all, English speaking on some level. Even the Americans were involved in colonialism (just ask the Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and almost everyone in Central and South America). To make the greatest impact and reach the largest target audience, he made the only logical choice at the time. Of course, we'll never really know what would have become of it if he had written in French or Spanish, but my guess is that it would have whithered on the vine. He took advantage of a receptive audience and made the most of his it.
Had Conrad written his novel in Polish there's almost every certainty that his writing would have fallen into that exclusive group of writers in Poland that had a lot to say, with no audience to read it. All kidding aside, I believe that Conrad made a conscious choice in writing in English because he knew very well that the majority of the powers most involved in colonialism at the time were in fact Western Europeans and almost all, English speaking on some level. Even the Americans were involved in colonialism (just ask the Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and almost everyone in Central and South America). To make the greatest impact and reach the largest target audience, he made the only logical choice at the time. Of course, we'll never really know what would have become of it if he had written in French or Spanish, but my guess is that it would have whithered on the vine. He took advantage of a receptive audience and made the most of his it.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Was She Drugged?
Our classroom discussion have been pretty fascinating in the last few days. Wide Sargasso Sea is turning out to be far more complex that it first appeared. We have learned that there's more than one meaning for creole and the "N" word, which totally depends on your point of view, whether it be British or Caribbean.
Furthermore, I think we all came to the conclusion that Rochester was dirty rotten scoundrel (for lack of a better description) and pretty much had his way with Antoinette. By "had his way", I mean, he got his money and was able to essentially have her committed.
In doing a bit more thinking about this situation, it occurred to me that Antoinette was a wild and free spirit who loved the Caribbean. It has been suggested that Antoinette didn't fit in, but I disagree with that. While she might not have been loved by the locals, having come from a slave owning family, she definitely understood the people and fit in.
If you believe that she wasn't crazy, then it stands to reason she was drugged. We know that she hated Rochester for what he had done and I just can't believe that she would willingly allow herself to be transported to England, away from everything she knew and loved, to be locked up in a room.
Just throwing that out there to see if anyone bites...
Furthermore, I think we all came to the conclusion that Rochester was dirty rotten scoundrel (for lack of a better description) and pretty much had his way with Antoinette. By "had his way", I mean, he got his money and was able to essentially have her committed.
In doing a bit more thinking about this situation, it occurred to me that Antoinette was a wild and free spirit who loved the Caribbean. It has been suggested that Antoinette didn't fit in, but I disagree with that. While she might not have been loved by the locals, having come from a slave owning family, she definitely understood the people and fit in.
If you believe that she wasn't crazy, then it stands to reason she was drugged. We know that she hated Rochester for what he had done and I just can't believe that she would willingly allow herself to be transported to England, away from everything she knew and loved, to be locked up in a room.
Just throwing that out there to see if anyone bites...
Friday, October 2, 2009
Changing connotation and meaning
So far, the Wide Sargasso Sea readings have not disappointed. I have been surprised to learn quite a bit more about Caribbean history in addition to the fact of dual representations of how British colonial citizens viewed each other and their status. Terms like "creole" and "nigger" have entirely new meanings to me now, especially in light of how their meanings are different in the story than they are in the present day U.S.
When I used to think of "creole", it conjured up images of African Americans living in Louisiana, cooking up some crawfish with some red beans and rice. Cajun and creole were very often intermixed in my mind's eye as one in the same. However, thanks to the readings, I now see that in British Colonial times, "creole" actually meant someone who was born or native to the islands regardless of their skin color. Wow, now I have to totally readjust my thinking...
Another interesting use of a word has been "nigger". This word, not surprisingly is definitely a derogatory term, however, it's use and connotation have now changed for me (no, I don't use them in sentences to describe people regularly). Wide Sargasso Sea clearly demonstrates the use of the word describing not only blacks but whites. This, once again, is forcing me to readjust my definitions and think of the term more in relation to denigration of people in general, white or black. It's interesting to read wikipedia and other definitions and note that they make no reference to this term used by anyone other than whites against blacks. Once again, my thinking has been readjusted...
When I used to think of "creole", it conjured up images of African Americans living in Louisiana, cooking up some crawfish with some red beans and rice. Cajun and creole were very often intermixed in my mind's eye as one in the same. However, thanks to the readings, I now see that in British Colonial times, "creole" actually meant someone who was born or native to the islands regardless of their skin color. Wow, now I have to totally readjust my thinking...
Another interesting use of a word has been "nigger". This word, not surprisingly is definitely a derogatory term, however, it's use and connotation have now changed for me (no, I don't use them in sentences to describe people regularly). Wide Sargasso Sea clearly demonstrates the use of the word describing not only blacks but whites. This, once again, is forcing me to readjust my definitions and think of the term more in relation to denigration of people in general, white or black. It's interesting to read wikipedia and other definitions and note that they make no reference to this term used by anyone other than whites against blacks. Once again, my thinking has been readjusted...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
