William Shakespeare’s “Tempest” was a play depicting the Europeans colonization of America. Written from the conquerors point of view, the play views the English expansion as a form of human progress. The author, Ronald Takaki, describes the expansion as “a defining moment in the making of an English-American identity based on race.” The author uses the play as a metaphor which helps us recognize the beliefs and feelings of Europeans during this time in history. Takaki questions the significance of progress and savagery in the European sense of the word.
Takaki argues against Shakespeare’s and the Europeans knowledge of the native people, and the choices they were making by characterizing these people. They saw the Indians as savages, but were they realizing their own racial savagery in the process. Questioning if the play was a prologue for America?
I don’t believe that the evidence here could support a different conclusion. I believe his assumptions are none biased. He is not arguing for the existence of the native people, he is merely questioning the Europeans thoughts and actions during this period. I believe that the majority of us today (even those of European descent) would consider the actions of the European settlers towards the Indians to be savage. The play seems to depict the account quite literally, and at the time it was produced the Europeans seemed to view it with a sense of normalcy and acceptance. However this was not the beliefs of the natives at the time. The challenge here was that both societies viewed the other as being savage and uncivilized, which brings us to the question of who was right? In today’s society we can easily recognize the savage people as the European Settlers. As depicted in the play, the Indians accepted the new civilians onto their land; even when they viewed them as being both God like and war like. The settlers on the other hand refused the offer, seeing the land and the Indians as an opportunity for improvement instead of acceptance and peace. The Indians offered a peace treaty, and the Europeans reluctantly declined due to the simplicity of their society. They began taking over the land as their own and attempting to civilize the Indians in their own sense. The result is that the European settlers unknowingly became the savage and uncivilized people they once despised.
My interpretation of the reading is that race cannot be defined by any particular people or person. It may never be possible to define words such as race, savage and civil. For when a culture defines it they later come to realize their mistakes as portrayed in Shakespeare’s “tempest.”
Monday, January 22, 2007
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Rosenblum and Travis
Rosenblum and Travis conclude by describing how disheartening is to think of oneself as being a member of a stigmatized group. However, because characteristics of a stigmatized trait are similar across a great variety of master statuses, it is difficult to link individuals to a particular group. Also people who are stigmatized have often formed alliances with those who are not stigmatized to promote awareness and acceptance of indifferences.
Their argument is on the basis of master statuses and the impact they have on today’s society. Master status is described as, a status that has a profound effect on one’s life, which dominates other statuses one occupies; race, sex, sexual orientation, social class, and ability/disability are considered master statuses. The authors argue that a status such as race strongly affects occupation, income and health; which inadvertently creates consequences for an individual linked to a certain master status.
I believe the author’s position has a defining impact on the subject discussed here. The fact that the author is arguing the impact of master statuses from the standpoint of a self proclaimed acceptable status (being white, male, middle class), influences the question, “How can the author relate to the material and how sympathetic are they towards the subject?” Since their knowledge of the subject on opposite races, sexes, social class and ability is restricted to books and interviews, they lack the experience of growing up as an individual linked to a master status. We would get a greater understanding of the subject if alternate authors, who held certain statuses, provided us with their feeling and interpretation of the material.
It was a very interesting article. The authors stated that there would be many parts throughout the article that readers would disagree with and this held true. One thing I found true in which the author stated was that “we assume that statuses such as sexual orientation, skin color, social class and disabilities tell us something meaningful about a person.” After reading the article, I found myself becoming more sympathetic of opposite statuses from my own.
Their argument is on the basis of master statuses and the impact they have on today’s society. Master status is described as, a status that has a profound effect on one’s life, which dominates other statuses one occupies; race, sex, sexual orientation, social class, and ability/disability are considered master statuses. The authors argue that a status such as race strongly affects occupation, income and health; which inadvertently creates consequences for an individual linked to a certain master status.
I believe the author’s position has a defining impact on the subject discussed here. The fact that the author is arguing the impact of master statuses from the standpoint of a self proclaimed acceptable status (being white, male, middle class), influences the question, “How can the author relate to the material and how sympathetic are they towards the subject?” Since their knowledge of the subject on opposite races, sexes, social class and ability is restricted to books and interviews, they lack the experience of growing up as an individual linked to a master status. We would get a greater understanding of the subject if alternate authors, who held certain statuses, provided us with their feeling and interpretation of the material.
It was a very interesting article. The authors stated that there would be many parts throughout the article that readers would disagree with and this held true. One thing I found true in which the author stated was that “we assume that statuses such as sexual orientation, skin color, social class and disabilities tell us something meaningful about a person.” After reading the article, I found myself becoming more sympathetic of opposite statuses from my own.
Zinn
Zinn concludes his article by questioning the effects of teaching history from the standpoint of the conquers and leaders of Western Civilization. He states the imperfection of myths is not an excuse for human progress in the annihilation of entire races. Why is it that we define human progress as a time of catastrophe and not peace?
Zinn argues that emphasizing the heroism of Columbus has come to our belief as a justification for what was done (the genocide of the Indians). He argues that we have been taught to bury the facts that cause the controversy. A person sees history from the standpoint of others which relate to their own personal struggle.
In order to save the innocent minds of our youth we teach them distorted myths of historical events. We cannot subject them to the truth of mass genocide during the era of Christopher Columbus. Yet I believe that we stretch the truth too much during these early stages. The youth learn to celebrate Columbus for his achievements which are ok for their developing minds. However I agree with the author in saying that we should not praise his achievements as adults.
I agree with the author in saying that we should not lie about the past nor omit the facts which lead to an unacceptable conclusion. The author however describes himself as being skeptical of government and their attempts to transform cultural beliefs, makes me in turn skeptical of his opinions on the subject.
Zinn argues that emphasizing the heroism of Columbus has come to our belief as a justification for what was done (the genocide of the Indians). He argues that we have been taught to bury the facts that cause the controversy. A person sees history from the standpoint of others which relate to their own personal struggle.
In order to save the innocent minds of our youth we teach them distorted myths of historical events. We cannot subject them to the truth of mass genocide during the era of Christopher Columbus. Yet I believe that we stretch the truth too much during these early stages. The youth learn to celebrate Columbus for his achievements which are ok for their developing minds. However I agree with the author in saying that we should not praise his achievements as adults.
I agree with the author in saying that we should not lie about the past nor omit the facts which lead to an unacceptable conclusion. The author however describes himself as being skeptical of government and their attempts to transform cultural beliefs, makes me in turn skeptical of his opinions on the subject.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
PPD, CH.1
At the end of chapter one in PPD, Alan Johnson concludes on the meaning of words and the negative impact they can have on people. He says that we must learn to tolerate the discomfort that words such as racism, sexism and privilege evoke. He also states that words that describe himself, “white male and middle class”, are something he didn’t create but was passed down to him as a legacy in today’s society.
His argument of being able to become tolerant with one another is based on people’s ability to recognize their own problems and to do something about it. If each person doesn’t take the initiative by acknowledging their privileges, then we will not be able to break the barrier of what privilege and difference mean and in return not be able to respect, understand or appreciate one another.
Yet I believe that other steps are needed before we automatically recognize our problems and learn form them. Change is needed in earlier stages of the learning process. As we grow up under our parents and guardians they posses the ability to create and shape our way of thinking. We need to alter the meaning of negatives words such as racisms and sexism to a more neutral meaning. When I hear the word racism, I think of violence and hate, which in turn causes controversy. However, by relating these words to a more positive meaning this will in turn lower the need for controversy and negative reactions.
The intro of “were in trouble” made me question his attitude on the subject of race and ethnicity. As he continued with his story it drew me in and then I realized why he wrote the intro in that manner and I became more considerate of the material. I understand his point of view, we must use words that offend us and relate directly to the material; otherwise we will not be able to make sense of the truth.
His argument of being able to become tolerant with one another is based on people’s ability to recognize their own problems and to do something about it. If each person doesn’t take the initiative by acknowledging their privileges, then we will not be able to break the barrier of what privilege and difference mean and in return not be able to respect, understand or appreciate one another.
Yet I believe that other steps are needed before we automatically recognize our problems and learn form them. Change is needed in earlier stages of the learning process. As we grow up under our parents and guardians they posses the ability to create and shape our way of thinking. We need to alter the meaning of negatives words such as racisms and sexism to a more neutral meaning. When I hear the word racism, I think of violence and hate, which in turn causes controversy. However, by relating these words to a more positive meaning this will in turn lower the need for controversy and negative reactions.
The intro of “were in trouble” made me question his attitude on the subject of race and ethnicity. As he continued with his story it drew me in and then I realized why he wrote the intro in that manner and I became more considerate of the material. I understand his point of view, we must use words that offend us and relate directly to the material; otherwise we will not be able to make sense of the truth.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
