Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Distorted Race
Most people I interact with (sadly not all) have been taught as they grew up that discrimination is bad and that everyone, despite their differences, should have equal opportunities. Parents and educators often believe this is the responsible way approach racial issues but what they miss out is that they acknowledge these differences as a potential factor for discrimination. It is reasonable to note biological differences between people, after all there are darker and whiter skin tones. However, as I've understood as I've read Song of Solomon and learned in class, race is a socially constructed idea with weak biological evidence and disastrous social effects. Throughout the last centuries people have fallaciously claimed that different skin color and some facial features are attributes of different races. It is true and logical that geographic isolation caused that different groups of people have different traits, which could be called different races, but the social understanding of what this means is fallacious. The common understanding of race uses the many questions fallacy as well as hasty generalizations. Toni Morrison explains how the misinterpreted idea of race causes discrimination and segregation. Her novel isn't explicitly about these two issues but rather about their effects on individuals.
Throughout the book it is clear that the characters have fixed ideas about what being African American means. In the beginning of the novel many African Americans mention self-discriminating things. For example, at one point someone says, "A nigger in business is a terrible thing to see. A terrible, terrible thing to see." Later on Magdalene says, "Who’s going to live in them[the beach houses]? There’s no colored people who can afford to have two houses." Comments like these show that people absorb the idea that races exist and blame them for a lot other things that what they mean. In previous blog posts I've said that the idea of race is wrong but what's actually wrong is what we attribute to it. "True" race means that African Americans have darker skin pigments, not that they act differently. However, people take in the idea too far and use it to explain things using a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy, or that because one thing followed another, the first cause the second. Characters in Song of Solomon restrain themselves from what they could do by assuming that they can't because they're Black. Guitar rejects the luxurious way of living of Milkman because he feels it's not meant for people like him, presumably referring to his race. As the novel shows ideas throughout different decades, you can see that many of these stereotypes, like that African Americans wouldn't buy beach houses, turned out to be wrong.
Morrison shows how these biased ideas cause people to be excluded from society. The African Americans that adhered to the complete stereotype were part of their social group as where rich White people. Nevertheless, people like the Dead were left without a social group. Since the beginning of the novel, one can see that social groups are not really about wealth or education but often about race. Corinthians was educated and rich but was eventually pushed by society to become a maid. Meanwhile Milkman was desperate enough to escape his lifestyle that he agreed to steal from the person who saved him as a fetus. He could not fit in with Guitar and poorer African Americans neither with the generally White upper class. In a more explicit way, white people blamed all crimes to African Americans because they backed up segregation with the idea of race. Morrison shows that society in an illogical way uses race to bully people around. Race not only affects the specific scenarios of the novel but also the whole plot. The history of the Dead family is based around the social interpretation of race. Stretching from slavery to self discrimination, the plot shows how the false dichotomy of race in the US harmed African Americans.
Throughout Song of Solomon, Morrison shows that racism is fallaciously created by society. The way people classify themselves and others based on a few characteristics oversimplifies the unlimited aspects of human genetics and personality. Slavery divided two groups of humans into different social classes and people created racial stereotypes from this division. The effects of slavery on Solomon caused a lot of damage in many generations of his descendants. Going back to the point about biology, although Morrison barely discusses genetics, she shows that racism is truly about a socially created differences, not genes. Society was (or is) divided by skin color and the false stereotypes that creates don't allow people to truly progress or have equal rights. I think that Morrison is trying to say that as long as racial division exists, there cannot be equal opportunities because people distort what skin color means and cause people to live desperately as the Deads did.
Throughout the book it is clear that the characters have fixed ideas about what being African American means. In the beginning of the novel many African Americans mention self-discriminating things. For example, at one point someone says, "A nigger in business is a terrible thing to see. A terrible, terrible thing to see." Later on Magdalene says, "Who’s going to live in them[the beach houses]? There’s no colored people who can afford to have two houses." Comments like these show that people absorb the idea that races exist and blame them for a lot other things that what they mean. In previous blog posts I've said that the idea of race is wrong but what's actually wrong is what we attribute to it. "True" race means that African Americans have darker skin pigments, not that they act differently. However, people take in the idea too far and use it to explain things using a post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy, or that because one thing followed another, the first cause the second. Characters in Song of Solomon restrain themselves from what they could do by assuming that they can't because they're Black. Guitar rejects the luxurious way of living of Milkman because he feels it's not meant for people like him, presumably referring to his race. As the novel shows ideas throughout different decades, you can see that many of these stereotypes, like that African Americans wouldn't buy beach houses, turned out to be wrong.
Morrison shows how these biased ideas cause people to be excluded from society. The African Americans that adhered to the complete stereotype were part of their social group as where rich White people. Nevertheless, people like the Dead were left without a social group. Since the beginning of the novel, one can see that social groups are not really about wealth or education but often about race. Corinthians was educated and rich but was eventually pushed by society to become a maid. Meanwhile Milkman was desperate enough to escape his lifestyle that he agreed to steal from the person who saved him as a fetus. He could not fit in with Guitar and poorer African Americans neither with the generally White upper class. In a more explicit way, white people blamed all crimes to African Americans because they backed up segregation with the idea of race. Morrison shows that society in an illogical way uses race to bully people around. Race not only affects the specific scenarios of the novel but also the whole plot. The history of the Dead family is based around the social interpretation of race. Stretching from slavery to self discrimination, the plot shows how the false dichotomy of race in the US harmed African Americans.
Throughout Song of Solomon, Morrison shows that racism is fallaciously created by society. The way people classify themselves and others based on a few characteristics oversimplifies the unlimited aspects of human genetics and personality. Slavery divided two groups of humans into different social classes and people created racial stereotypes from this division. The effects of slavery on Solomon caused a lot of damage in many generations of his descendants. Going back to the point about biology, although Morrison barely discusses genetics, she shows that racism is truly about a socially created differences, not genes. Society was (or is) divided by skin color and the false stereotypes that creates don't allow people to truly progress or have equal rights. I think that Morrison is trying to say that as long as racial division exists, there cannot be equal opportunities because people distort what skin color means and cause people to live desperately as the Deads did.
Genetic Comparison
As we discussed the genetic differences between ethnicities, I thought I'd be relevant to show how my genes compare with an "average" Nigerian. The genetic comparison we saw in the documentary was sort of misleading because it used mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed though the maternal line. This means that it excluded paternal ancestry and included information about genetic material that doesn't determine our traits. Nevertheless genetic comparisons of "22 autosomal chromosomes, which means all the chromosomes except for the sex chromosomes (X and Y) and the mitochondrial DNA," according to genetic testing I used, shows that there aren't many differences between me and a Nigerian.
The results show that I'm 69.07% similar to an average Nigerian and even more similar in many specific traits like BMI, endurance or immune system. The only trait that is less similar is pigmentation or skin color, and it's still very similar. Using this tool I can also compare myself with my parents, and an average Chinese or Japanese person. I'm 84.93% similar to my mom, 84.87% to my dad, 71.60% to a Chinese person and 71.61% to a Japanese person. As Sub-Saharan Africans were isolated from the rest of humans through the last thousands of years, it is expected that their traits be somewhat different. These results shows that the small genetic differences between me, mostly White, and an African, or other people, don't really suggest that race, or human subspecies, exist but rather that humans simply have different traits.
The results show that I'm 69.07% similar to an average Nigerian and even more similar in many specific traits like BMI, endurance or immune system. The only trait that is less similar is pigmentation or skin color, and it's still very similar. Using this tool I can also compare myself with my parents, and an average Chinese or Japanese person. I'm 84.93% similar to my mom, 84.87% to my dad, 71.60% to a Chinese person and 71.61% to a Japanese person. As Sub-Saharan Africans were isolated from the rest of humans through the last thousands of years, it is expected that their traits be somewhat different. These results shows that the small genetic differences between me, mostly White, and an African, or other people, don't really suggest that race, or human subspecies, exist but rather that humans simply have different traits.
Socially Constructed Divisions
I understand more of Booker T. Washington, once an isolated APUSH figure, as I relate his ideas to Song of Solomon. Morrison and Washington share some ideas as seen by comparing her book and "Cast Down Your Bucket Where You Are," a speech by the later. While each work gets into specifics not completely related, the main points behind both are very similar, like the idea that racial divisions are created by society and that they must be destroyed for people to have equal opportunities.
In Song of Solomon, a rich African American family is isolated from the upper class because of their color while differentiated from poor African Americans because of their money. The stereotypes that classified people into rich Whites or poor Blacks left the Dead family in an undefined spot of society. Throughout the book each family member struggles to find his or her place in society because of the stratifying ideas implanted in their thoughts. Macon Sr is obsessed with having a family that behaves in a high-class manner. Ruth doesn't truly get along neither with white upper class women nor with poor African Americans. The children of these two struggle to find a way to live as they don't fit in mainstream stereotypes and are perplexed by their parents and their ideas about status in society. As a result of the social ideas of the parents, their children become incompatible with society and fail according to their standards. Neither of the daughters can get married and Milkman just wants to get away. Because of the strict classifying ideas of society, the children were excluded from some groups and didn't fully fit in anywhere. While not being a member of a specific group can be bad, the book also shows how social divisions affected most African Americans. As people discriminate because of the color of the skin, many other characteristics are oversimplified into being features of a race. Morrison shows that many characteristics of people are falsely attributed to the fallacious idea of race.
Booker T. Washington's speech is much more political but it shares Morrison's ideas about race. He says, "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities." The previous quotation shows that the false distinctions created by the idea of race keep people from prospering. If someone concretely divides White roles from Black roles in society, slavery or unfair labor conditions are created. Race is a fallacy as it assumes that traits shared by a group of people similar in color are an effect of this. By socially constructing these differences between Blacks and Whites, discrimination begins to happen. Washington suggests that we get rid of those differences by having similar opportunities and forgiving bad aspects of this erroneous differentiation as obsessing about discrimination towards a specific group might lead to acknowledge that the group exists. He ends the speech promoting "absolute justice" and the "blotting out of sectional differences" because the differences should exist.
Both Morrison and Washington subtly or directly show that the existence of race is damaging to society. Race is a many questions fallacy, one "in which two or more issues get merged into one," using Thank You For Arguing's definition. Undoubtedly there are people with different tones of skin, which does have a biological basis, but this doesn't mean that there are two distinct groups of humans. Washington does concede to the idea of race by asking employers to hire African Americans instead of European immigrants, but the basis for his argument isn't about racial differences but instead about socioeconomic difference (his arguments apply also to poor White Americans). The issue of discrimination, as seen in these two works issued almost a century apart, comes from the existence of the idea of race.
In Song of Solomon, a rich African American family is isolated from the upper class because of their color while differentiated from poor African Americans because of their money. The stereotypes that classified people into rich Whites or poor Blacks left the Dead family in an undefined spot of society. Throughout the book each family member struggles to find his or her place in society because of the stratifying ideas implanted in their thoughts. Macon Sr is obsessed with having a family that behaves in a high-class manner. Ruth doesn't truly get along neither with white upper class women nor with poor African Americans. The children of these two struggle to find a way to live as they don't fit in mainstream stereotypes and are perplexed by their parents and their ideas about status in society. As a result of the social ideas of the parents, their children become incompatible with society and fail according to their standards. Neither of the daughters can get married and Milkman just wants to get away. Because of the strict classifying ideas of society, the children were excluded from some groups and didn't fully fit in anywhere. While not being a member of a specific group can be bad, the book also shows how social divisions affected most African Americans. As people discriminate because of the color of the skin, many other characteristics are oversimplified into being features of a race. Morrison shows that many characteristics of people are falsely attributed to the fallacious idea of race.
Booker T. Washington's speech is much more political but it shares Morrison's ideas about race. He says, "No race can prosper till it learns that there is as much dignity in tilling a field as in writing a poem. It is at the bottom of life we must begin, and not at the top. Nor should we permit our grievances to overshadow our opportunities." The previous quotation shows that the false distinctions created by the idea of race keep people from prospering. If someone concretely divides White roles from Black roles in society, slavery or unfair labor conditions are created. Race is a fallacy as it assumes that traits shared by a group of people similar in color are an effect of this. By socially constructing these differences between Blacks and Whites, discrimination begins to happen. Washington suggests that we get rid of those differences by having similar opportunities and forgiving bad aspects of this erroneous differentiation as obsessing about discrimination towards a specific group might lead to acknowledge that the group exists. He ends the speech promoting "absolute justice" and the "blotting out of sectional differences" because the differences should exist.
Both Morrison and Washington subtly or directly show that the existence of race is damaging to society. Race is a many questions fallacy, one "in which two or more issues get merged into one," using Thank You For Arguing's definition. Undoubtedly there are people with different tones of skin, which does have a biological basis, but this doesn't mean that there are two distinct groups of humans. Washington does concede to the idea of race by asking employers to hire African Americans instead of European immigrants, but the basis for his argument isn't about racial differences but instead about socioeconomic difference (his arguments apply also to poor White Americans). The issue of discrimination, as seen in these two works issued almost a century apart, comes from the existence of the idea of race.
Dangling Modifiers
As I read the NYT style manual editor, I quickly recognized the dangling modifiers in some of the sentences. A lot of times studying or preparing specifically for a test can be detrimental but in many cases some of the knowledge actually does stay in your mind. When practicing for the SAT, I usually didn't learn new things but rather became more proficient or faster in them. However, for the writing section I did have to learn some grammar rules because I often say or hear grammatically wrong things. Even if those mistakes don't really affect what I'm communicating and I usually correct them if I have time to go over my writing, I didn't want them to affect my chances of getting into a good college. Some of these grammar mistakes I usually did are dangling modifiers, but, hopefully, I've learned and stopped doing them. These are phrases that modify another thing or phrase that are not the ones that should be. The NYT article uses this example:
But on Saturday, traveling in Zabul Province in southern Afghanistan on a day trip to deliver books to schoolchildren, Ms. Smedinghoff’s promisewas cut short by a Taliban car bomb.
Although the idea is communicated, for the sake of clarity it is important to revise the sentence. Originally I learned the rules about dangling modifiers to identify them as mistakes in the SAT writing section but I think (or hope) that now I'm applying them to my writing. Tests can be a good way to learn.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Meaning
Before I continue reading I decided that I should look up the most evident and important allusions that aren't explained in the novel
Ruth
Like many other ones on the book, Ruth is a biblical name. Meaning companion in Hebrew, the name fits the character's role in the novel. In the Book of Ruth in the Bible, Ruth tells her mother-in-law that "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay." In Song of Solomon, Ruth marries Macon and, although they kind of hate each other, she remains his oppressed and obedient wife. In both cases Ruth represents faithfulness, but Morrison shows it in a bad way.
Pilate
Named accidentally after the procurator of Jesus trial, Macon's sister so far is a figure of bad influence in the book. Macon doesn't let his children know anything about her because she is a snake. She hasn't done anything in particular to make him hate her but he says her way of being is enough. Pilate's name also shows how African Americans' disadvantages, in this case education, stick to them through life. Her dad picked a name at random of the bible and unluckily chose the name of a traitor. Even though her name might mean that she's a bad influence, as Milkman gets to know her it seems more like it might represent that she was unfairly troubled since her birth, like Blacks were treated badly although they didn't do anything.
First Corinthians
First Corinthians contains some of the most famous phrases of the New Testament. In the novel, she's the only one of the family that went to college, so Morrison perhaps used her name to show her knowledge. Some important quotations from the Bible book include "all things to all men," "without love, I am nothing" and "when I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I though as a child," all which relate to Morrison's thoughts. The book clearly comments on inequality and discrimination, feminism and growing up, reflected by these quotations respectively.
Magdalene called Lena
Named after Mary Magdalene, Milkman's sister will probably represent either something controversial or support. In "history," she was suspected to be a prostitute, Jesus' lover or wife and/or another disciple. She helped him along his life, making her one of the most important women in the Bible. I haven't noticed so far how the biblical story might relate to the novel's character but I thought it's probably useful to have this possible allusion in mind.
Hagar
All the controversy going on with Islam and jihad is Hagar's fault. Apparently she gave birth to Abraham's first son, as she was his slave and his wife couldn't have children, but then his wife had another child. The brotherly fight between Ishmael, Hagar's son, and Isaac created two religions. In Song of Solomon, Hagar is Pilate's granddaughter and Milkman's crush. I have yet to see how Hagar's symbolic tale, which I oversimplified, relates to the novel.
Vocabulary:
Ruth
Like many other ones on the book, Ruth is a biblical name. Meaning companion in Hebrew, the name fits the character's role in the novel. In the Book of Ruth in the Bible, Ruth tells her mother-in-law that "Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay." In Song of Solomon, Ruth marries Macon and, although they kind of hate each other, she remains his oppressed and obedient wife. In both cases Ruth represents faithfulness, but Morrison shows it in a bad way.
Pilate
Named accidentally after the procurator of Jesus trial, Macon's sister so far is a figure of bad influence in the book. Macon doesn't let his children know anything about her because she is a snake. She hasn't done anything in particular to make him hate her but he says her way of being is enough. Pilate's name also shows how African Americans' disadvantages, in this case education, stick to them through life. Her dad picked a name at random of the bible and unluckily chose the name of a traitor. Even though her name might mean that she's a bad influence, as Milkman gets to know her it seems more like it might represent that she was unfairly troubled since her birth, like Blacks were treated badly although they didn't do anything.
First Corinthians
First Corinthians contains some of the most famous phrases of the New Testament. In the novel, she's the only one of the family that went to college, so Morrison perhaps used her name to show her knowledge. Some important quotations from the Bible book include "all things to all men," "without love, I am nothing" and "when I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I though as a child," all which relate to Morrison's thoughts. The book clearly comments on inequality and discrimination, feminism and growing up, reflected by these quotations respectively.
Magdalene called Lena
Named after Mary Magdalene, Milkman's sister will probably represent either something controversial or support. In "history," she was suspected to be a prostitute, Jesus' lover or wife and/or another disciple. She helped him along his life, making her one of the most important women in the Bible. I haven't noticed so far how the biblical story might relate to the novel's character but I thought it's probably useful to have this possible allusion in mind.
Hagar
All the controversy going on with Islam and jihad is Hagar's fault. Apparently she gave birth to Abraham's first son, as she was his slave and his wife couldn't have children, but then his wife had another child. The brotherly fight between Ishmael, Hagar's son, and Isaac created two religions. In Song of Solomon, Hagar is Pilate's granddaughter and Milkman's crush. I have yet to see how Hagar's symbolic tale, which I oversimplified, relates to the novel.
Song of Solomon
Song of Solomon is the last book of the Old Testament, one that talks about love and sex. AKA the Song of Songs, this book or song is supposed to be one of the greatest. It also comments on the relationship between God and Israel. As in the last names I've mentioned, the title's meaning isn't clear still. I guess I'll write a blog post about it later.
_____________________________________________
- Bereft: deprived or lacking something.
- Stout: fat or heavy built/brave and determined.
- Lilt: pleasant sound or accent.
- Sturdy: strongly and solidly built.
- Lithe: thin and graceful.
- Hearse: vehicle for carrying a coffin to a funeral.
- Pique: feeling of irritation or resentment.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Family Life
In my previous blog post I briefly mentioned gender roles, an issue that related to the way we act within our family. Morrison is clearly commenting on the problems of society (well, as most authors do), further than just about racism. A defined family structure might have its benefits, but as the book shows wanting an ideal lifestyle creates a problem as everyone has his or her own version of it. By showing Macon's frustration about family relationships, Morrison comments on the importance of family
So far, the author has contrasted the loose organization of Pilate's home with Macon's old-fashioned style. Both versions of family seem rudimentary for twenty-first century standards, but it is important to see how each came to be.
On one side, Macon tries to have a patriarchal home. He acts, and is, the leader and center of the household. Milkman grows up disliking his father yet bound to him probably because of his strict personality. As a child he wanted his father to explain things to him and communicate with him, but all he got was exclusion. As Milkman grew up, he began to love his father while holding a grudge for him. Eventually, he gets angry enough at him and hits him after Macon hit his mother. The fact that only Milkman stood up to her after years of fighting shows that only men could afford to do that in their family or even in their society. Even though Ruth probably contributed to their wealth and had enough power to shake him up, Macon represents oppressive men that, despite his reasons for being like that, impede women from progressing. Morrison shows his machismo, the narrator says, "Milkman looked at his sisters. He had never been able to really distinguish them (or their roles) from his mother" (pg. 68). As Macon raised Milkman in a misogynist way, his son came to the point where he barely thought about his mother. Macon Dead's family represents the old-fashioned misogynist family that has been twisted by the situation of African Americans.
Meanwhile, Pilate has a completely different family life. She's a grandmother at a young age because both, her and her daughter, had early pregnancies. Neither of them got married and lived in a way that embarrassed Pilate's brother. Although Macon is rich and his family lives comfortably, Pilate's family seems happier. She sits with her daughter and granddaughter to make their fruit wine, which they won't sell much, and sing in harmony, enjoying the moment even though everything seems to be doing badly. Pilate doesn't get to live in one of the best houses in their town nor is married to one of the richest men, but she is freer and happier than Ruth, her sister-in-law. Morrison suggests that discrimination is worse than poverty.
So far, the author has contrasted the loose organization of Pilate's home with Macon's old-fashioned style. Both versions of family seem rudimentary for twenty-first century standards, but it is important to see how each came to be.
On one side, Macon tries to have a patriarchal home. He acts, and is, the leader and center of the household. Milkman grows up disliking his father yet bound to him probably because of his strict personality. As a child he wanted his father to explain things to him and communicate with him, but all he got was exclusion. As Milkman grew up, he began to love his father while holding a grudge for him. Eventually, he gets angry enough at him and hits him after Macon hit his mother. The fact that only Milkman stood up to her after years of fighting shows that only men could afford to do that in their family or even in their society. Even though Ruth probably contributed to their wealth and had enough power to shake him up, Macon represents oppressive men that, despite his reasons for being like that, impede women from progressing. Morrison shows his machismo, the narrator says, "Milkman looked at his sisters. He had never been able to really distinguish them (or their roles) from his mother" (pg. 68). As Macon raised Milkman in a misogynist way, his son came to the point where he barely thought about his mother. Macon Dead's family represents the old-fashioned misogynist family that has been twisted by the situation of African Americans.
Meanwhile, Pilate has a completely different family life. She's a grandmother at a young age because both, her and her daughter, had early pregnancies. Neither of them got married and lived in a way that embarrassed Pilate's brother. Although Macon is rich and his family lives comfortably, Pilate's family seems happier. She sits with her daughter and granddaughter to make their fruit wine, which they won't sell much, and sing in harmony, enjoying the moment even though everything seems to be doing badly. Pilate doesn't get to live in one of the best houses in their town nor is married to one of the richest men, but she is freer and happier than Ruth, her sister-in-law. Morrison suggests that discrimination is worse than poverty.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Futureless Mentality
Despite their economic standing, the Dead family is stuck in its unfortunate past and cannot move forward, making them neither a poor African American family nor privileged White one. As the Deads aren't part of the clichéd categories the media portrays, Morrison makes the reader understand social issues in a different way. In this section of the book, the author has shown how Milkman can't look forward and progress and can't either truly understand his history. When taking a ride in the Dead's hearse, Milkman could only look back, something that later Morrison expands on when saying that, "It was becoming a habit--this concentration on things behind him. Almost as though there were no future to be had" (pg. 35). When I began reading this book I expected it to be about poverty-stricken African Americans, probably because of my lack of exposure to this subject, but the author is showing how racial issues go beyond wealth or slavery. Morrison is beginning to show how being different from one's stereotype can create a confusion about oneself. While the book shows how stereotypes can cause uncertainty about identity in African Americans, this is true about segregated groups as a whole.
Clichés about African Americans are evident on the book but I believe there is a similar nature that affects other discriminated groups. In the case of women, even though they're not a minority, by being underrepresented they act like one and might end up in a situation similar to the Dead's. I recently read an article in Time about Sheryl Sandberg, a Facebook businesswoman, regarding her new book intended to reboot feminism. By reading the article and commenting on Lean In, Sandberg's book, with my sister, who read it, I've noticed that I share many of her ideas and can relate women's discrimination to some aspects of Song of Solomon.
As society objectifies minorities, people begin to identify themselves not by their personalities but by the superficial aspects that separate them from others. The issue beneath discrimination isn't only the visible part of it but rather the mental part of it. In the setting of the novel, society taught White people that Blacks were different, but that didn't stop there. Minorities are even more susceptible to become mentally prejudicial against themselves. Corinthians declares that, "Negroes don't like the water"(pg. 35) and Mrs. Bains says that, "A nigger in business is a terrible thing to see" (pg. 22). Self-discrimiantion or differentiation has appeared more in the novel than the evident White bigotry to show that society penetrates our brains with bias. So far in the book, Morrison has shown that intolerance can go deep enough to the point where it influences all our thoughts. Feminism faces this issue in the present now that legal barriers have been overcome. As tangible discrimination is mostly over in the West (or the US at least), feminism slowed down because only mental carries were left. Sandberg proposes to fight against the deep-rooted aspects of discrimination that cause women from impede themselves from being successful. Just like characters in Song of Solomon have prejudices about themselves and Milkman is stuck with his past, many women that decide to work feel insecure about who they are and might try to fit into the male working model. Both cases of discrimination, against African Americans and against women, show that we need to get rid of social stereotypes because they make us limit ourselves, not to mention be treated unfairly by others. Milkman, when talking to his aunt, feels uncertain about his identity. His family is rich but their past, represented by Pilate, was miserable. As Blacks were put all together into one category by society, the Deads didn't quite fit in. Similarly, many people still have outdated beliefs about gender roles. People should change their way of thinking about labor and their "responsibilities" as men or women for life to be fair for all. Segregation or violence against a group are the effects of a discriminative mind that society creates. Although it sounds naive, for those issues to be resolved, there shouldn't be categorization in society.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
A Deliberate Creation
I began reading Song of Solomon a few hours after a discussion in my Spanish class about drafting novels. We were talking about Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, which involves many allusions, historical events, a criminal investigation and several plots, and even though we were all amazed that he spent around ten years writing the book, it actually seems reasonable. A good novel isn't just an amusing story but rather one that has no unnecessary parts because all construct the author's main ideas. As I began reading Toni Morrison's novel, admittedly with the help of the author's foreword, I could see that she chose every single detail deliberately to build up the plot and, I presume, critique something.
The opening line, as Morrison states in the foreword, is not just a brief narration I would likely go over quickly. She writes, "The North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance agent promised to fly from Mercy to the other side of Lake Superior at three o'clock." Morrison explains that she was mocking journalistic writing as she gave important signs or clues (like Eco). "North Carolina"and "Lake Superior" suggest a trip from south to north, the company's name is important because of "mutual" and "life," which apparently will mean something, and because it's owned by someone Black. As you continue to read you soon realize the importance of "Mercy" and Mr. Smith's story.
I began reading looking for signs or symbolism in the plot, perhaps motivated by the foreword, and although I don't understand some of them, I've seen that the book has a complex plot and meaning. One of the first things I noticed was the meaning of the names. The names have meanings, like Dead to show how life was miserable for them and that when Ruth became Dead, she joined Macon's sort of sad lifestyle, but what I found interesting about them was the situation that lead to their existence. Many African Americans got their last names from slave owners many generations ago and have inherited since the unaffectionate designations. They had to "abide by a naming done to them by somebody who couldn't have cared less," (pg. 18)'s Morrison writes it. So far in the book, it is clear that Morrison will explore African American identity and the ambiguity in the lives of people like the Deads, separated from other Blacks by their wealth. Both Ruth and Macon have lived different lives from most African Americans around them but they keep looking back at their past. While she tries to hold on to something through her afternoons breastfeeding Milkman or her comfort when looking at the tablecloth's watermark, Macon had a hard childhood that makes his family be dead-like. The book shows African American reality through a broad spectrum clearly beyond the conventional depictions.
Song of Solomon has an interesting beginning that introduces several themes I adequately don't understand or even spot right on but I like the way Morrison begins to present them. The plot is amusing and, so far, insightful into the history of African Americans.
The opening line, as Morrison states in the foreword, is not just a brief narration I would likely go over quickly. She writes, "The North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance agent promised to fly from Mercy to the other side of Lake Superior at three o'clock." Morrison explains that she was mocking journalistic writing as she gave important signs or clues (like Eco). "North Carolina"and "Lake Superior" suggest a trip from south to north, the company's name is important because of "mutual" and "life," which apparently will mean something, and because it's owned by someone Black. As you continue to read you soon realize the importance of "Mercy" and Mr. Smith's story.
I began reading looking for signs or symbolism in the plot, perhaps motivated by the foreword, and although I don't understand some of them, I've seen that the book has a complex plot and meaning. One of the first things I noticed was the meaning of the names. The names have meanings, like Dead to show how life was miserable for them and that when Ruth became Dead, she joined Macon's sort of sad lifestyle, but what I found interesting about them was the situation that lead to their existence. Many African Americans got their last names from slave owners many generations ago and have inherited since the unaffectionate designations. They had to "abide by a naming done to them by somebody who couldn't have cared less," (pg. 18)'s Morrison writes it. So far in the book, it is clear that Morrison will explore African American identity and the ambiguity in the lives of people like the Deads, separated from other Blacks by their wealth. Both Ruth and Macon have lived different lives from most African Americans around them but they keep looking back at their past. While she tries to hold on to something through her afternoons breastfeeding Milkman or her comfort when looking at the tablecloth's watermark, Macon had a hard childhood that makes his family be dead-like. The book shows African American reality through a broad spectrum clearly beyond the conventional depictions.
Song of Solomon has an interesting beginning that introduces several themes I adequately don't understand or even spot right on but I like the way Morrison begins to present them. The plot is amusing and, so far, insightful into the history of African Americans.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
When We Are Not Sure, We Are Alive
The titles of chapters O, P and Q are contradiction, doubt and thinking respectively. I found these chapters interesting as they show the uncertainty of the human mind. We don't and will not understand everything and our thoughts aren't perfect or logical. This topic is relevant in the book as it deals with how we express and perceive ideas, which is ultimately our reality and our art.
Humans feel superior to other animals, and well I guess we are, but we still have the same type of thinking. In studies to see children's emotional coefficients (EQs), scientists have seen that a lot simply cannot control themselves from eating candy even if they know they'll get a better reward if they wait. Some kids did wait and were rewarded, but short-term instincts are part of all humans at some point. Even when we know that doing something will not be good eventually, we often act upon impulses. Our brains are not completely logical so we must try to make the best out of them.
Shields writes several antithetical statements like "This sentence is a lie" (pg. 135), "Something can be true and untrue at the same time" (pg. 135) and "There's nothing and everything going on" (pg. 137). The first shows that things can be contradictory. Two opposing ideas can coexist because there isn't one reality where things are either true or false, as the second antithetical statement says. The third points out that perception changes reality. Previous chapter included all these ideas but Shields is now showing not only that there are many realities, as I wrote in previous blog posts, but that the term reality is paradoxical. I guess that in our search for truth we will find many because our brains are genetically susceptible to see everything differently. I acknowledge that I have a very Darwinist way of thinking but humans simply are quarreling lost animals and don't have the capacity to be objective (there is "evidence" that genes influence politics). Shields writes, "The real story isn't the official story; the real story is my version (wrong, too, but I'm aware that it's wrong) of the official story" (pg. 139). Since everyone sees things differently, there cannot be one reality. There are many realities, which is paradoxical with the definition of reality: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them," according to my computer's dictionary.
Humans feel superior to other animals, and well I guess we are, but we still have the same type of thinking. In studies to see children's emotional coefficients (EQs), scientists have seen that a lot simply cannot control themselves from eating candy even if they know they'll get a better reward if they wait. Some kids did wait and were rewarded, but short-term instincts are part of all humans at some point. Even when we know that doing something will not be good eventually, we often act upon impulses. Our brains are not completely logical so we must try to make the best out of them.
Shields writes several antithetical statements like "This sentence is a lie" (pg. 135), "Something can be true and untrue at the same time" (pg. 135) and "There's nothing and everything going on" (pg. 137). The first shows that things can be contradictory. Two opposing ideas can coexist because there isn't one reality where things are either true or false, as the second antithetical statement says. The third points out that perception changes reality. Previous chapter included all these ideas but Shields is now showing not only that there are many realities, as I wrote in previous blog posts, but that the term reality is paradoxical. I guess that in our search for truth we will find many because our brains are genetically susceptible to see everything differently. I acknowledge that I have a very Darwinist way of thinking but humans simply are quarreling lost animals and don't have the capacity to be objective (there is "evidence" that genes influence politics). Shields writes, "The real story isn't the official story; the real story is my version (wrong, too, but I'm aware that it's wrong) of the official story" (pg. 139). Since everyone sees things differently, there cannot be one reality. There are many realities, which is paradoxical with the definition of reality: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them," according to my computer's dictionary.
 |
| There simply will not be one truth. |
Representation Hunger
Michael Kimball (from the article) allowed people to see their lives in a summarized simple way that made them happy. As David Shields points out in chapters K, M and N, people want to see their dreamed reality in literature, as Kimball's postcards showed people's lives. The writer of the Guardian article, referring to the postcards, wrote, "It felt like being exposed, but also strangely satisfying; the postcard doesn't sum up my life, but what got me to where I am now. It's a snapshot of a moment." As a short and oversimplifying type of literature, the postcards show what people want to read. People like enjoy reading them and apparently can even cure their depression from it. Memoirs are the same. This genre is defined as a written account of someone's memory of certain events or people. Authors craft a version of their lives when choosing what and how to write. As everything we do and say is rhetorical, and people like to win, whenever you can show a reality you'll want to show your version of it. Art seeks to find fulfillment--its purpose is to satisfy its creator (I've never heard of anyone who writes or creates some type of art to hurt him or herself). It is clear that literature is biased in the author's interests. As people share existential problems, readers often find a similar satisfaction as the author.
Shields is trying to show that nonfiction doesn't exist. It is an abstract idea that is incompatible with the human mind. Section 385 describes that point: "The roominess of the term nonfiction: an entire dresser labeled nonsocks." Shields also quotes, "We make a mistake in thinking of memoir as nonfiction. It's really nonpoetry" (pg. 134). These chapters of Reality Hunger pointed out that the usual term of nonfiction doesn't work on human-made works.
Self-Created Realities
As I read further into Reality Hunger, I've begun to understand what David Shields means by the title. The first chapters talked about imitation in language (mimesis), the recurring ideas in art along history, the changes and problems of art in the present and, finally, what reality is. The answer to that, as I've understood, is that there isn't a single definition. Reality is a blur that each of us defines. Shields, using a new genre, is trying to show that the typical ones (fiction, nonfiction, memoirs, etc.) are not enough and that we need a new type of art that helps us understand our realities.
G-blur
If there is something that I've gotten so far from Reality Hunger is that our defined genres have aged enough and do not work well for our societies. In chapter G, Shields introduces that fiction and nonfiction works cannot be categorized into only one category. In section 205 says, “The poles of fiction and nonfiction are constantly bouncing their force fields back and forth between each other." Although I hadn't thought of it ever before, now I really agree with Shields point. The modernist strict distinctions between genres have fallen apart and are now outdated for people's means of expression. A book nowadays isn't strictly of one of those two genres.
I've recently read several of David Sedaris' memoirs or essay collections and a biography of Louis XIV. Supposedly both are nonfiction but they're truly just different ways of expression. In chapter G, Shields refers to genres saying "It's all in the art" (section 225), and think it applies to these books. Sedaris shows his reality were he portrays his family in a very biased way. Some books of his books show the same people in different ways. For example, in some personal essays his father is strict and close-minded but in others he is laid back and comforting, showing that there's not one reality. I'm sure that Sedaris works off from actual events but the absurd situations he often writes about include distortions from his memory and desire to make it funnier. His memoirs are fictitious nonfiction. As for Louis XIV's biography, the author constantly cites her sources or mentions facts. The author probably wants her book to be very historically accurate but if you compare her interpretations about the French king with others, you see that there isn't one right version. When someone writes nonfiction, he or she twists it into fiction simply by writing it. There isn't fiction or nonfiction as you would need a single reality to define what each genre is.
The other point, the one I like better, is that everyone can share and access knowledge (if you have technology). It is evident that by sharing new movements can emerge before anyone has time to even notice. People started the revolutions of the Arab Spring because they realized what their situations were and they carried out the revolutions by inciting them online. The twenty-first century will have a lot of social and artistic movements because technology will allow them to grow quickly. The barriers in art and society that were imposed in the past are not longer sustainable for people's necessities and with technology that allows every person to engage globally, they will not survive. Section 245 shows the scenario Shields has described about the rise of postmodernism.
 |
| Did he really look like that? |
If there is something that I've gotten so far from Reality Hunger is that our defined genres have aged enough and do not work well for our societies. In chapter G, Shields introduces that fiction and nonfiction works cannot be categorized into only one category. In section 205 says, “The poles of fiction and nonfiction are constantly bouncing their force fields back and forth between each other." Although I hadn't thought of it ever before, now I really agree with Shields point. The modernist strict distinctions between genres have fallen apart and are now outdated for people's means of expression. A book nowadays isn't strictly of one of those two genres.
I've recently read several of David Sedaris' memoirs or essay collections and a biography of Louis XIV. Supposedly both are nonfiction but they're truly just different ways of expression. In chapter G, Shields refers to genres saying "It's all in the art" (section 225), and think it applies to these books. Sedaris shows his reality were he portrays his family in a very biased way. Some books of his books show the same people in different ways. For example, in some personal essays his father is strict and close-minded but in others he is laid back and comforting, showing that there's not one reality. I'm sure that Sedaris works off from actual events but the absurd situations he often writes about include distortions from his memory and desire to make it funnier. His memoirs are fictitious nonfiction. As for Louis XIV's biography, the author constantly cites her sources or mentions facts. The author probably wants her book to be very historically accurate but if you compare her interpretations about the French king with others, you see that there isn't one right version. When someone writes nonfiction, he or she twists it into fiction simply by writing it. There isn't fiction or nonfiction as you would need a single reality to define what each genre is.
H-now
We live in an age where facts, whether we perceive
them as “real” or fictitious, are pushed against us. With the media and social
networking showing us a version of what’s happening, and so making us doubt the
truthfulness of incidents, we are becoming hungry for reality. I feel that
chapters H and I began to introduce Shields’ idea of our reality hunger and
what it means. In section 245, Shields presents people’s enigmas in the
twenty-first century, which I agree with:
The culture disseminates greater and greater
access to the technology that creates various forms of media.
"Ordinary" people's cult of personal celebrity is nurtured by these
new modes of communication and presentation and representation. We're all
secretly practicing for when we, too, will join the ranks of the celebrated.
There used to be a monopoly on the resources of exposure. The rising
sophistication of the nonexpert in combination with the sensory overload of the
culture makes reality-based and self-reflexive art appealing now. There are
little cracks in the wall, and all of us "regular" people are pushing
through like water or, perhaps, weeds.
As the excerpt shows, technology clearly changes
the rules of sharing. There are several points to note. First is the
creation of the "personal celebrity." The superficiality nucleus of
society previously seen in social magazines or journalism is now spread over
everyone's life. With Facebook, Twitter and Instagram (among thousands of
similar websites), everyone can watch their friends' lives and his or her own
in a screen, as if everybody cared. Many people communicate with others showing
it to everyone (through Facebook) and post everything that happens to them
through tweets and, thanks to smartphones, to Instagram, as public figures in
the past made public announcements. Now everyone worries about communication,
many boost their egos and others destroy theirs.
The other point, the one I like better, is that everyone can share and access knowledge (if you have technology). It is evident that by sharing new movements can emerge before anyone has time to even notice. People started the revolutions of the Arab Spring because they realized what their situations were and they carried out the revolutions by inciting them online. The twenty-first century will have a lot of social and artistic movements because technology will allow them to grow quickly. The barriers in art and society that were imposed in the past are not longer sustainable for people's necessities and with technology that allows every person to engage globally, they will not survive. Section 245 shows the scenario Shields has described about the rise of postmodernism.
I-the reality-based community
"People like you are in what
we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from
judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really
works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
And while you're studying that reality (judiciously, as you will), we'll act
again, creating other realities, which you can study, too, and that's how
things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you–all of you–will be left
to just study what we do" (Section 253).
I agree with section 253 of Reality Hunger as it supports what I was writing about chapter G. As the world changes to become one in which every person can actually make a difference, art and society change. I do believe in the clichéd saying that everyone can make a difference in the world but only if you have access to technology. Shields mentions this "reality-based" community to show the change to postmodernism. The traditional society of the twentieth century has changed and so have our ways of expression. I suspect Shields will expand on that point specifically in art or literature.
________________________________________
I read several of my classmates' blogs and I agree to some extent with most of their interpretations of the book. From those that I read, the only that I disagree with was Lina's explanation of section 188. The fragment she quotes says, "I like to write stuff that's only an inch from life." Lina condemns that writer as a liar but if you see it from Shields' perspective there are no lies in art. Just like there isn't fiction or nonfiction or one reality, art cannot be a lie. She sees "unreal" writing as something bad, caused by our bad memory and feelings. I believe that perspective is what Reality Hunger says we need to get rid off. I understood section 188 as an example of the blur in genres and how that's OK.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Ambivalent Writing
After looking back at my research paper, I can see that there were some issues in my writing. Mr Tangen wrote, "I think the paper could have benefited from more coherence, but given the wide scope of the assignment I completely understood," something with which I agree. I believe my paper was good enough but I tried to cover a topic too large for a six-page essay.
What I understood overall from Mr Tangen's comments is that I need to integrate better my ideas throughout my writing and improve my diction. As in most of my writing, I used awkward words that probably only sound OK for students in CNG or people who speak a Spanish-influenced version of English. A lot of times CNG students like me use words that are phonetic translation of words in Spanish but have different meanings or connotations in English. Many of these end up sounding too French or Latin, like in an 18th or 19th century book (as we learned that during that time some people tried to incorporate Latin roots to make English more sophisticated). However, writing like that only sounds pompous or incoherent, not sophisticated. As for explaining my thesis better, or having "more coherence," I think that as I read and write more, I'll improve that. My issues in writing could be seen as all right with a descriptivist point of view but for academic writing, or just writing for school, I do need to improve in those areas. I perceive that by reading and writing more I could improve the issues I had in my research paper. Mr Tangen's comments were very accurate in my opinion and helped me see where I need to improve.
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
The Validity of Ideas
In the few chapters that I’ve read of Reality Hunger, Shields has begun to question what is plagiarism
and whether we really should abstain from using others’ ideas. The whole
structure of the book uses others’ work for his creation and he progressively
(or the fragments he uses) talks more about what copying means. In chapter “D”
he quotes, “When I worked at a newspaper, we were routinely dispatched to
‘match’ a story from the Times: to do
a new version of someone else’s idea. But if we had ‘matched’ any of the Times’s words… it could have been a
firing offense.” Shields shows that we are always using others’ ideas no matter
what. Even if you are some type of genius, your knowledge has its roots in what
other people have thought or discovered. Shields asks, if we are using others’
ideas, then why is it so wrong to use their words? Any work, as Reality Hunger shows, needs information
or allusions from other works or people.
Chapter “D” was interesting because it dealt with memoirs, a
genre we’ve discussed in class. Shield criticizes memoirs as they are accounts
of information. Everyone in the US does them and becomes famous with them. He
points out that we shouldn’t try to “frame reality” as even people who write
about themselves make up things. Basically he says that all language is
rhetorical so we should not look at it in such a restricting way.
 |
| JT Leroy |
While reading the book I thought it was interesting that not even a
person’s ideas are “OK” if they’re not properly presented, according to social
standards. Shields mentions JT Leroy several times, and in one point refers to
him as a hoax. I looked him up and found out that Jeremiah Terminator Leroy was
a pseudonym for Laura Albert, an American writer. Leroy made public appearances
and even signed documents, making everyone believe that he was an actual person
that wrote in The New York Times, but
as soon as Laura Albert was exposed, everyone began attacking her and she was
even convicted of fraud. I found this interesting as it shows how superficial
society can be with copyrights. It doesn’t actually matter whether Albert or
Leroy wrote the articles. What should matter are the new ideas, if she had any,
found in her writing. Society shouldn’t limit creativity by having compulsive
rules because they destroy the development of literature and knowledge.
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Artistic Breakthroughs
As art progresses and changes, it moves in a spiral pattern that is always trying to go forward but comes up with similar situations that it had in the past. The way humans express themselves always changes as their cultures and societies change with history. David Shields' book, Reality Hunger, begins by describing how artistic movements seek to express ideas in a new way by breaking barriers of their communication of how they see the world. Shields introduces that art in the present (around 2010) is taking new forms like literary montage given that people like him, "needn't say anything. Merely show." People in the present are putting reality in their works by combining ideas together rather than saying them. The author describes this moment of history as a breakthrough in art but a hundred years ago, and in many other points in history, art also faced a point where it needed new means of expression. F. T. Marinetti in "The Futurist Manifesto" excites a new artistic movement fueled by the technology and speed of modernity. Marinetti wanted to reanimate life and society in Italy in 1910 just like Shields wants to change literature in the present. Manifestos, as shown by the two authors, are calls for change and propositions of new ways of looking at things, in this case art. Both manifestos, "The Futurist Manifesto" and Reality Hunger, show how art is constantly facing moments in which it has to reshape itself to keep up with culture and ideas.
The two manifestos show different attitudes taken to solve the same problem: the need for new means of expression. While Shields proposes a technique that embraces others' ideas, Marinetti declares that he wants to separate from the past and create a new movement that does not "repeat those infamous words." Shields' perspective is somewhat similar to Borges' theory on writing. The Argentinian writer believed that his work was not much of an accomplishment as all he wrote was the product of someone else's ideas. In "The Circular Ruins" ("Las ruinas circulares"), Borges suggests that we are the synthesis of what other people have created. In another short story, "Pierre Menard, Author of Don Quixote," he suggests that literature is simply rewriting things as authors show them in their perspectives. Although he does not write literary collages like Shields, Borges does use a lot of intertextuality to show the same point. They believe that humans' art has always had plagiarism and elements taken from others. To accurately show reality through art, Shields suggests, we must put our ideas as we need to even if it involves using others' creations. Marinetti's manifesto shows how art in different historical situations requires different changes. In his time he felt that it needed to rejuvenate to catch up with the new fast-moving generation. The world was faster and better, according to him, so going back to the past was a mistake. The artistic movement that aroused after his critique sort of destroyed the ideas of the past, as Dadaism did. The two manifestos show how different scenarios require different types of art and different ways to change it. Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Speech Memorabilia
America is undoubtedly a melting pot, but for melting doesn't mean homogenization. Episode four of The Story of English explained the origins of Black English, while episode five showed how "American English" came to be. The former says that Africans contributed to English, while the latter states that the immigration of Germans, Italians and Jews, among others, "enriched American speech" (part VII, 1:18). This British production, which has identified all types of British speech as equally significant, oversimplifies dialects in America and refers to a specific American tongue. There is certainly an Italian way of speaking that is very different to that of African Americans, but neither can be referred to as the country's language. American speech has infinite versions and accents that may vary in frequency, but never can they be more correct. Languages grow to adapt to new situations in life and as the US is one of the most populated countries, it has had a lot of scenarios in which more ways of expressing oneself is needed. English has grown as it accommodates immigrants and people adapt to new technology and lifestyles.
As I watched the shows, I could see that a lot of the things that influenced what episode six defines as "American language" are still going on in different ways. The show mentioned that forty-niners (who were called like that even though the gold rush began in 1848) brought in new phrases to English, like referring to a good business as a gold mine, because new situations brought in new words into people's everyday lives (part III, 3:00). Nowadays language is adopting new words that the technology rush is creating. In this moment I'm blogging, making me a blogger, different from tweeters who prefer microblogging. Bloggers write about all types of subjects; there are eco-bloggers, mummy bloggers and blogonistas. Everything is bloggable in the blogosphere. As people's lives change, language must progress for people to be able to express their ideas and communicate. In the present, if English didn't accommodate technology, it would die because people wouldn't be able to communicate what influences most of everyday life.
A dynamic language is also necessary for supporting people's identity's. Cowboys (or cowmans or cowhands) aspire to be called "hands" (part IV, 3:00), showing how new lifestyles expand language as new identities are formed. The hacker community has created new words that describe the types of technology people there are. 4chan refers to people as "newfags," "oldfags," "Amerifags," "moralfags," all terms that refer to different types of users. It might have started as offensive but as people discovered a necessity to use those words they just became normal 4chan slang.
As for cultural identity, episode six shows the life around Little Italy and how Italian filtrated into English in that environment. The American melting pot isn't only made up of white Europeans--immigrants from all ethnicities, cultures and regions of the world arrive to the US and contribute to its society. Italians aren't massively arriving to the US, but Persians (or Iranians), among many others, do continue to migrate. People are starting to recognize formally the persian neighborhood of Los Angeles as Tehrangeles, showing how America continues to accommodate new cultures and languages. "American English" has a lot of words from Persian, like "assassin," "alfalfa," or "bronze." English probably adopted these words from a long time ago, but it shows that all types of immigration have affected the language.
As the evolution of English in the US shows, language changes as people's lives change. When new cultural aspects begin to influence, language must change to allow its speakers to progress. If a language didn't progress and stayed in the way people communicated in the past, people wouldn't be able to engage in modern life and either they would use another language and have a static culture. By listening to American English you can see that it has taken in words from many cultures and historical situations.
As I watched the shows, I could see that a lot of the things that influenced what episode six defines as "American language" are still going on in different ways. The show mentioned that forty-niners (who were called like that even though the gold rush began in 1848) brought in new phrases to English, like referring to a good business as a gold mine, because new situations brought in new words into people's everyday lives (part III, 3:00). Nowadays language is adopting new words that the technology rush is creating. In this moment I'm blogging, making me a blogger, different from tweeters who prefer microblogging. Bloggers write about all types of subjects; there are eco-bloggers, mummy bloggers and blogonistas. Everything is bloggable in the blogosphere. As people's lives change, language must progress for people to be able to express their ideas and communicate. In the present, if English didn't accommodate technology, it would die because people wouldn't be able to communicate what influences most of everyday life.
A dynamic language is also necessary for supporting people's identity's. Cowboys (or cowmans or cowhands) aspire to be called "hands" (part IV, 3:00), showing how new lifestyles expand language as new identities are formed. The hacker community has created new words that describe the types of technology people there are. 4chan refers to people as "newfags," "oldfags," "Amerifags," "moralfags," all terms that refer to different types of users. It might have started as offensive but as people discovered a necessity to use those words they just became normal 4chan slang.
As for cultural identity, episode six shows the life around Little Italy and how Italian filtrated into English in that environment. The American melting pot isn't only made up of white Europeans--immigrants from all ethnicities, cultures and regions of the world arrive to the US and contribute to its society. Italians aren't massively arriving to the US, but Persians (or Iranians), among many others, do continue to migrate. People are starting to recognize formally the persian neighborhood of Los Angeles as Tehrangeles, showing how America continues to accommodate new cultures and languages. "American English" has a lot of words from Persian, like "assassin," "alfalfa," or "bronze." English probably adopted these words from a long time ago, but it shows that all types of immigration have affected the language.As the evolution of English in the US shows, language changes as people's lives change. When new cultural aspects begin to influence, language must change to allow its speakers to progress. If a language didn't progress and stayed in the way people communicated in the past, people wouldn't be able to engage in modern life and either they would use another language and have a static culture. By listening to American English you can see that it has taken in words from many cultures and historical situations.
Friday, January 18, 2013
Rhythmical Languages
Around 70,000 years ago, Homo sapiens started to move out of Africa, making the story of humankind to begin bifurcating for the first time. The original population of humans divided into two groups: those who stayed and those who left. The ones who left eventually branched off to populate the rest of the world, but for a while, they remained as the groups which the powerful civilizations of the present may call ancestors. Those who left built their way of living as their migrated to different continents, but those who stayed in Africa didn't need to adapt much. When comparing genetics, there is Africa and then the rest of the world. I will refer to Sub-Saharan Africans as just Africans, which otherwise could include Northern Africans which came from those who left and then went back many thousands of years later.
The static circumstances of African culture kept people from needing something more of it. While in places like Europe more technology was necessary for surviving, simple tribal structures allowed Africans to live just fine. However, as most humans do, they did want entertainment. They did need to persuade others of political ideas or change their ways of living, but they did need to have some sort of amusement and to connect with family members. The only thing that was needed from language was to be fun and to keep the communities together. I don't know the origin of music or singing, but at some point of African history it started to merge with language as it was a solution for what Africans wanted. Perhaps it was also like that outside Africa but other problems of live forced people to change their community life and eventually drop the importance of musical rituals. Most African languages are tonal languages, meaning that pitch is a part of their speech and that it determines the meaning of words (like saying to present vs saying a present). Understanding this concept might be difficult for English speakers as the language is more technical and, for some time, less flexible. The way I get it might sound silly, but the original African languages were sort of chants that could mix well with music. Rather than having melodies, original African songs were simply methods of communication putting more emotion into the rhythm. The music of community rituals was speaking in a more artistic way.
The Gullah woman on The Story of English (parts I and II) makes her family sing and dance like slaves used to do as a way to pass on her African heritage to the next generations, using oral tradition as common in Africa. Just like African tribes used to gather around in musical rituals, the woman uses music as part of communicating with her ancestors. African communication goes way beyond the cold Nordic purely verbal relationships--it is about showing emotions vividly. As you can see in Colombia, regions influenced the most by Africans have warmer relations, like in the coast, but the far away mountain cities that didn't have slaves have a distant way of interacting, like in Bogota. I can certainly witness that interactions between Puerto Ricans are very direct, warm, emotive and use tone (and volume) as a way to show one's feeling. My mom believes she can justify yelling by saying it's her "Puerto Rican tone," one which allows you to talk mockingly, daringly and fervently.
The dislike of African Americans was pointless and didn't keep the immigrant culture from influencing the new one. The community musical traditions of many African cultures mixed together to form a new one that slaves did in plantations, as the Gullah woman says. African Americans brought a more musical way of living to the New World that eventually lead to new genres of music. Episode five showed African tribes' music and later on all the types of music that came from it (part II 3:16). American mainstream music through the past century has been greatly affected by Black artists. Just like The Story of English shows in parts V, VI and VII, the Harlem Renaissance and all the rap movement has had African influences. English wouldn't be what it's now if Africans had never gotten to America.
Source:
"Black on White." The Story of English. Wrti. Robert MacNeil, Robert McCrum and William Cran. MacNeil-Lehrer Productions and BBC, 1986. Youtube.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Language and Politics
I took this picture from a Colombian history book that mentions how newspapers changed their language for political purposes, as I had mentioned it last class. It's in Spanish but so I'll briefly translate it.
The day after the Conservative party lost the civil war of 1860-1863, whose typical nature keeps it from being written in upper case, the official newspaper of Cundinamarca changed its spelling from conservative to liberal. It started using Chilean writing as a way to oppose to the conservative godos, or those who used to be supporters of the Spanish crown.
Using specific dialects works rhetorically to promote political ideas. One might think that abandoning Spanish spelling would be a separatist act, but Colombia just looked up to another country. I feel like this paragraph from the book shows Colombia's essence.
Source:
Gutierrez Cely, Eugenio. "Guerra de 1860-1863." El Radicalismo. Bogota: Villegas Editores, 1990. 392. Print.
The day after the Conservative party lost the civil war of 1860-1863, whose typical nature keeps it from being written in upper case, the official newspaper of Cundinamarca changed its spelling from conservative to liberal. It started using Chilean writing as a way to oppose to the conservative godos, or those who used to be supporters of the Spanish crown.
Using specific dialects works rhetorically to promote political ideas. One might think that abandoning Spanish spelling would be a separatist act, but Colombia just looked up to another country. I feel like this paragraph from the book shows Colombia's essence.
Source:
Gutierrez Cely, Eugenio. "Guerra de 1860-1863." El Radicalismo. Bogota: Villegas Editores, 1990. 392. Print.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Destruction of Minorities
Episode fuir ay th' story ay sassenach shows hoo sassenach destroyed th' natife leid ay scootlund, a type ay gaelic. th' shaw explores hoo scottish influenced sassenach an' its expansion throoghit th' warld, an' Ah foond interestin' hoo leid worked as a way tae gie intae people's minds. th' dissolution ay scottish culture began when Jimmy vi ay scootlund becam Jimmy Ah ay englain, but fur most minorities, sassenach breaks apart their leid slowly an' progressively. at first, th' scottish aristocracy went abroad tae englain an' ben generations adapted tae th' leid an' acted as spreaders ay it, makin' current scottish aristocrats ken their ancestral leid as a hobby wi' "marks ay rusticity" (macneil, mccrum, cran 3:54). while changin' languages didne change their traditions reit awa', th' infiltration ay anither culture in their leid slowly changed their identities towards an english-controlled a body. when one's most maternal things ur altered tae a foreign perspectife, th' way a body feels abit oneself turns intae a subordinate ur rebellioos a body. mony scots, fur example, tried tae keep their religion in their leid sae 'at their beliefs wooldnae be altered by an sassenach perspectife (macneil, mccrum, cran 6:46). as their culture was affected by th' sassenach a body, some scots turned tae resistance against their authority while others hae begin tae see their culture as an inferiur a body. in th' case ay irelain, fowk hae responded aggressively tae th' attempts ay britain gettin' at their culture (macneil, mccrum, cran 0:25) whit thes episode shows happenin' in scootlund is a trend 'at happens when minorities encoonter a bigger power whose leid can gie intae their society an' control it. i dornt ken much abit th' amish, which th' episode mentions in a body point, but a similar scenario happens wi' these minority. th' shaw mentions 'at th' first amish fa arrived tae america started adoptin' th' scottish accent, althoogh mony ay them waur germans, makin' them hae a distinctife way ay 'spikin nowadays (macneil, mccrum, cran 1:27). amish fowk bide aroond th' idea ay conservin' th' way ay livin' ay th' pest, makin' onie interaction frae lae ay th' warld a threat tae their communities. their way ay 'spikin works as a conveyur ay their identity, precioos fur them. th' threat leid minorities coopon when encoonterin' th' powerful standard sassenach is loch th' hazards 'at holocomb, as shoon in in braw bluid by truman capote, faced wi' th' globalization ay th' warld. ance th' "ootside" warld invades a wee toon, th' population's identity an' society crumbles an' becomes a subordinate ay th' power behin' th' intrusion. sae far thaur huvnae bin real threats tae amish communities, they continue tae bide undisturbed, but as technology makes th' warld mair accessible, their way ay livin' is endangered. it's nae only abit th' leid which coods imposed oan them but th' soorce ay power behin' th' new variation 'at coods infiltrate their antiquated dialect. when a toon 'at seeks autonomy an' self-dependance loses control ower its identity, their society can collapse quickly.
______________________________________________________
Now in an understandable version:
Episode 4 of The Story of English shows how English destroyed the native language of Scotland, a type of Gaelic. The show explores how Scottish influenced English and its expansion throughout the world, and I found interesting how language worked as a way to get into people's minds. The dissolution of Scottish culture began when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, but for most minorities, English breaks apart their language slowly and progressively. At first, the Scottish aristocracy went abroad to England and through generations adapted to the language and acted as spreaders of it, making current Scottish aristocrats know their ancestral language as a hobby with "marks of rusticity" (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 3:54). While changing languages didn't change their traditions right away, the infiltration of another culture in their language slowly changed their identities towards an English-controlled one. When one's most maternal things are altered to a foreign perspective, the way one feels about oneself turns into a subordinate or rebellious one. Many Scots, for example, tried to keep their religion in their language so that their beliefs wouldn't be altered by an English perspective (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 6:46). As their culture was affected by the English one, some Scots turned to resistance against their authority while others have begun to see their culture as an inferior one. In the case of Ireland, people have responded aggressively to the attempts of Britain getting at their culture (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 0:25) What this episode shows happening in Scotland is a trend that happens when minorities encounter a bigger power whose language can get into their society and control it.
I don't know much about the Amish, which the episode mentions in one point, but a similar scenario happens with these minority. The show mentions that the first Amish who arrived to America started adopting the Scottish accent, although many of them were Germans, making them have a distinctive way of speaking nowadays (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 1:27). Amish people live around the idea of conserving the way of living of the past, making any interaction from the rest of the world a threat to their communities. Their way of speaking works as a conveyor of their identity, precious for them. The threat language minorities face when encountering the powerful Standard English is like the hazards that Holocomb, as shown in In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, faced with the globalization of the world. Once the "outside" world invades a small town, the population's identity and society crumbles and becomes a subordinate of the power behind the intrusion. So far there haven't been real threats to Amish communities, they continue to live undisturbed, but as technology makes the world more accessible, their way of living is endangered. It's not only about the language which could imposed on them but the source of power behind the new variation that could infiltrate their antiquated dialect. When a town that seeks autonomy and self-dependance loses control over its identity, their society can collapse quickly.
Source:
______________________________________________________
Now in an understandable version:
Episode 4 of The Story of English shows how English destroyed the native language of Scotland, a type of Gaelic. The show explores how Scottish influenced English and its expansion throughout the world, and I found interesting how language worked as a way to get into people's minds. The dissolution of Scottish culture began when James VI of Scotland became James I of England, but for most minorities, English breaks apart their language slowly and progressively. At first, the Scottish aristocracy went abroad to England and through generations adapted to the language and acted as spreaders of it, making current Scottish aristocrats know their ancestral language as a hobby with "marks of rusticity" (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 3:54). While changing languages didn't change their traditions right away, the infiltration of another culture in their language slowly changed their identities towards an English-controlled one. When one's most maternal things are altered to a foreign perspective, the way one feels about oneself turns into a subordinate or rebellious one. Many Scots, for example, tried to keep their religion in their language so that their beliefs wouldn't be altered by an English perspective (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 6:46). As their culture was affected by the English one, some Scots turned to resistance against their authority while others have begun to see their culture as an inferior one. In the case of Ireland, people have responded aggressively to the attempts of Britain getting at their culture (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 0:25) What this episode shows happening in Scotland is a trend that happens when minorities encounter a bigger power whose language can get into their society and control it.
I don't know much about the Amish, which the episode mentions in one point, but a similar scenario happens with these minority. The show mentions that the first Amish who arrived to America started adopting the Scottish accent, although many of them were Germans, making them have a distinctive way of speaking nowadays (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 1:27). Amish people live around the idea of conserving the way of living of the past, making any interaction from the rest of the world a threat to their communities. Their way of speaking works as a conveyor of their identity, precious for them. The threat language minorities face when encountering the powerful Standard English is like the hazards that Holocomb, as shown in In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, faced with the globalization of the world. Once the "outside" world invades a small town, the population's identity and society crumbles and becomes a subordinate of the power behind the intrusion. So far there haven't been real threats to Amish communities, they continue to live undisturbed, but as technology makes the world more accessible, their way of living is endangered. It's not only about the language which could imposed on them but the source of power behind the new variation that could infiltrate their antiquated dialect. When a town that seeks autonomy and self-dependance loses control over its identity, their society can collapse quickly.
 |
| "Amish Guy," Family Guy Click here for a politically incorrect parody of the Amish culture. |
Source:
"The Guid Scots Tongue." The Story of English. Wrti. Robert MacNeil, Robert McCrum and William Cran. MacNeil-Lehrer Productions and BBC, 1986. Youtube.
Monday, January 14, 2013
Le Snob
Episode two of The Story of English pointed out that after the Norman conquest of England in 1066, speaking French and later English influenced by French became a sign of sophistication. The languages of the original inhabitants of Britain as well as those of the Anglo-Saxon invaders became unsophisticated and harsh-sounding, while French became the language of the royalty and upper class. Poor serfs were ignorant of the new imposed foreign vocabulary, starting a tradition of having French as a sign of sophistication in the English language (MacNeil, McCrum, Cran 1:40). Throughout history Latin and French words have remained as the sophisticated way of speaking English for a lot of people's points of view. Although knowing French is not actually sophistication (it's just another language), the Western culture has seen this language as a cultured and elegant one. Simply by listening to different British accents you can see that the classy ones, or posh, have both an influence from French in lexicon and resonance, while the perceived as unsophisticated, like the cockney accent, has a gruff sound that resembles Germanic roots. Ever since the Battle of Hastings, French has remained as an attractive sound for English speakers and it's clear to see today.
After a French immersion summer program, I can witness that for the American eye, learning French means culture. I don't mean that people who learn French are sophisticated, but that the Americans that I met mostly saw their summer abroad as a part of their sophistication. Despite dislike between countries, many prestigious British boarding schools force students to learn French as part of their "posh" formation. The snobbiest people I've met have let me see that French is a part of way of speaking. For any culinary term to sound elegant and chic, it usually has French words (chic, hors d'oeuvres, à la carte, carte du jour, foie gras, fleur de del, cordon bleu, mousse, crêpes, crème, bon appétit). Although most of these terms have literal translations to English, like crème to creme, it is accepted and widely done to use the French alternative to make it more elegant, making many of these words now actual English words. If you want to socialize in a snobby way, you can ask someone for a rendezvous or a soirée and then ask them to RSVP (respondez s'il vous plait). Ever since the Norman conquest of England, among with other historical factors, French-based words in English have held some type of social prestige.
Source:
After a French immersion summer program, I can witness that for the American eye, learning French means culture. I don't mean that people who learn French are sophisticated, but that the Americans that I met mostly saw their summer abroad as a part of their sophistication. Despite dislike between countries, many prestigious British boarding schools force students to learn French as part of their "posh" formation. The snobbiest people I've met have let me see that French is a part of way of speaking. For any culinary term to sound elegant and chic, it usually has French words (chic, hors d'oeuvres, à la carte, carte du jour, foie gras, fleur de del, cordon bleu, mousse, crêpes, crème, bon appétit). Although most of these terms have literal translations to English, like crème to creme, it is accepted and widely done to use the French alternative to make it more elegant, making many of these words now actual English words. If you want to socialize in a snobby way, you can ask someone for a rendezvous or a soirée and then ask them to RSVP (respondez s'il vous plait). Ever since the Norman conquest of England, among with other historical factors, French-based words in English have held some type of social prestige.
Source:
"The Mother Tongue." The Story of English. Wrti. Robert MacNeil, Robert McCrum and William Cran. MacNeil-Lehrer Productions and BBC, 1986. Youtube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)