According to Tocqueville, the Americans make their women 'equal' by protecting and assuming they (women) are virtuous and give them separate roles in life*. He says that men should be heads of households and do physical labor and politics and business, but women are equal because they do housework and nothing else. He also describes in detail how American women are equal because they are virtuous and American men keep them that way because it makes them morally equal. He says that on the contrary, Europeans don't respect women's virtue (he talks about rape cases here) and that in Europe men easily are influenced by women while women like to pretend to be weak. (At least, I think that's what he says. That whole paragraph confused me).
*Something odd I thought of while writing this- when I was writing that sentence, I almost wrote and so they make them separate but equal and then I realized that that was the reasoning stated behind segregation practices way back when. So. I just found that interesting.
Thursday, 3 April 2008
Fairy Tale
The story I chose is the real, not Disneyfied version of the Little Mermaid. The value I got out of it while thinking about it wasn't exactly gender-specific in my mind, but I suppose it might be to others.
Anyway, the real version is not at all like the Disney version. The mermaid has to marry the prince to achieve an immortal soul or die. Then at the last moment, she gets an option- to kill the prince and live for 3 hundred years without such a soul. She chooses to die and because of her good deeds becomes a 'daughter of the air' and has to serve 3 hundred years doing good deeds. Then she will get a soul.
The value, or sort of value, I got from this was - be a good person and all will turn out (mostly) all right in the end, even if not completely, or not the way you thought it would. It turned out all right for her- after 3 hundred years she gets half her deepest wish- to get a soul. The story is sad, but it doesn't have a completely sad ending. I didn't think that when I was a little kid and read it, but I see it now. I think that sentiment applies to all fairy tales and so forth, though. We discussed this in class, too. When you are a little kid, you don't analyze anything. You just read/watch/listen to whatever story it is and are usually entertained by it. Anyway, I sort of disagree with what I learned from it. Things don't turn out all right just because you are a good person. But that's what the story is saying.
Anyway, the real version is not at all like the Disney version. The mermaid has to marry the prince to achieve an immortal soul or die. Then at the last moment, she gets an option- to kill the prince and live for 3 hundred years without such a soul. She chooses to die and because of her good deeds becomes a 'daughter of the air' and has to serve 3 hundred years doing good deeds. Then she will get a soul.
The value, or sort of value, I got from this was - be a good person and all will turn out (mostly) all right in the end, even if not completely, or not the way you thought it would. It turned out all right for her- after 3 hundred years she gets half her deepest wish- to get a soul. The story is sad, but it doesn't have a completely sad ending. I didn't think that when I was a little kid and read it, but I see it now. I think that sentiment applies to all fairy tales and so forth, though. We discussed this in class, too. When you are a little kid, you don't analyze anything. You just read/watch/listen to whatever story it is and are usually entertained by it. Anyway, I sort of disagree with what I learned from it. Things don't turn out all right just because you are a good person. But that's what the story is saying.
Emerson on Nature
I know we were only supposed to do 2 lines, but I have sort of a lot, because Emerson writes the longest, most drawn-out flowery phrases for the simplest things. Anyway:
So. Basically Emerson is saying that you should remake the world the way you want it- rid it of bad things and eveil things- and rule nature (because you are nature, if one takes into account what he says before in the essay.) in a good way. Now, what first struck me about this is the bolded part. It reminds me of global warming and how different Emerson sees the warming and 'greening' of the world than (some) people do today. This is most likely because of science and so forth, but I still found it interesting. He thinks when snow melts and bad things recede (odd how he says swine- doesn't that mean pigs?-don't people eat pigs?-is he a vegetarian?) then good things will fill in everything. Now, we are more scientifically savvy and know that when you remove or alter part of a system (eco or otherwise) it alters good things as well- we all have niches we must fill. Most specifically, this applies to his statement of 'swine, spiders, snakes, pests'. Also, he assumes that if man desires and achieves a certain amount of control (or coexistence) with nature and thus himself, he'll get rid of crime. This makes it seem as if he believes in the innate goodness of human nature. Something I disagree with.Anyway, this whole passage is about man fixing things to make it better- it is my opinion that he should just leave it as it is- it is better that way.
As fast as you conform your life to the pure idea in your mind, that will unfold its great proportions. A correspondent revolution in things will attend the influx of the spirit. So fast will disagreeable appearances, swine, spiders, snakes, pests, madhouses, prisons, enemies, vanish; they are temporary and shall be no more seen. The sordor and filths of nature, the sun shall dry up, and the wind exhale. As when the summer comes from the south; the snow-banks melt, and the face of the earth becomes green before it, so shall the advancing spirit create its ornaments along its path, and carry with it the beauty it visits, and the song which enchants it; it shall draw beautiful faces, warm hearts, wise discourse, and heroic acts, around its way, until evil is no more seen. The kingdom of man over nature, which cometh not with observation, -- a dominion such as now is beyond his dream of God,-- he shall enter without more wonder than the blind man feels who is gradually restored to perfect sight.'
So. Basically Emerson is saying that you should remake the world the way you want it- rid it of bad things and eveil things- and rule nature (because you are nature, if one takes into account what he says before in the essay.) in a good way. Now, what first struck me about this is the bolded part. It reminds me of global warming and how different Emerson sees the warming and 'greening' of the world than (some) people do today. This is most likely because of science and so forth, but I still found it interesting. He thinks when snow melts and bad things recede (odd how he says swine- doesn't that mean pigs?-don't people eat pigs?-is he a vegetarian?) then good things will fill in everything. Now, we are more scientifically savvy and know that when you remove or alter part of a system (eco or otherwise) it alters good things as well- we all have niches we must fill. Most specifically, this applies to his statement of 'swine, spiders, snakes, pests'. Also, he assumes that if man desires and achieves a certain amount of control (or coexistence) with nature and thus himself, he'll get rid of crime. This makes it seem as if he believes in the innate goodness of human nature. Something I disagree with.Anyway, this whole passage is about man fixing things to make it better- it is my opinion that he should just leave it as it is- it is better that way.
Friday, 21 March 2008
Art
I found it very difficult to find an art piece I 'connect' with, simply because I can't connect with pictures. My mind works in words- I can relate to writing, but pictures are just, well, pictures. Just images, just colours (or hues, if black and white and gray) on a surface. Sculpture is sort of the same. I admire people who can create art- but I can't connect with it. Therefore, I have chosen this piece:
I have no emotional connection to this painting. It does bring a memory to mind. My art teacher once told us that a famous artist (I forget who) drew a dot on a blank sheet and it sold for millions of dollars. At the time, I didn't really think much about it- I was more concerned with chewing on my fingernails. Now, it strikes me as unfair that normal people scorn the idea of buying a dot and that normal people wouldn't be able to do that. The things fame can do for you seem unfair. Even the disadvantages of fame (paparazzi, etc.) can't counteract all the good things it can do. Rich or famous? some people ask. The obvious answer is that if you're famous, it's easy to get rich (unless you're famous for being Gandhi or you're posthumously famous). When you're rich, unless you're also famous, it's not as easy to get famous, unless you're VERY rich. Wealth has degrees.
Also, I think it's a sign of my disconnect from the artistic world, that I was scornful of and amused at the description of the picture, which reads:
Newman proclaimed Onement, I to be his artistic breakthrough, giving the work an importance belied by its modest size. This is the first time the artist used a vertical band to define the spatial structure of his work. This band, later dubbed a "zip," became Newman's signature mark. The artist applied the light cadmium red zip atop a strip of masking tape with a palette knife. This thick, irregular band on the smooth field of Indian Red simultaneously divides and unites the composition.
I noticed several things. First: how on earth is a line on a page an artistic breakthrough? Anyone, even me, with no artistic talent, could do that. Second, it says 'belied by its modest size'. Size? Not belied by its simplicity, but its size? To me, that's very strange, that small paintings could be considered less important, but lines are not. Third, I find it very silly that people honour this painting for being the first to have a vertical line in it. Also, the last sentence seems overanalytical and also very silly. A line 'simultaneously divides and unites the composition'? Of course it divides: the page in half. You'd have to be stretching to get the unites though. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
I suppose you could continue to wax philosophical about it: say it represents a small part of a larger, hidden or secret whole, that it represents contrast and simplicity....etc. To me, though, it represents my general confusion, disinterest and (occasionally) scorn at art.
(And I wrote a lot about nothing, too, it seems)
I have no emotional connection to this painting. It does bring a memory to mind. My art teacher once told us that a famous artist (I forget who) drew a dot on a blank sheet and it sold for millions of dollars. At the time, I didn't really think much about it- I was more concerned with chewing on my fingernails. Now, it strikes me as unfair that normal people scorn the idea of buying a dot and that normal people wouldn't be able to do that. The things fame can do for you seem unfair. Even the disadvantages of fame (paparazzi, etc.) can't counteract all the good things it can do. Rich or famous? some people ask. The obvious answer is that if you're famous, it's easy to get rich (unless you're famous for being Gandhi or you're posthumously famous). When you're rich, unless you're also famous, it's not as easy to get famous, unless you're VERY rich. Wealth has degrees.
Also, I think it's a sign of my disconnect from the artistic world, that I was scornful of and amused at the description of the picture, which reads:
Newman proclaimed Onement, I to be his artistic breakthrough, giving the work an importance belied by its modest size. This is the first time the artist used a vertical band to define the spatial structure of his work. This band, later dubbed a "zip," became Newman's signature mark. The artist applied the light cadmium red zip atop a strip of masking tape with a palette knife. This thick, irregular band on the smooth field of Indian Red simultaneously divides and unites the composition.
I noticed several things. First: how on earth is a line on a page an artistic breakthrough? Anyone, even me, with no artistic talent, could do that. Second, it says 'belied by its modest size'. Size? Not belied by its simplicity, but its size? To me, that's very strange, that small paintings could be considered less important, but lines are not. Third, I find it very silly that people honour this painting for being the first to have a vertical line in it. Also, the last sentence seems overanalytical and also very silly. A line 'simultaneously divides and unites the composition'? Of course it divides: the page in half. You'd have to be stretching to get the unites though. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
I suppose you could continue to wax philosophical about it: say it represents a small part of a larger, hidden or secret whole, that it represents contrast and simplicity....etc. To me, though, it represents my general confusion, disinterest and (occasionally) scorn at art.
(And I wrote a lot about nothing, too, it seems)
End
What is Wright’s realization at the end of the novel? Do you agree with it?
His realization is that he has to try and explain what he's been through and try to make people realize what is going on and unite them to fix it. He also realizes he's basically on his own to do this because no one else sees the world the way he does. He thinks that this is a struggle maybe a lot of people go through, though he doesn't know any. Do I agree that he should do this? Of course. He shouldn't just give in to the system. No one should, if they believe they can do something about it.
His realization is that he has to try and explain what he's been through and try to make people realize what is going on and unite them to fix it. He also realizes he's basically on his own to do this because no one else sees the world the way he does. He thinks that this is a struggle maybe a lot of people go through, though he doesn't know any. Do I agree that he should do this? Of course. He shouldn't just give in to the system. No one should, if they believe they can do something about it.
Artists and politicians
Do you agree with Wright’s theory that artists and politicians stand at opposite poles?
No. It depends on the artist and politician. Those communists in the book obviously didn't get along with the artists. However, like anything else, it depends on the person. A more artistically-minded politician could in fact have things in common with an artist. I think they would have to agree politically, and the politician would have to have some liking for art(ists), but it's not impossible that they'd work together. For example, if a politician really does have his constituents' best interests at heart (ie he isn't corrupt or inefficient) and he wants to do something for the community, he can commission artwork like murals, paintings, etc. A politician's job is supposed to be to help out the community. If he does that with an open mind, there is no reason his ideas would conflict with artists'.
No. It depends on the artist and politician. Those communists in the book obviously didn't get along with the artists. However, like anything else, it depends on the person. A more artistically-minded politician could in fact have things in common with an artist. I think they would have to agree politically, and the politician would have to have some liking for art(ists), but it's not impossible that they'd work together. For example, if a politician really does have his constituents' best interests at heart (ie he isn't corrupt or inefficient) and he wants to do something for the community, he can commission artwork like murals, paintings, etc. A politician's job is supposed to be to help out the community. If he does that with an open mind, there is no reason his ideas would conflict with artists'.
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Crowd
Ch. 17-18, Blog – Can one voice move a crowd to action?
Yes, but it depends on who that voice is and what the crowd is. In the book, we see Wright realizing that the Communists can't reach the black population because they speak in high ideals and metaphors and things that aren't common knowledge in the impoverished black population. So the Communist speakers can't move that crowd to action. However, as seen by the fact that they can recruit successfully, a speaker can reach other crowds, like whites and 'intellectuals' and people like Wright.
Yes, but it depends on who that voice is and what the crowd is. In the book, we see Wright realizing that the Communists can't reach the black population because they speak in high ideals and metaphors and things that aren't common knowledge in the impoverished black population. So the Communist speakers can't move that crowd to action. However, as seen by the fact that they can recruit successfully, a speaker can reach other crowds, like whites and 'intellectuals' and people like Wright.
Election
Ch. 16, What do you think of Wright's action during the election?
This sort of goes back to what we were talking about in class one day- about whether Wright was 'good' or 'bad' and I said neither because he was human. So this isn't as deep and profound as that, but I think what he did made sense. He may have participated bribery and a corrupt election, but as he said- he needed the money. Even if he hadn't done anything for it, someone else would have. One person can't change anything; only groups can (though one perrson can incite a group to movement). After he did all that, then he wrote I Protest This Fraud on his ballot. What do I think of that? I think that all votes should be honest, even if they don't count individually, and if that was how he felt, that was a good thing to do. (Also, my dad did something like that once: he disliked both candidates so he put 'the corpse of Benjamin Franklin') Wright wrote something else about how he knew that the politicians would know that at least one person knew what was going on and that made him feel better. I understand that feeling.
This sort of goes back to what we were talking about in class one day- about whether Wright was 'good' or 'bad' and I said neither because he was human. So this isn't as deep and profound as that, but I think what he did made sense. He may have participated bribery and a corrupt election, but as he said- he needed the money. Even if he hadn't done anything for it, someone else would have. One person can't change anything; only groups can (though one perrson can incite a group to movement). After he did all that, then he wrote I Protest This Fraud on his ballot. What do I think of that? I think that all votes should be honest, even if they don't count individually, and if that was how he felt, that was a good thing to do. (Also, my dad did something like that once: he disliked both candidates so he put 'the corpse of Benjamin Franklin') Wright wrote something else about how he knew that the politicians would know that at least one person knew what was going on and that made him feel better. I understand that feeling.
Change
Ch. 12-14 Blog – Is the change Wright sets in motion at the end of Part I a positive or negative change?
Wright's change- his move to the North- is a positive change. He's going to try and change himself so that he can be more himself and won't have to act so subservient to the whites. He thinks that in the North, the people won't discriminate against him so much. His desire to become more equal is a positive thing. The North will help him along that path, even though there is just as much prejudice there, too. So it is a positive change because he's trying for something close to equality, which all humans deserve.
Wright's change- his move to the North- is a positive change. He's going to try and change himself so that he can be more himself and won't have to act so subservient to the whites. He thinks that in the North, the people won't discriminate against him so much. His desire to become more equal is a positive thing. The North will help him along that path, even though there is just as much prejudice there, too. So it is a positive change because he's trying for something close to equality, which all humans deserve.
Friday, 7 March 2008
Stealing
Explain Wright's moral dilemma concerning stealing. Is he justified in what he does?
~
He has never considered stealing before because he didn't think that stealing was an effective way to get anything. He views stealing as behaviour that makes blacks seem less equal to whites, because it's something whites can despise about blacks and so he also doesn't want to act as if he is inferior. However, after the incident at the eye people, he decides he has to leave the South or else he knows he'll slip up and get killed. However, he needs money. He isn't making enough money on his own. After his moral barriers break down a little after he smuggles liquor like everyone else, he finally does decide to take part in doing some illegal selling of tickets to get enough money to leave. I think he is justified in what he does. Getting killed and/or remaining miserable helps nobody, least of all him. Compunctions against stealing are all well and good when one isn't struggling for one's very existence. I think it's commendable that Wright held out as long as he did. I don't know that I would have. And since the white people were apparently practically encouraging blacks to steal, it might be what they deserve.
~
He has never considered stealing before because he didn't think that stealing was an effective way to get anything. He views stealing as behaviour that makes blacks seem less equal to whites, because it's something whites can despise about blacks and so he also doesn't want to act as if he is inferior. However, after the incident at the eye people, he decides he has to leave the South or else he knows he'll slip up and get killed. However, he needs money. He isn't making enough money on his own. After his moral barriers break down a little after he smuggles liquor like everyone else, he finally does decide to take part in doing some illegal selling of tickets to get enough money to leave. I think he is justified in what he does. Getting killed and/or remaining miserable helps nobody, least of all him. Compunctions against stealing are all well and good when one isn't struggling for one's very existence. I think it's commendable that Wright held out as long as he did. I don't know that I would have. And since the white people were apparently practically encouraging blacks to steal, it might be what they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
