"We the People..."
the first government produced by the people.
"unalienable rights"
America, the beautiful.
"Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
Locke. Montesquieu.
Jefferson. Franklin. Adams.
The bravery of those revolutionists in the late 18th century built a foundation for the country we live in today. I've known this all my life. And yet every once in a while it still just kind of hits me...how much was established that fourth of July in 1776.
Not just a Declaration of Independence. A Declaration of the Rights of Man(kind).
One document. 27 Amendments. 233 years.
Proud to be an American. Inspired to stand for something worthwhile.
Naive? Irrational? perhaps.
Overly optimistic or idealistic? Absolutely.
And yet...weren't those same forefathers described the same way...?
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
A Day In the LIfe
If anyone else out there is like me, you thought the "Interesting Narrative" of Olaudah Equiano was a bit difficult to follow at times...and so, I found a timeline of his life (HERE`,)
After discussion in class yesterday, I appreciate the fact that Equiano felt the need to include a lot of details in his narrative. The readers have little problem imagining the sights, the sounds, and even the smells in the different scenes he paints for us. And yet, was it completely necessary to go into AS MUCH detail as he did in the second half of his narrative? What purpose was he serving, retelling sea battle after sea battle?
I suppose this depends on the purpose of his narrative, of course. If he was advocating abolitionism or the horrors of slavery, then I especially don't understand the inclusion of his sea adventures. But if, truly, Equiano was just retelling his life's story, then maybe he thought that'd be of interest.
I still don't feel like we came to a conclusion on his purpose for writing this narrative...which makes me think: is there anyway for anyone to really know why he wrote it? Is there an exact answer to this question?
After discussion in class yesterday, I appreciate the fact that Equiano felt the need to include a lot of details in his narrative. The readers have little problem imagining the sights, the sounds, and even the smells in the different scenes he paints for us. And yet, was it completely necessary to go into AS MUCH detail as he did in the second half of his narrative? What purpose was he serving, retelling sea battle after sea battle?
I suppose this depends on the purpose of his narrative, of course. If he was advocating abolitionism or the horrors of slavery, then I especially don't understand the inclusion of his sea adventures. But if, truly, Equiano was just retelling his life's story, then maybe he thought that'd be of interest.
I still don't feel like we came to a conclusion on his purpose for writing this narrative...which makes me think: is there anyway for anyone to really know why he wrote it? Is there an exact answer to this question?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Here Comes The Sun
As I alluded in class on Tuesday, I was really interested in the significance of all the references to the Sun and light in Letters from a Peruvian Woman.
-Zilia often refers to Aza as her "light" or her "Sun". I think this not only refers to him being the Sun King, or the representative of her people's worship (god) on Earth, but also of quite literally, how he brightens her life and makes her life worth living. After all, what is a day without light? How miserable do all of South Bend gets when the permi-cloud again descends on the city for those morbid winter days.
-She speaks of the Sun as though it is unique to her world in Peru. I understand the comfort she would receive from seeing this celestial body in the sky, something familiar when everything else in her life was foreign and frightening.
-She references the enlightened philosophers she learns from in her studies, how they are the "lights of learning and all the help I need"
I did notice that this "light language", so prevalent in the first half of the book, is not used nearly as much in the second half of the novel. I wonder if that is another sign of Zilia becoming more "European" - relying more and more on her newly acquired French customs and lifestyle, less and less on her Incan heritage?
-Zilia often refers to Aza as her "light" or her "Sun". I think this not only refers to him being the Sun King, or the representative of her people's worship (god) on Earth, but also of quite literally, how he brightens her life and makes her life worth living. After all, what is a day without light? How miserable do all of South Bend gets when the permi-cloud again descends on the city for those morbid winter days.
-She speaks of the Sun as though it is unique to her world in Peru. I understand the comfort she would receive from seeing this celestial body in the sky, something familiar when everything else in her life was foreign and frightening.
-She references the enlightened philosophers she learns from in her studies, how they are the "lights of learning and all the help I need"
I did notice that this "light language", so prevalent in the first half of the book, is not used nearly as much in the second half of the novel. I wonder if that is another sign of Zilia becoming more "European" - relying more and more on her newly acquired French customs and lifestyle, less and less on her Incan heritage?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778) was a French writer, composer and philosopher. Born in Geneva to a Huguenot family, Rousseau ran to Savory at age 15 since his mother died in childbirth and his father was forced out of Geneva after getting into some legal trouble. In Savory Rousseau was taken in by a Catholic priest and introduced to Françoise-Louise de Warens, a rich matron/lover who would support him and his education for years to come. Many of his works are considered precursors to other monumental movements and ideas in society. His novel Julie is thought to have inspired what would become romanticism in fiction, and his Confessions is similar to Augustine in the influence it had in the autobiographical genre. He believed his most important work was Emile, or On Education. Rousseau was a key figure in the French Revolution, being one of the most influential leaders of the Jacobin Club. His philosophy centers around the idea that man is inherently good, and claims that the material world is hindering human relationships and morality.
Children and Civic Education from Emile (1762)
In this excerpt, Rousseau discusses the importance of childhood. Rather than teaching children how to reason before they are capable of understanding such things, he argues, teach them the most basic of skills so that when they are developed enough to learn how to reason they will have the tools necessary to do so. Rousseau implores his audience to “cherish childhood, look with favor on its games, its pleasures, its friendly instincts” (231). This surprised me a bit, since I view the Enlightenment as a time where reason and inquiry are valued very highly. But I suppose it is also a time in which life itself was celebrated, at every stage and in every way. Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau recognized the process involved in development.
Duties of Women from Emile (1762)
In this piece, Rousseau proves that he is similar in mind to most other men we have read in our three semesters in HUST. He presents the rather unoriginal idea that women have sexual power over men, that “women so easily stir a man’s senses and fan ashes of a dying passion” (570). Rousseau scoffs at the idea of men and women being equal, saying that “women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man-made laws; this inequality is not of man’s making, or at any rate it is not the result of mere prejudice, but of reason” (571). He stresses the woman’s role as weak and passive, as a compliment to the man’s strong and aggressive role. He encourages the education of girls, but also explains how naturally vain they are. Women’s natural duty is to bear children and care for the home. An adulterous male is “cruel and unjust” but “the faithless wife is worse…her crime is not infidelity but treason” (572). I must say, his argument is rather impressive in the sense that he words everything cleverly. Rousseau presents every argument as either a back-handed compliment or as if it were a law of nature that he is just stating. I’m sure he truly believed that women were the weaker sex that should be admired for their contributions to society. Those contributions just seem sexist and offensive today.
Children and Civic Education from Emile (1762)
In this excerpt, Rousseau discusses the importance of childhood. Rather than teaching children how to reason before they are capable of understanding such things, he argues, teach them the most basic of skills so that when they are developed enough to learn how to reason they will have the tools necessary to do so. Rousseau implores his audience to “cherish childhood, look with favor on its games, its pleasures, its friendly instincts” (231). This surprised me a bit, since I view the Enlightenment as a time where reason and inquiry are valued very highly. But I suppose it is also a time in which life itself was celebrated, at every stage and in every way. Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau recognized the process involved in development.
Duties of Women from Emile (1762)
In this piece, Rousseau proves that he is similar in mind to most other men we have read in our three semesters in HUST. He presents the rather unoriginal idea that women have sexual power over men, that “women so easily stir a man’s senses and fan ashes of a dying passion” (570). Rousseau scoffs at the idea of men and women being equal, saying that “women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man-made laws; this inequality is not of man’s making, or at any rate it is not the result of mere prejudice, but of reason” (571). He stresses the woman’s role as weak and passive, as a compliment to the man’s strong and aggressive role. He encourages the education of girls, but also explains how naturally vain they are. Women’s natural duty is to bear children and care for the home. An adulterous male is “cruel and unjust” but “the faithless wife is worse…her crime is not infidelity but treason” (572). I must say, his argument is rather impressive in the sense that he words everything cleverly. Rousseau presents every argument as either a back-handed compliment or as if it were a law of nature that he is just stating. I’m sure he truly believed that women were the weaker sex that should be admired for their contributions to society. Those contributions just seem sexist and offensive today.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Domo Arigato, Mr. Oroonoko
Reading Oroonoko, I was interested in the fact that all the action of the story seemed to happen in a blur, within the last few pages of the book. The rebellion Oroonoko tried to start was quickly inspired and quickly quelled, with Oroonoko going from hate to desperation even more quickly.
For all the description and attention to detail the Behn gives in the first half of the story, I was surprised at how vague she was in describing the end of it. Was this some writing method...since she was writing this as if she learned the whole story first hand, Oroonoko was able to tell her his story firsthand, until the point of the rebellion/murder of Imoinda, where she needed to remain vague if she wanted to keep with the idea of Oroonoko being real? For, if she did know all the details of these aspects of the story, it would have been clear that she was making the story up?
Or maybe Behn just wanted the story to be focused on the bravery and noble nature of Oroonoko, and therefore played up the more brave and noble aspects of his life. This read more like a drama/tragedy than a slave narrative to me. Maybe Behn thought too much focus on Oroonoko's fight for freedom would turn her tale into too much of a abolitionist piece?
I don't know if I'm being particularly articulate in saying what I'm thinking (what else is new?). But I also think that there is a reason for why Behn rushed through so much of the action towards the end of the story, and filled the book instead with details and romanticized drama.
For all the description and attention to detail the Behn gives in the first half of the story, I was surprised at how vague she was in describing the end of it. Was this some writing method...since she was writing this as if she learned the whole story first hand, Oroonoko was able to tell her his story firsthand, until the point of the rebellion/murder of Imoinda, where she needed to remain vague if she wanted to keep with the idea of Oroonoko being real? For, if she did know all the details of these aspects of the story, it would have been clear that she was making the story up?
Or maybe Behn just wanted the story to be focused on the bravery and noble nature of Oroonoko, and therefore played up the more brave and noble aspects of his life. This read more like a drama/tragedy than a slave narrative to me. Maybe Behn thought too much focus on Oroonoko's fight for freedom would turn her tale into too much of a abolitionist piece?
I don't know if I'm being particularly articulate in saying what I'm thinking (what else is new?). But I also think that there is a reason for why Behn rushed through so much of the action towards the end of the story, and filled the book instead with details and romanticized drama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
