I looked at the 2008 essay collections, and focused on the construction essay, which was presenting information on a recent attempt to abolish the use of the penny due to ineffectiveness and bother. From what I saw, I would have argued against abolishing it mainly because of the historical value of the penny and the fact that a public opinion poll showed strong opposition to the notion. I think I would have been successful in my essay, as the essay response which received a "9" had similar ideas as the ones I came up with. The successful essay acknowledges the counter arguments, explains what the penny is a symbol of for america (our thrift, ect.), and compares it to historical monuments.
The essays that struggled used cliches and qualifiers, and they make some generalizations that contribute to faulty conclusions. The low scoring one also cited a source that would have been more effective if left out, as the data in it was questionable due to multiple assumptions.
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Postmodernist Literary Theory
Postmodernist theory is all about breaking away from the conventions of the times, not trusting usual areas of knowledge, breaking out of established structures of writing, and seeing that there are many truths and ways for language to be interpreted. Looking at the book through this lens, immediately the multiple narrators (5 in all) are signs of a untraditional story-telling style of a singular narrator. Also, we notice in the telling of the story that every member of the Price family has a narrating voice except Nathan, the Reverend and preacher. This changes the overview of the family in that we only see his actions through his family member's eyes--and therefore we get a biased report, as they speak from their feelings and after punishments such as The Verse. Language is played with by giving us narrative from the perspectives of an adult, teenagers, and a young child, which all invite different levels of maturity, grammar, and bias.
The subject matter of The Poisonwood Bible is of an evangelical Baptist trying to bring religion and overall structure and savior to the Africans in the Congolese town he travels to. This fights (and up to this point, loses) with the unstructured lives of the Congolese people, and in this way embodies the postmodernist spirit with the survival of the lack of structure. The style of the novel also lacks structure, with no numbered chapters and periods of the book which span an afternoon and others which span a month given equal time. Nathan omits from his memory all the instances of his wife trying and succeeding in reaching out to the Congolese, perhaps to feel more important in comparison and independent, and this skews the truth of their respective capabilities.
The subject matter of The Poisonwood Bible is of an evangelical Baptist trying to bring religion and overall structure and savior to the Africans in the Congolese town he travels to. This fights (and up to this point, loses) with the unstructured lives of the Congolese people, and in this way embodies the postmodernist spirit with the survival of the lack of structure. The style of the novel also lacks structure, with no numbered chapters and periods of the book which span an afternoon and others which span a month given equal time. Nathan omits from his memory all the instances of his wife trying and succeeding in reaching out to the Congolese, perhaps to feel more important in comparison and independent, and this skews the truth of their respective capabilities.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Apocalypse Now vs. Heart of Darkness
The major difference that makes a large impact on the story is the fact that in the Congo, the object of being there--and through that--why Mr. Kurtz was there, was that it was for material and financial gain, while it wasn't in Vietnam, which is the setting of Apocalypse Now. The reason that the U.S went to war in Vietnam was to ensure that the communist South didn't change the North into communists, as a proxy war in the larger Cold War with The Soviet Union. So the war was for philosophical and politic reasons, not to plunder the natural resources of the Vietnamese. Because Mr. Kurtz was, while unconventional and at odds with the government that he worked for in both book and movie, bringing very large quantities of profitable Ivory in for the 'government' ran by King Leopold, they had some relative value for him. He was making them very rich, it was just that he was unconventional, and apparently spoiling the region for some time to come. So, in Heart of Darkness, Mr. Kurtz had some intrinsic value monetarily for Leopold, and therefore some worth himself. It changes his worth and therefore the reasons for all happenings to set the story in Vietnam where he was not providing a revenue source, but rather just holding an outpost. It makes him less valuable and therefore causes the leadership to order his execution. It also changes the motivations that led to his brutality with Vietnamese life. In Apocalypse Now, he murders for power, because he can, and because it is wartime. In Heart of Darkness, Mr. Kurtz murders for intimidation (to collect Ivory easier) and because he can. To note, in Apocalypse Now Kurtz does have value in recognizing key enemy agents, but this isn't recognized by the leadership. Also, because Mr. Kurtz was sending back a chain of Ivory back at all times, the leadership could still feel a connection, and some modicum of control over what he did. This, however was not the case in Apocalypse Now because all the leadership in charge of the Vietnam war could do was read the reports on the chaos and assassinations carried out by Kurtz, and so they (rightfully) felt helplessly out of touch and control.
Monday, March 18, 2013
HoD Discussion
In Chapter 11, page 110 of Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad, the pile of wood with the pencil-scratched note on it which Marlow finds is puzzling to me. The three statements, "'Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously.'" point to the fact that Marlow and his crew were expected, or could the wood be for someone else? Or had it just been put out for a random traveler? Mostly my question is who left the wood pile and deserted hut, if it wasn't Kurtz as the signature was longer? We know that the note to "'Approach cautiously'" was a helpful hint because of the scene on page 118, so whomever had left the note must be amiable.
Monday, March 11, 2013
HoD Quotation Discussion
Pg. 70 "What redeems it [the conquest of the earth] is the idea only. An idea at the back of it; not a sentimental pretense but an idea; an unselfish belief in that idea--something you can set up, and bow down before, and offer a sacrifice to..." Heart of Darkness, Joseph Conrad
If you can believe that conquest of other lands can be redeemable, then our narrator seems to be saying, through use of religious terms such as "belief", "bow down before", and "sacrifice", that as long as religion is guiding you, then you can engage in conquest. He believes that the robbery, savagery, and unscrupulous gains which come of invading are detestable. However, that he says that there can be a 'redeeming value' to this practice is horrible...how can any of these aforementioned acts have any redeeming values? There can be only some very extreme situations in which conquest can be any good, such as to stop a genocide...not to spread a religion that will be imposed on unwilling subjects. The "sentimental pretense" lends itself to the Congo as some type of foreshadowing in the story (although people would have been hearing about the Congo conflict already), as Leopold was able to successfully use and discard Africans in his colony for financial gain under the guise of humanitarian efforts.
If you can believe that conquest of other lands can be redeemable, then our narrator seems to be saying, through use of religious terms such as "belief", "bow down before", and "sacrifice", that as long as religion is guiding you, then you can engage in conquest. He believes that the robbery, savagery, and unscrupulous gains which come of invading are detestable. However, that he says that there can be a 'redeeming value' to this practice is horrible...how can any of these aforementioned acts have any redeeming values? There can be only some very extreme situations in which conquest can be any good, such as to stop a genocide...not to spread a religion that will be imposed on unwilling subjects. The "sentimental pretense" lends itself to the Congo as some type of foreshadowing in the story (although people would have been hearing about the Congo conflict already), as Leopold was able to successfully use and discard Africans in his colony for financial gain under the guise of humanitarian efforts.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
View of Colonialism
"To what extent has this up-close-and-personal expose of so many seriously screwed-up people changed your view (or not) of these enterprises? Furthermore, has it shed any light on contemporary issues of exploration and exploitation? Use examples."
This has made my view more cynical of colonizers (and people)--I've always known that they go in expectation of a return of some kind--but this has made it clear. People were forced into these actions by the peer pressure and 'norms' around them, and this makes it sick. It also as well makes people change, and lose their independence if they are weak in any way at all. Almost everyone has some of these weaknesses. It has shown me that it is bad for everyone, not just the obvious victims (although this effect is almost insignificant in terms of the scope of the victims). It only reiterates the fact that we, in our own countries, usually do not understand any part of another culture, and any forced interaction with them (whether it be colonizing them or invading their country to 'help them') it always ends up worse for the lesser-developed and weaker country.
This book has made me seriously doubt whether humans have the ability to do things purely from philanthropic tendencies--there is always a bottom line that it seems that the 'good work' fulfills; tax deductions, public image, a larger financial return...it makes me sad. There should be more anonymous donations, where there isn't anybody looking for recognition.
I do feel however, that humans can act selflessly in any situation (not all humans, but most), as long as there is full transparency for the whole world to see. When every fact, figure, practice, beneficiary, method, dollar spent, hour worked, financier, and product made or produced is accounted for and made into public record, then mostly purely good deeds can occur.
This has shown that people will try to get away with anything that they possibly can--whether it be mining meteorites in space, chopping down forests for lumber, or drilling oil offshore--they will do anything to maximize profit with no regard whatsoever towards the people, environment, and economy that had been there long before they had arrived. The 2010 Gulf oil spill is a great example, as it was brought about by a company (BP) cutting corners by skipping costly procedures. The spill dumped around 172 million gallons of oil into the bay, also killing 11 workers, but more importantly it contaminated millions upon millions of gallons of water, killed off countless animals, fish, and birds, and destroyed the local fishing economies for thousands of fishermen. Just writing about it makes me sick, and yet BP was only eventually fined 4.5 billion dollars in fines, and as a company they face no restrictions, bans or criminal charges. Only four executives face charges.
People are greedy, people cut corners.
This has made my view more cynical of colonizers (and people)--I've always known that they go in expectation of a return of some kind--but this has made it clear. People were forced into these actions by the peer pressure and 'norms' around them, and this makes it sick. It also as well makes people change, and lose their independence if they are weak in any way at all. Almost everyone has some of these weaknesses. It has shown me that it is bad for everyone, not just the obvious victims (although this effect is almost insignificant in terms of the scope of the victims). It only reiterates the fact that we, in our own countries, usually do not understand any part of another culture, and any forced interaction with them (whether it be colonizing them or invading their country to 'help them') it always ends up worse for the lesser-developed and weaker country.
This book has made me seriously doubt whether humans have the ability to do things purely from philanthropic tendencies--there is always a bottom line that it seems that the 'good work' fulfills; tax deductions, public image, a larger financial return...it makes me sad. There should be more anonymous donations, where there isn't anybody looking for recognition.
I do feel however, that humans can act selflessly in any situation (not all humans, but most), as long as there is full transparency for the whole world to see. When every fact, figure, practice, beneficiary, method, dollar spent, hour worked, financier, and product made or produced is accounted for and made into public record, then mostly purely good deeds can occur.
This has shown that people will try to get away with anything that they possibly can--whether it be mining meteorites in space, chopping down forests for lumber, or drilling oil offshore--they will do anything to maximize profit with no regard whatsoever towards the people, environment, and economy that had been there long before they had arrived. The 2010 Gulf oil spill is a great example, as it was brought about by a company (BP) cutting corners by skipping costly procedures. The spill dumped around 172 million gallons of oil into the bay, also killing 11 workers, but more importantly it contaminated millions upon millions of gallons of water, killed off countless animals, fish, and birds, and destroyed the local fishing economies for thousands of fishermen. Just writing about it makes me sick, and yet BP was only eventually fined 4.5 billion dollars in fines, and as a company they face no restrictions, bans or criminal charges. Only four executives face charges.
People are greedy, people cut corners.
Friday, February 22, 2013
6 - Under the Yacht Club Flag
Because King Leopold the second already basically has his colony, this chapter deals with his attempts to keep going in search of turning a profit. He has neatly burned through his significant personal funds, and now turns to every side for cash: banks, wealthy families, the church, money from bonds, and finally his own country. King Leopold has so masterfully shaped the public opinion about himself (creating scientific gatherings, claiming he skips a course at lunch to economize, altering the date on his will to make a financial move seem benevolent) that he is able to convince his country to lend him 25 million francs.
With this infusion of cash, he is now able to put together his superior technology in weaponry (breech loading rifles, maxim gun), medicine (quinine for malaria), and transportation (steamboats) to start a push to develop some infrastructure in the Congo which will eventually help transport valuable goods to the coast which he will be taking.
The start of the chapter talks about Leopold's family life, which is deteriorating. In his efforts to create ties between himself and the Austria-Hungary ruling family, he marries of both of his daughters to princes from there. They are horrible match-ups, so much so that after cheating on her husband the prince, Louise actually chose to go to an insane asylum instead of returning to her husband. There seems to be a pattern with the women around Leopold; they either go crazy, die, or end up in a worse situation (Louise, Carlota, Prostitute & Stephanie).
Everything seems to work out for King Leopold--governments buy his ploys, a disillusioned and betrayed Sanford dies without causing any troubles, and Stanley does as he is told. Still no one knows Leopold's true purpose with the Congo.
November 1889, when the Anti-Slavery Conference was held, Turkey had been invited to keep diplomatic ties strong, yet Turkey only abolished slavery ten years later in 1899. When Islamic harems were mentioned as something that kept the slave trade going, the Turkish delegation erupted with laughter, probably due to the fact that they thought of harems as nothing out of the ordinary, as men of many different levels of power had harems of varying sizes. Turkey was basically on the other side of the spectrum toward slavery in relation to all the guests at the conference, yet they weren't treated with indignant delegates and forceful talks. It seems as if customary niceties towards other countries had quelled the righteous voices of the righteous people representing their countries.
Questions:
1. Why is Stanley's love life discussed so often? What is the purpose?
2. What is more important to Leopold: money or power? Why?
3. Why does Leopold move to annex part of the Nile instead of solely focusing on the Congo?
4. Why does Stanley feel such loyalty towards King Leopold?
5. Where would Leopold stop in his quest for his colony? Could anything stop him?
With this infusion of cash, he is now able to put together his superior technology in weaponry (breech loading rifles, maxim gun), medicine (quinine for malaria), and transportation (steamboats) to start a push to develop some infrastructure in the Congo which will eventually help transport valuable goods to the coast which he will be taking.
The start of the chapter talks about Leopold's family life, which is deteriorating. In his efforts to create ties between himself and the Austria-Hungary ruling family, he marries of both of his daughters to princes from there. They are horrible match-ups, so much so that after cheating on her husband the prince, Louise actually chose to go to an insane asylum instead of returning to her husband. There seems to be a pattern with the women around Leopold; they either go crazy, die, or end up in a worse situation (Louise, Carlota, Prostitute & Stephanie).
Everything seems to work out for King Leopold--governments buy his ploys, a disillusioned and betrayed Sanford dies without causing any troubles, and Stanley does as he is told. Still no one knows Leopold's true purpose with the Congo.
November 1889, when the Anti-Slavery Conference was held, Turkey had been invited to keep diplomatic ties strong, yet Turkey only abolished slavery ten years later in 1899. When Islamic harems were mentioned as something that kept the slave trade going, the Turkish delegation erupted with laughter, probably due to the fact that they thought of harems as nothing out of the ordinary, as men of many different levels of power had harems of varying sizes. Turkey was basically on the other side of the spectrum toward slavery in relation to all the guests at the conference, yet they weren't treated with indignant delegates and forceful talks. It seems as if customary niceties towards other countries had quelled the righteous voices of the righteous people representing their countries.
Questions:
1. Why is Stanley's love life discussed so often? What is the purpose?
2. What is more important to Leopold: money or power? Why?
3. Why does Leopold move to annex part of the Nile instead of solely focusing on the Congo?
4. Why does Stanley feel such loyalty towards King Leopold?
5. Where would Leopold stop in his quest for his colony? Could anything stop him?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)