• Blog – What do you make of the end of this letter? Does it feel peaceful? Angry? Resilient?
This was a letter from Celie to her sister, Nettie. The letter talked about God and Celie’s relationship with him. From this letter I feel that Celie’s faith is strong but it is dependent on what other people have told her about God. At first Celie thought that God was a white male, because that is what everyone around her said. This changes when Shug tells her that God has no race or gender. “It? I ast. Yeah. It. God ain’t a he or a she, but a It. But what do it look like? I ast. Don’t look like nothing, she say.” (Pg. 2456) After hearing this Celie’s faith is now based on her interpretation of God, not one she learned from someone else. Shug has helped Celie open her view on religion but how Celie chooses to express it is up to her.
I think that there is some anger at the end of this letter. At the end of the letter Celie learns to respect life and everything it has to offer. This was learned after Shug told her to look at the flowers and embrace their beauty. “I think it pisses God off if you walk by the color purple in a field somewhere and don’t notice it.” (Pg. 2457) However I think that Celie is angry because men see themselves as God. She has felt oppressed by men for too long. She feels as though she has done everything she can to please God and he just won’t listen.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Fires in the Mirrors
• Blog – After finishing the film, what emotions do you feel? What do you think Anna Deavere Smith was trying to do in creating this piece?
After watching “Fires in the Mirrors” I had mixed emotions. There are parts of me that think it is the Jews fault but other parts that make me feel as though it is the African Americans fault. The only person who felt as though the whole thing was an accident was Roslyn Malamud in “Coup.” She was an African American who clearly stated that what happened was an accident. She said that everyone in the same neighborhood wants the same things. As I recall this is the only person who felt as though the entire incident was just an accident. There were feelings of sadness when the Jewish man was stabbed for just being Jewish but also when the young African American boy was hit by the car.
Anna Deavere Smith, the producer of the movie was trying to show people all the different views on the incident. There were people who were laid back and others who were constantly shouting. She interviewed all different types of people from a mayor to an anonymous young man on the streets. She tried to balance out who she interviewed, balancing out interviewing Jewish people and African Americans. I think that she succeeded in her movie because each persons view was different, even if it was in the smallest way. I don’t think that she was biased in any way. This is because she played the role of each person she interviewed and said and did exactly what the person she interviewed did. She didn’t manipulate anyone’s interview to favor one side or the other, only the side they supported.
After watching “Fires in the Mirrors” I had mixed emotions. There are parts of me that think it is the Jews fault but other parts that make me feel as though it is the African Americans fault. The only person who felt as though the whole thing was an accident was Roslyn Malamud in “Coup.” She was an African American who clearly stated that what happened was an accident. She said that everyone in the same neighborhood wants the same things. As I recall this is the only person who felt as though the entire incident was just an accident. There were feelings of sadness when the Jewish man was stabbed for just being Jewish but also when the young African American boy was hit by the car.
Anna Deavere Smith, the producer of the movie was trying to show people all the different views on the incident. There were people who were laid back and others who were constantly shouting. She interviewed all different types of people from a mayor to an anonymous young man on the streets. She tried to balance out who she interviewed, balancing out interviewing Jewish people and African Americans. I think that she succeeded in her movie because each persons view was different, even if it was in the smallest way. I don’t think that she was biased in any way. This is because she played the role of each person she interviewed and said and did exactly what the person she interviewed did. She didn’t manipulate anyone’s interview to favor one side or the other, only the side they supported.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Movie Blog
Blog – Who do you sympathize with?
There are two sides to every story. In this case it was between the Jews and African Americans. The incident was when a Jewish man hit and killed a young African American. The African Americans claim that he was drunk at the time of the accident but when the ambulance took him to the hospital he had no alcohol in his breath. The ambulance that came to take the Jewish man to the hospital was a private ambulance for the Jews. The African Americans complained that they needed to attend to the dying kid on the ground rather than taking the Jewish man to the hospital. Their argument was that the Jewish man was up and walking while the young African American was lying still on the ground. The African Americans also beat up the man who killed the young boy so much that he required stitches on his head and skull. Also as a result of this incident a few hours later another Jewish man was walking when a group of African Americans stabbed him just because he was a Jew. After all of this and listening to the movie I have to say that both sides are to blame. I feel sympathy for both but I think that both sides also did things to anger the other side. The African Americans stabbed a Jewish man for the simple fact that he was a Jew and the Jewish man who hit the young kid ran a red light, which is never acceptable. The Jewish also brought their own private ambulance to the scene to help the driver; while they just left the young kid lying there. That is why I don’t feel as though I can side with one or the other.
There are two sides to every story. In this case it was between the Jews and African Americans. The incident was when a Jewish man hit and killed a young African American. The African Americans claim that he was drunk at the time of the accident but when the ambulance took him to the hospital he had no alcohol in his breath. The ambulance that came to take the Jewish man to the hospital was a private ambulance for the Jews. The African Americans complained that they needed to attend to the dying kid on the ground rather than taking the Jewish man to the hospital. Their argument was that the Jewish man was up and walking while the young African American was lying still on the ground. The African Americans also beat up the man who killed the young boy so much that he required stitches on his head and skull. Also as a result of this incident a few hours later another Jewish man was walking when a group of African Americans stabbed him just because he was a Jew. After all of this and listening to the movie I have to say that both sides are to blame. I feel sympathy for both but I think that both sides also did things to anger the other side. The African Americans stabbed a Jewish man for the simple fact that he was a Jew and the Jewish man who hit the young kid ran a red light, which is never acceptable. The Jewish also brought their own private ambulance to the scene to help the driver; while they just left the young kid lying there. That is why I don’t feel as though I can side with one or the other.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Malcolm X
What in trigued you? What angered you? How does this compare to the writing of Martin Luther King, Jr?
The entire passage was about Malcolm X’s life while he was in jail. Malcolm talks about how he learned of Elijah Muhammad and his teachings of “the white man is the devil and the brainwashed black man.” This is a reoccurring phrase throughout the autobiography; similar to the reoccurring phrases “I have a dream and let freedom ring” in Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech. However this is the only thing that is similar between the two. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. had two very different views on how people should fight the problem. Through his communications with Muhammad, Malcolm learned that history had been “whitened” to subjugate the blacks. This was a problem because for all of the blacks in the prison, this is what they believed. They didn’t know any better. This is not surprising because Malcolm says, “even the black professors have known little more than the most ignorant black man” (Pg. 1869) because history had been so “whitened.” Malcolm believes that the whites are nothing but an enemy to the blacks and wants to use violence against them. This is the complete opposite of what King wanted to do; he wanted to solve the problem peacefully. What was interesting was how he brought religion into the problem. His views on religion were so extreme that he blames his violence on it. The way he wants to solve the problem is through violence and he is willing to do anything to get what he wants.
The entire passage was about Malcolm X’s life while he was in jail. Malcolm talks about how he learned of Elijah Muhammad and his teachings of “the white man is the devil and the brainwashed black man.” This is a reoccurring phrase throughout the autobiography; similar to the reoccurring phrases “I have a dream and let freedom ring” in Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech. However this is the only thing that is similar between the two. Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. had two very different views on how people should fight the problem. Through his communications with Muhammad, Malcolm learned that history had been “whitened” to subjugate the blacks. This was a problem because for all of the blacks in the prison, this is what they believed. They didn’t know any better. This is not surprising because Malcolm says, “even the black professors have known little more than the most ignorant black man” (Pg. 1869) because history had been so “whitened.” Malcolm believes that the whites are nothing but an enemy to the blacks and wants to use violence against them. This is the complete opposite of what King wanted to do; he wanted to solve the problem peacefully. What was interesting was how he brought religion into the problem. His views on religion were so extreme that he blames his violence on it. The way he wants to solve the problem is through violence and he is willing to do anything to get what he wants.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Sonny's Blues
• Blog – What does the brother realize about Sonny as he plays the piano? What does the music allow Sonny to do?
It takes a while for Sonny’s brother to understand Sonny and why he wants to play the piano. The brothers get into a big argument about Sonny skipping school to play jazz. The first time the brother realizes why Sonny played the piano was when Sonny invited him to one of his gigs. The brother learns that by playing the piano Sonny is able to express the truth inside himself and in turn allows the brother to realize that the truth that exists all around him in life. He also learns the necessity of music and its role in the black community. The brother noticed how Sonny was struggling to find the right language to express himself in. Not only until the end of the story does Sonny find this new language when he gets lost in the expression of his music. Sonny used music as a way to escape. Music was the only thing that gave him hope and kept him dreaming for a better life. Music gave Sonny hope for the future. The relationship between drugs and music has been historically intertwined. “Sonny’s Blues” started off with Sonny getting arrested for heroin and why he did drugs. Near the end of the story we Sonny tells his brother that the reason he did drugs was to escape the hardships of life. Sonny used his experience of addiction to create his music. So, had it not been for Sonny’s drug problems earlier on in his life, there would be no “Sonny’s Blues” or his music.
It takes a while for Sonny’s brother to understand Sonny and why he wants to play the piano. The brothers get into a big argument about Sonny skipping school to play jazz. The first time the brother realizes why Sonny played the piano was when Sonny invited him to one of his gigs. The brother learns that by playing the piano Sonny is able to express the truth inside himself and in turn allows the brother to realize that the truth that exists all around him in life. He also learns the necessity of music and its role in the black community. The brother noticed how Sonny was struggling to find the right language to express himself in. Not only until the end of the story does Sonny find this new language when he gets lost in the expression of his music. Sonny used music as a way to escape. Music was the only thing that gave him hope and kept him dreaming for a better life. Music gave Sonny hope for the future. The relationship between drugs and music has been historically intertwined. “Sonny’s Blues” started off with Sonny getting arrested for heroin and why he did drugs. Near the end of the story we Sonny tells his brother that the reason he did drugs was to escape the hardships of life. Sonny used his experience of addiction to create his music. So, had it not been for Sonny’s drug problems earlier on in his life, there would be no “Sonny’s Blues” or his music.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Ethics
• Blog – What are the ‘ethics’ of your life? How do the people you interact with on a daily basis contribute to your understanding of how you should behave? Think of your parents/teachers/adults, but also of your friends and peers.
Ethics can be confusing. There are so many different ‘groups’ that you may interact with on a daily basis that you may have several different personalities. Ethics is how you act around a certain group of people. However, being ethical does not mean just doing what the group accepts. But, in reality, most groups choose standards that are in fact ethical, but people’s standards of behavior can differ from those standards. This shows how most people are often influenced by others because what is considered ethical to one group may be considered unethical to another. For instance, you may act nice and polite around your parents but may act in a different way with your friends. This is because you act depending on how you want the people around you to see you as. So, not only do you decide what is the best for you to act, but also the people around you. I know that for me I act different around my parents then I do my friends. My parents taught me in general, what is right and what is wrong. So those standards include the obligation to refrain from stealing, fraud, murder, ect. So in other words they expect me to be polite and use manners around other people as well as respect them. Now with my friends it is different. Not that I don’t still act polite, but just do so in a lesser tone. With friends, as we all know, you can be more relaxed around. For the most part friends don’t harp on you to do things like your parents do. However, there are some things that my friends do that I don’t do, for example, a lot of my friends wait to do work until the last minute, while I do it when it is assigned. Not that doing this is wrong; it just isn’t the smartest or best way to act. While I act different around my friends then I do with my parents I don’t think that my “ethics” necessarily change all that much.
Ethics can be confusing. There are so many different ‘groups’ that you may interact with on a daily basis that you may have several different personalities. Ethics is how you act around a certain group of people. However, being ethical does not mean just doing what the group accepts. But, in reality, most groups choose standards that are in fact ethical, but people’s standards of behavior can differ from those standards. This shows how most people are often influenced by others because what is considered ethical to one group may be considered unethical to another. For instance, you may act nice and polite around your parents but may act in a different way with your friends. This is because you act depending on how you want the people around you to see you as. So, not only do you decide what is the best for you to act, but also the people around you. I know that for me I act different around my parents then I do my friends. My parents taught me in general, what is right and what is wrong. So those standards include the obligation to refrain from stealing, fraud, murder, ect. So in other words they expect me to be polite and use manners around other people as well as respect them. Now with my friends it is different. Not that I don’t still act polite, but just do so in a lesser tone. With friends, as we all know, you can be more relaxed around. For the most part friends don’t harp on you to do things like your parents do. However, there are some things that my friends do that I don’t do, for example, a lot of my friends wait to do work until the last minute, while I do it when it is assigned. Not that doing this is wrong; it just isn’t the smartest or best way to act. While I act different around my friends then I do with my parents I don’t think that my “ethics” necessarily change all that much.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Claude McKay and Langston Hughes
• Blog – Compare Hughes’ poetry to Claude McKay. What is similar? What is different?
Both Langston Hughes and Claude McKay write their poems for the same reasons. They write them because they want people to see African Americans as ‘normal’ people. One example is in “To My White Friends”, which says that African Americans are just as able of cruelty towards the whites as the whites are to the blacks. However, McKay makes his reason more clear in his story, “Home To Harlem.” This is the story of Jerco and Rosalind and the reasons African Americans are in certain situations. Most people, according to McKay think that African Americans are in situations because of what they are attracted to but then goes on to tell what the real reasons are, those include: love and kindness. While Langston Hughes talks about the same reasons he does so using different situations. McKay tended to use very unpleasant situations while Hughes incorporates education into his examples. In McKay’s “Home To Harlem” Jerco shows how he loves Rosalind because when she is sick he wants to help her. Most people would think that they are friends, but would not even think that Jerco loves Rosalind. McKay’s point in writing this story was not only to make African Americans seem like people, but also to fight against the idea that all blacks go into activities on purpose, without caring about others. So this story shows that African Americans are real people, with real feelings, that bad things are happening to. W.E.B. DuBois hated this story because it did not show great intellectual characters, so he saw it as a waste of McKay’s talent. In Hughes’s poems he shows how things that are important to blacks can also be things that are important to whites. This is especially shown in his poem, Theme for English B. In this poem the only black kid in the class tells us “I like a pipe for a Christmas present, or records-Bessie, bop, or Bach. I guess being colored doesn’t make me not like the same things other folks like who are other races.” (Pg. 1310) This is a clear example of why people should see African Americans as ‘normal’ people. Unlike his view on McKay’s “Home To Harlem”, W.E.B. DuBois probably would like the work of Hughes because of its focus on education. I say that DuBois would have probably liked the work of Hughes because after we read “The Souls of Black Folk”, I understood what his on African Americans was. He wanted African Americans to go up North and learn to read and write rather than stay in the South to work in the fields. So this tells me that because Hughes included education in his examples, DuBois would have enjoyed his work.
Both Langston Hughes and Claude McKay write their poems for the same reasons. They write them because they want people to see African Americans as ‘normal’ people. One example is in “To My White Friends”, which says that African Americans are just as able of cruelty towards the whites as the whites are to the blacks. However, McKay makes his reason more clear in his story, “Home To Harlem.” This is the story of Jerco and Rosalind and the reasons African Americans are in certain situations. Most people, according to McKay think that African Americans are in situations because of what they are attracted to but then goes on to tell what the real reasons are, those include: love and kindness. While Langston Hughes talks about the same reasons he does so using different situations. McKay tended to use very unpleasant situations while Hughes incorporates education into his examples. In McKay’s “Home To Harlem” Jerco shows how he loves Rosalind because when she is sick he wants to help her. Most people would think that they are friends, but would not even think that Jerco loves Rosalind. McKay’s point in writing this story was not only to make African Americans seem like people, but also to fight against the idea that all blacks go into activities on purpose, without caring about others. So this story shows that African Americans are real people, with real feelings, that bad things are happening to. W.E.B. DuBois hated this story because it did not show great intellectual characters, so he saw it as a waste of McKay’s talent. In Hughes’s poems he shows how things that are important to blacks can also be things that are important to whites. This is especially shown in his poem, Theme for English B. In this poem the only black kid in the class tells us “I like a pipe for a Christmas present, or records-Bessie, bop, or Bach. I guess being colored doesn’t make me not like the same things other folks like who are other races.” (Pg. 1310) This is a clear example of why people should see African Americans as ‘normal’ people. Unlike his view on McKay’s “Home To Harlem”, W.E.B. DuBois probably would like the work of Hughes because of its focus on education. I say that DuBois would have probably liked the work of Hughes because after we read “The Souls of Black Folk”, I understood what his on African Americans was. He wanted African Americans to go up North and learn to read and write rather than stay in the South to work in the fields. So this tells me that because Hughes included education in his examples, DuBois would have enjoyed his work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)