The Langston Hughes pieces assigned for the reading were very interesting. I really enjoyed them, actually, for a number of reasons ranging from the varying styles employed to the content and messages.
The way that he treats the content- in "Good Morning, Revolution," in "Song of the Revolution," in "Revolution," sometimes, it's like talking to a friend, a familiar comrade; sometimes it's like a call to the troops; sometimes it's like telling someone's story, to evoke an understanding. The variation in the tone and language makes each poem interesting.
Also, there is a difference in pattern (rhyme scheme, rhythm, etc.) that sets each apart from the other. Obviously, we can read the poem and see what it says, analyze what it means, but it's important the way it sounds. When someone is actually saying the words, it brings a life to them, it becomes someone's voice, and what they're saying and how they're saying it will affect how it's understood by the audience.
But there is a certain order within how he writes these pieces. Such as, "Poem for a Poster on Africa," which within the first few lines talks about people dying- and the drums beating. The three lines starting with "beat," you can almost hear the drums beating within the words, beating in sadness and honor of the dead. He repeats words within lines, which draws the lines together, and establishes a rhythm and a meaning: "The books are written by wise men/Who study in universities/And are sometimes kind/And worried in their hearts-/But not too worried-/Not worried enough..." the use of "and" and the use of "worried" connect the lines, connect the phrases, and draw contrasts between the meaning and impact of the words and the lines.
Sometimes there is sadness in the poems, sometimes there is fire, passion behind the words- sometimes there is friendship, such as in "Good Morning, Revolution" and in my mind, I can almost see look he would give to his friend, sitting right beside him, recounting the good times they'd had together, by each other's sides.
"Good Morning, Revolution" is a book that I would actually buy on my own and read. I was surprised at my own reaction, because often when speaking about revolution people adopt a more aggressive or, to try to create the image in my mind, "strong" perspective. However, though I would not say these aren't strong statements, they are with new and different tones, not just one of fighting and anger, but also of hope and truth and justice.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Quite Rumours
Quiet Rumours turned out to be a pretty interesting bit of reading. I couldn't have told anyone what Anarcha-Feminism was until after reading this. It reminded me (not surprisingly) of a number of things that we discussed in my Women in American Society class that I took last quarter. The difficulties women had trying to obtain basic rights, all while working for the rights of others. How they were put off their feminist cause when they were told that "they'd be taken care of later" or that they're being selfish. They were not taken care of later. The women who chose to focus on women's rights stuck with it through the abolitionist era, through the demonstrating for black rights and against the war. They were considered unladylike and outspoken- but they got further than anyone else did. These writings discuss what would be necessary to bring real equality- not bring women equal with men, by passing an Equal Rights Amendment.
"The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a hierarchical economy."
They want to get rid of the patriarchal society we currently live in, and create something entirely different. The quote, "What feminists are dealing with is a mind-fucking process- the male domineering attitude toward the external world, allowing only subject/object relationships," is not necessarily the way that I would have put it, but it certainly clarifies the author's point. The interviews at the end were interesting. Learning about what people are doing, what they believe and how they're sharing that provides a more real example of the ideas that people have.
"But anarchist feminists are concerned with something more. Because they are anarchists, they work to end all power relationships." This brings something more to the idea of equality than just female equality with males. At an even more basic level, it looks to end the power relationships of the world- whether between males and females, females and females, males and males- no one dominates anyone. Some women, it says, are more out there- extroverted than other women. These other women may be dominated by the extroverted ones- and then there's the power relationship. Because who would be more likely to speak, be heard, be in charge? The person who isn't as shy and who will more eagerly share her opinions.
"Feminism practices what anarchism preaches."
"Feminism is the connection that links anarchism to the future."
The book mentions that anarchism is usually associated with "chaos". It argues, however, "the best word is to outgrow rather than overthrow." Anarcha-feminism is not looking for an upheaval of society- rather, an evolution of its methods and ways towards less of a subject-object relationship to a "subject-to-subject" relationship that will eventually eradicate the male hierarchical thought patterns from society.
All of these ideas are relatively new to me, and very interesting. Because we have never known society to be any way but hierarchical and patriarchal, imagining a different world is difficult and takes some creativity. These explanations clarify not only the real ideas of anarcha-feminists but their goals and ideals.
"The Equal Rights Amendment will not transform society; it only gives women the 'right' to plug into a hierarchical economy."
They want to get rid of the patriarchal society we currently live in, and create something entirely different. The quote, "What feminists are dealing with is a mind-fucking process- the male domineering attitude toward the external world, allowing only subject/object relationships," is not necessarily the way that I would have put it, but it certainly clarifies the author's point. The interviews at the end were interesting. Learning about what people are doing, what they believe and how they're sharing that provides a more real example of the ideas that people have.
"But anarchist feminists are concerned with something more. Because they are anarchists, they work to end all power relationships." This brings something more to the idea of equality than just female equality with males. At an even more basic level, it looks to end the power relationships of the world- whether between males and females, females and females, males and males- no one dominates anyone. Some women, it says, are more out there- extroverted than other women. These other women may be dominated by the extroverted ones- and then there's the power relationship. Because who would be more likely to speak, be heard, be in charge? The person who isn't as shy and who will more eagerly share her opinions.
"Feminism practices what anarchism preaches."
"Feminism is the connection that links anarchism to the future."
The book mentions that anarchism is usually associated with "chaos". It argues, however, "the best word is to outgrow rather than overthrow." Anarcha-feminism is not looking for an upheaval of society- rather, an evolution of its methods and ways towards less of a subject-object relationship to a "subject-to-subject" relationship that will eventually eradicate the male hierarchical thought patterns from society.
All of these ideas are relatively new to me, and very interesting. Because we have never known society to be any way but hierarchical and patriarchal, imagining a different world is difficult and takes some creativity. These explanations clarify not only the real ideas of anarcha-feminists but their goals and ideals.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Babouk, and the Communist Manifesto
Babouk was far different from what I expected. I understood, before starting it, that it would be about slavery and essentially the oppression by whites. The foreword said that it was a good book, not a great book by literary standards, but a good book. I happen to think it's a great book.
Babouk starts with a man, named Babouk, who is captured and taken into slavery. The author describes why a person might end up enslaved, ranging from war prisoners to debt to one's own family member simply selling this person for extra money or goods. This fascinated me, as I had never put much thought into this. I knew that slaves were taken from Africa to satisfy the demand for workers over in the West. However, why a person might end up there, most likely unwillingly, is an intriguing thing to consider. He also talks about the ship, what the slaves do, how they live, what happens to them on their way to wherever they're being taken. Certainly one might have heard about them being chained together, dying from starvation or wounds or homesickness. But the scenes with the dancing were new and different. And the language barriers, experienced not only between the whites and blacks but also the tribes from Africa presented a challenge that, when in such a situation is obvious, but when set apart, it might not be the first thought in one's mind.
There were many clear points of precarity and oppression throughout the book. The commentary on how the whites remained self-assured was by walking all over the black man each day seemed coarse, but correct. In modern times, it is strange to think about owning another person, and keeping them subordinate by whipping them and making them feel like a lesser race. However, in the context of Babouk, this seems like an accurate description. How could a slave owner keep hundreds of slaves working for him, even though he is one man with a few overseers? The blacks grew to accept that whites were superior, the masters and higher in the food chain. Babouk had to tell his fellow slaves that the whites were the same, except they had different resources. At the end, when looting the houses of their slain masters, the slaves also found out that the "godliness" of the whites was not as real or amazing as they had previously thought. Their houses were nicer, their pictures in frames, their furniture upholstered. But they were disappointed to find that the main house from which they were banned was not so glorious.
One thing that struck me was that the blacks seemed to have a culture, whereas the whites did not. The slave culture was based somewhat on their African backgrounds- they had music, dancing, singing, storytelling, crafts, skills, religious beliefs. The whites, however, were mostly boring. They were supposed to be from France, but what culture did they express? They were Christian. They dressed nicely. They owned expensive things. They danced- but not to express themselves; they danced at balls, in society settings. The contrast between the two, though it showed who did all the work and who had all the money, really just made the whites seem boring and the slaves seem like the real people. And with this point, comes the fact that it was the slaves who were treated like animals.
This book was a great one, which I really enjoyed. It was engaging and enlightening. The stories that Babouk made up, and the effect it had on his audience was enjoyable. Also, the creation stories that were told were very intriguing- how the white men and the black men were changed color- in one, God changed the devil's man black out of anger; in the other, God changed Cain white, because of what he did to his black brother. The contrast, between which man was the result of God's anger, is not immediately noticeable. However, they represent two different ideas- who is the evil one, the whites or the blacks? Who deserves to be considered better, more of a man, the superior man versus the slave/subordinate?
The black men have it ingrained that they are the servers of the white man, that the whites are great and powerful and smart- yet the blacks eventually realized that they're all men; one race of man is "better" than the other.
The Communist Manifesto makes a number points about the effects of the bourgeoisie on the rest of society. These points seem obvious- they do not take much thought to understand. However, they are the sorts of observations that, until they are made, one does not give much thought to. For example, "oppressor and oppressed... stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or the common ruin of the contending classes. " This is not the way that everyone would describe society or history, but it is a very true statement- the major reconstructions of class or even the total upheaval of the system occurs because of contending classes in society. Another point, "Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois..." the functionality of previously independent societies, both rural and urban, found the need for things that previously were unnecessary. But, the bourgeoisie created within their system the means for their downfall. This is also mentioned, and is innately true. Within a system is always the flaw that can break the system, and in this case, the oppressed have the means to take away the power from the oppressors.
However, just as is seen in Babouk, the truth is- the proletariat must discover that they are equal to the bourgeois, and that they do in fact have the means to rise to that level. The black slaves had always thought that something made them different from white men, that something made the white men able to control them. In reality, they are both the same, except that the black men think they do not have a choice. Once they discover their power in numbers, they have a plan to overthrow the reigning white race. They are defeated by the condition of their class, however- the white men have canons, while the black men have spears. In a contest of weaponry, the money that the white men made off of the black men saved them.
In the case of oppressing the proletariat- because society considers the investor to be the power behind the capital, not the workers who create the capital, it is this which keeps the proletariat from affecting the change necessary to create different conditions.
Babouk starts with a man, named Babouk, who is captured and taken into slavery. The author describes why a person might end up enslaved, ranging from war prisoners to debt to one's own family member simply selling this person for extra money or goods. This fascinated me, as I had never put much thought into this. I knew that slaves were taken from Africa to satisfy the demand for workers over in the West. However, why a person might end up there, most likely unwillingly, is an intriguing thing to consider. He also talks about the ship, what the slaves do, how they live, what happens to them on their way to wherever they're being taken. Certainly one might have heard about them being chained together, dying from starvation or wounds or homesickness. But the scenes with the dancing were new and different. And the language barriers, experienced not only between the whites and blacks but also the tribes from Africa presented a challenge that, when in such a situation is obvious, but when set apart, it might not be the first thought in one's mind.
There were many clear points of precarity and oppression throughout the book. The commentary on how the whites remained self-assured was by walking all over the black man each day seemed coarse, but correct. In modern times, it is strange to think about owning another person, and keeping them subordinate by whipping them and making them feel like a lesser race. However, in the context of Babouk, this seems like an accurate description. How could a slave owner keep hundreds of slaves working for him, even though he is one man with a few overseers? The blacks grew to accept that whites were superior, the masters and higher in the food chain. Babouk had to tell his fellow slaves that the whites were the same, except they had different resources. At the end, when looting the houses of their slain masters, the slaves also found out that the "godliness" of the whites was not as real or amazing as they had previously thought. Their houses were nicer, their pictures in frames, their furniture upholstered. But they were disappointed to find that the main house from which they were banned was not so glorious.
One thing that struck me was that the blacks seemed to have a culture, whereas the whites did not. The slave culture was based somewhat on their African backgrounds- they had music, dancing, singing, storytelling, crafts, skills, religious beliefs. The whites, however, were mostly boring. They were supposed to be from France, but what culture did they express? They were Christian. They dressed nicely. They owned expensive things. They danced- but not to express themselves; they danced at balls, in society settings. The contrast between the two, though it showed who did all the work and who had all the money, really just made the whites seem boring and the slaves seem like the real people. And with this point, comes the fact that it was the slaves who were treated like animals.
This book was a great one, which I really enjoyed. It was engaging and enlightening. The stories that Babouk made up, and the effect it had on his audience was enjoyable. Also, the creation stories that were told were very intriguing- how the white men and the black men were changed color- in one, God changed the devil's man black out of anger; in the other, God changed Cain white, because of what he did to his black brother. The contrast, between which man was the result of God's anger, is not immediately noticeable. However, they represent two different ideas- who is the evil one, the whites or the blacks? Who deserves to be considered better, more of a man, the superior man versus the slave/subordinate?
The black men have it ingrained that they are the servers of the white man, that the whites are great and powerful and smart- yet the blacks eventually realized that they're all men; one race of man is "better" than the other.
The Communist Manifesto makes a number points about the effects of the bourgeoisie on the rest of society. These points seem obvious- they do not take much thought to understand. However, they are the sorts of observations that, until they are made, one does not give much thought to. For example, "oppressor and oppressed... stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or the common ruin of the contending classes. " This is not the way that everyone would describe society or history, but it is a very true statement- the major reconstructions of class or even the total upheaval of the system occurs because of contending classes in society. Another point, "Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois..." the functionality of previously independent societies, both rural and urban, found the need for things that previously were unnecessary. But, the bourgeoisie created within their system the means for their downfall. This is also mentioned, and is innately true. Within a system is always the flaw that can break the system, and in this case, the oppressed have the means to take away the power from the oppressors.
However, just as is seen in Babouk, the truth is- the proletariat must discover that they are equal to the bourgeois, and that they do in fact have the means to rise to that level. The black slaves had always thought that something made them different from white men, that something made the white men able to control them. In reality, they are both the same, except that the black men think they do not have a choice. Once they discover their power in numbers, they have a plan to overthrow the reigning white race. They are defeated by the condition of their class, however- the white men have canons, while the black men have spears. In a contest of weaponry, the money that the white men made off of the black men saved them.
In the case of oppressing the proletariat- because society considers the investor to be the power behind the capital, not the workers who create the capital, it is this which keeps the proletariat from affecting the change necessary to create different conditions.
Presentation
My presentation on Green Grass, Running Water had a few incompletely formed thoughts. They were meant to express something along the lines of the following.
Green Grass, Running Water is a social commentary using Native American culture to look at the state of society.
The Death and Rebirth of American Radicalism I understood to be a discussion of where the Old Left failed, and how the New Left would have to be formed and conducted to make the differences that other movements have been unable to complete. It also discusses the difference between the Left and extremist ideas.
Precarity: NYC was site with a proposal of how to form a vehicle for change, accessible to the public other than just scholars and activists.
Part of Green Grass that struck me was the necessity for balance. There were several examples, such as Alberta's desire to strike a balance between being a mother and having a career- feminism versus traditional values and instincts. Eli's balance between leaving the tribe, and eventually coming back and staying. The contrast between Lionel and Charlie, with Lionel starting in school and ending up at the electronics store, and Charlie starting at the electronics store and ending up going back to school and becoming a flashy lawyer.
I loved the point where it was Eli who was keeping the dam, that supposedly once in use would make the tribe millions of dollars (and they hadn't even asked for it to be built), after he finally came back to the reservation and chose (though he supposedly knew that this was the only choice) to live in his mother's old cabin. And Charlie, who left for the modern value system that one finds in America (success=money and power), and he is the lawyer fighting for the company that built and wants to use the dam. On page 126 of Green Grass Charlie is having a conversation with Norma, saying that even if the tribe won't make money off the dam, at least he is. It clearly makes the point that in today's society, it is easy to trade value systems- from traditional values of a tribe to today's value in money.
In all of this balance is precarity. Once the dam breaks, Eli dies, Charlie loses his job, and the dam that costed millions of dollars to build and millions in lakefront property is gone. In the end, nature took her course- and it wasn't necessarily how everyone expected.
There is a good point in this situation: Charlie, who started out as a salesman, went to back to school, became a lawyer, was making a lot of money off of a situation that benefited no one, especially not his own tribe (and in the book it notes that the papers liked the contrast of a blackfoot lawyer against the blackfoot living in the cabin), and he was the one who eventually lost his job.
Another point on precarity is how easily Lionel lost his credibility. He mentions one of his mistakes, where he goes to a conference to present a paper, and within a few weeks he is an ex-con with few options. He is brought into the situation by being at a certain place at a certain time, and because of his race he loses his job, his clean record and his ability to progress on the path he was on.
American Radicalism has a lot of things to say about the worker versus the current economic and social systems. He provides an example from when Guiliani ran for mayor after previously losing the election- he had plans for major cuts in public services and programs, privatizing certain services (such as trash collection), finding ways to save the city money by changing the budgets significantly. He didn't cut from the police forces, because he has an anti-crime campaign, but other groups either had to find ways around these plans or they cut their workers, so as to fit the new boundaries. Aronowitz says, "The unions, which by the mid 1970s represented all of the city's manual and clerical employees and most nonsupervisory professionals, felt constrained to go along with the program, fearing the reaction of investors more than their own rank and file." He explains how the systems in place did not favor the worker, but the investor, and how "the power of the capital resides in the public perception that in the absence of alternative economic discourse and plan corporations such as those engaged in financial services hold the economic strings; that they- and not the production companies- are indispensable for the life blood of the cities." Essentially, the workers, who create the capital, are not even in charge of the capital they create- the people for whom they are creating the capital are the ones in charge. Of course, this is how the system has worked for a long time. Just look at slavery and the people who literally owned the workers. However, this is illogical. Shouldn't the people doing all the work be the ones in charge of the goods and services they provide and produce?
Precarity: NYC offers a plan for change. By creating a way for the workers, not just the people who have theories about how things should work, but the real people who have to live and work in the conditions that many think they understand but cannot without experience can help invoke a change in this inherently flawed system. This would allow for real problems, not just theoretical or political problems, to be addresses and hopefully improved.
This all relates to Green Grass in that the tribe, whose values are not monetary but traditional, centered upon many generations of culture and a way of life and belief system, is constantly abused by the government. They had treaties that would last "as long as the grass is green and the water runs," but the book gets to the point that even the younger generations of Blackfoot have stopped believing this. Society has corrupted them, urging the modernization of their ways and beliefs and value systems, seducing them towards a materialistic world based on money and power. They attempt to join it through education and shedding of their traditional backgrounds- the rest of the world doesn't appreciate their roots and culture (such as the confiscation and disrespect of the native costumes worn for the ceremonies at the Canadian/American border). However, this does not boost them any further from the precarious situation of their tribe (the company that made the dam came up with three proposals for locations of the dams, none of them on reservation territory, but they went ahead and used the reservation land anyways because it was more convenient and "the treaties don't really mean anything anyways, they're not legal documents"). We see this with Charlie, the dam that made him rich also lost him his job when it broke.
Honestly, our society abuses the worker that makes it rich, and even when the worker tries to move up into a more secure position in society by following its rules, getting an education, working hard, etc. it does not secure anything. The truth is, no one is truly safe from our society except for the people who have too much money to start with, and they don't need to work anyways.
Green Grass, Running Water is a social commentary using Native American culture to look at the state of society.
The Death and Rebirth of American Radicalism I understood to be a discussion of where the Old Left failed, and how the New Left would have to be formed and conducted to make the differences that other movements have been unable to complete. It also discusses the difference between the Left and extremist ideas.
Precarity: NYC was site with a proposal of how to form a vehicle for change, accessible to the public other than just scholars and activists.
Part of Green Grass that struck me was the necessity for balance. There were several examples, such as Alberta's desire to strike a balance between being a mother and having a career- feminism versus traditional values and instincts. Eli's balance between leaving the tribe, and eventually coming back and staying. The contrast between Lionel and Charlie, with Lionel starting in school and ending up at the electronics store, and Charlie starting at the electronics store and ending up going back to school and becoming a flashy lawyer.
I loved the point where it was Eli who was keeping the dam, that supposedly once in use would make the tribe millions of dollars (and they hadn't even asked for it to be built), after he finally came back to the reservation and chose (though he supposedly knew that this was the only choice) to live in his mother's old cabin. And Charlie, who left for the modern value system that one finds in America (success=money and power), and he is the lawyer fighting for the company that built and wants to use the dam. On page 126 of Green Grass Charlie is having a conversation with Norma, saying that even if the tribe won't make money off the dam, at least he is. It clearly makes the point that in today's society, it is easy to trade value systems- from traditional values of a tribe to today's value in money.
In all of this balance is precarity. Once the dam breaks, Eli dies, Charlie loses his job, and the dam that costed millions of dollars to build and millions in lakefront property is gone. In the end, nature took her course- and it wasn't necessarily how everyone expected.
There is a good point in this situation: Charlie, who started out as a salesman, went to back to school, became a lawyer, was making a lot of money off of a situation that benefited no one, especially not his own tribe (and in the book it notes that the papers liked the contrast of a blackfoot lawyer against the blackfoot living in the cabin), and he was the one who eventually lost his job.
Another point on precarity is how easily Lionel lost his credibility. He mentions one of his mistakes, where he goes to a conference to present a paper, and within a few weeks he is an ex-con with few options. He is brought into the situation by being at a certain place at a certain time, and because of his race he loses his job, his clean record and his ability to progress on the path he was on.
American Radicalism has a lot of things to say about the worker versus the current economic and social systems. He provides an example from when Guiliani ran for mayor after previously losing the election- he had plans for major cuts in public services and programs, privatizing certain services (such as trash collection), finding ways to save the city money by changing the budgets significantly. He didn't cut from the police forces, because he has an anti-crime campaign, but other groups either had to find ways around these plans or they cut their workers, so as to fit the new boundaries. Aronowitz says, "The unions, which by the mid 1970s represented all of the city's manual and clerical employees and most nonsupervisory professionals, felt constrained to go along with the program, fearing the reaction of investors more than their own rank and file." He explains how the systems in place did not favor the worker, but the investor, and how "the power of the capital resides in the public perception that in the absence of alternative economic discourse and plan corporations such as those engaged in financial services hold the economic strings; that they- and not the production companies- are indispensable for the life blood of the cities." Essentially, the workers, who create the capital, are not even in charge of the capital they create- the people for whom they are creating the capital are the ones in charge. Of course, this is how the system has worked for a long time. Just look at slavery and the people who literally owned the workers. However, this is illogical. Shouldn't the people doing all the work be the ones in charge of the goods and services they provide and produce?
Precarity: NYC offers a plan for change. By creating a way for the workers, not just the people who have theories about how things should work, but the real people who have to live and work in the conditions that many think they understand but cannot without experience can help invoke a change in this inherently flawed system. This would allow for real problems, not just theoretical or political problems, to be addresses and hopefully improved.
This all relates to Green Grass in that the tribe, whose values are not monetary but traditional, centered upon many generations of culture and a way of life and belief system, is constantly abused by the government. They had treaties that would last "as long as the grass is green and the water runs," but the book gets to the point that even the younger generations of Blackfoot have stopped believing this. Society has corrupted them, urging the modernization of their ways and beliefs and value systems, seducing them towards a materialistic world based on money and power. They attempt to join it through education and shedding of their traditional backgrounds- the rest of the world doesn't appreciate their roots and culture (such as the confiscation and disrespect of the native costumes worn for the ceremonies at the Canadian/American border). However, this does not boost them any further from the precarious situation of their tribe (the company that made the dam came up with three proposals for locations of the dams, none of them on reservation territory, but they went ahead and used the reservation land anyways because it was more convenient and "the treaties don't really mean anything anyways, they're not legal documents"). We see this with Charlie, the dam that made him rich also lost him his job when it broke.
Honestly, our society abuses the worker that makes it rich, and even when the worker tries to move up into a more secure position in society by following its rules, getting an education, working hard, etc. it does not secure anything. The truth is, no one is truly safe from our society except for the people who have too much money to start with, and they don't need to work anyways.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Green Grass, Running Water
Green Grass, Running Water is a fantastic piece of writing. Thomas King does an excellent job of showing the contrast between Native American culture and capitalist society- the struggles of trying to find a balance of the two, of surviving as a Native American within the capitalist culture, of deciding which more thoroughly identifies an individual.
Lionel is one of the more confused characters, in my mind. He goes to school, which is a common practice among all youth at this point in time. But, as the result of being a Native American, when sent to do a job that could have helped him progress far in life (in terms of financial success), he gets caught up in the oppression of Native American culture (of which he is a part). The role he plays is confused by the authorities, and by the end of the chapter he's an ex-con who cannot land a steady job- all because of miscommunication. He works in a store selling electronics, figuring out what to do with his life.
Alberta intrigues me. She represents a part of a feminist movement, or at least has a more independent view of the world. She was married early in life, but got divorced because of her husband's ultra-traditional views: that she quit school to have children. She becomes a professor at a university, an extremely educated woman, and is dating Lionel and his cousin, Charlie. She wants a child but not a husband, and she is trapped by her gender.
Charlie is a hot-shot lawyer, who used to work at the electronics store that Lionel works for. He is more concerned about money and power than what others may consider the more important parts of life- family, roots and people.
Charlie defends a company that built a dam, but the dam cannot be used because an old cabin (in which another family member, Eli, lives in) is in the way. The dam is built on Native American lands, but not with their consent. They are promised money- and they know that it's a lie. The government constantly goes back on their promises, considering treaties less and less official and important as time goes on (and as capitalism continues to prevail).
Eli is an educated man who goes to a university, gets his Ph. D. and meets a woman, Karen. He and Karen are together for quite some time, but she is killed in a car crash (this is many years after he left the reservation, and no one has heard from him). He is informed that his mother has passed away by his sister, Norma, and he returns and chooses to live in his mother's cabin under this dam.
And so, in this small action, for years he prevents this dam from being used- because he chooses to stay in his mother's cabin.
These are just a few of the stories that are told in Green Grass, Running Water. Also included are the four old Indians, the coyote, and the creation stories.
It runs as a social commentary, with plenty of remarks referring to "the whites" and "the government" which often seem to be oppressing the Native American people.
The cyclical nature of the stories is one of my favorite parts. They all seem to tie into one another, lead to one another, and stem from one another. There is so much more in play with this story, it must be read several times to see the network that King creates with his characters and their stories.
Lionel is one of the more confused characters, in my mind. He goes to school, which is a common practice among all youth at this point in time. But, as the result of being a Native American, when sent to do a job that could have helped him progress far in life (in terms of financial success), he gets caught up in the oppression of Native American culture (of which he is a part). The role he plays is confused by the authorities, and by the end of the chapter he's an ex-con who cannot land a steady job- all because of miscommunication. He works in a store selling electronics, figuring out what to do with his life.
Alberta intrigues me. She represents a part of a feminist movement, or at least has a more independent view of the world. She was married early in life, but got divorced because of her husband's ultra-traditional views: that she quit school to have children. She becomes a professor at a university, an extremely educated woman, and is dating Lionel and his cousin, Charlie. She wants a child but not a husband, and she is trapped by her gender.
Charlie is a hot-shot lawyer, who used to work at the electronics store that Lionel works for. He is more concerned about money and power than what others may consider the more important parts of life- family, roots and people.
Charlie defends a company that built a dam, but the dam cannot be used because an old cabin (in which another family member, Eli, lives in) is in the way. The dam is built on Native American lands, but not with their consent. They are promised money- and they know that it's a lie. The government constantly goes back on their promises, considering treaties less and less official and important as time goes on (and as capitalism continues to prevail).
Eli is an educated man who goes to a university, gets his Ph. D. and meets a woman, Karen. He and Karen are together for quite some time, but she is killed in a car crash (this is many years after he left the reservation, and no one has heard from him). He is informed that his mother has passed away by his sister, Norma, and he returns and chooses to live in his mother's cabin under this dam.
And so, in this small action, for years he prevents this dam from being used- because he chooses to stay in his mother's cabin.
These are just a few of the stories that are told in Green Grass, Running Water. Also included are the four old Indians, the coyote, and the creation stories.
It runs as a social commentary, with plenty of remarks referring to "the whites" and "the government" which often seem to be oppressing the Native American people.
The cyclical nature of the stories is one of my favorite parts. They all seem to tie into one another, lead to one another, and stem from one another. There is so much more in play with this story, it must be read several times to see the network that King creates with his characters and their stories.
Proletariat Writing
All of these had a strong voice. My favorite was probably "Citizen", because I felt like I was able to get further into the story. The condition of the proletariat has an interesting effect on the different characters, especially the doctor. Mitch was supposed to be "above" the proletariat- as a matter of fact, he really knew very little about their situations and concerns. But when he finally goes to the strike on the Fourth of July, a national day celebrating our independence and all that that stands for in the United States, he comes to understand a lot more about the people he's treating. He continuously asks himself, who are these people? Why do they have to strike? But a bigger question is, why shouldn't they be allowed to?
The police, the city, the mayor are all ignorant to the workers' perspective. Seeing them only as a mob that need be controlled, they injure fellow human beings and treat them like common criminals. All these people want are rights that are equal to that of their fellow man. Even the second doctor, who runs the hospital at which Mitch is treating the wounded, does not care for them. He sees them as perhaps animals, as vermin- they can recover themselves, there's no need for real healthcare. If they could heal themselves, why wouldn't they?
Later on, the newspaper gives a side of the story with a real spin, portraying the strikers as vicious and violent, and giving the police the title of "hero". Where is the heroism in oppression?
Mitch realizes that he sympathizes with the strikers and their families. Ultimately, I'd guess he becomes a better doctor because of it, because truly caring for one's patients (especially when working without remuneration) is the essence of a doctor's profession.
The story presents the doctor as a member of the professional class, who, at first, is ignorant. But once he is shown the cold, hard facts of what others must contend with, he is revealed as somewhat of a proletariat himself.
The police, the city, the mayor are all ignorant to the workers' perspective. Seeing them only as a mob that need be controlled, they injure fellow human beings and treat them like common criminals. All these people want are rights that are equal to that of their fellow man. Even the second doctor, who runs the hospital at which Mitch is treating the wounded, does not care for them. He sees them as perhaps animals, as vermin- they can recover themselves, there's no need for real healthcare. If they could heal themselves, why wouldn't they?
Later on, the newspaper gives a side of the story with a real spin, portraying the strikers as vicious and violent, and giving the police the title of "hero". Where is the heroism in oppression?
Mitch realizes that he sympathizes with the strikers and their families. Ultimately, I'd guess he becomes a better doctor because of it, because truly caring for one's patients (especially when working without remuneration) is the essence of a doctor's profession.
The story presents the doctor as a member of the professional class, who, at first, is ignorant. But once he is shown the cold, hard facts of what others must contend with, he is revealed as somewhat of a proletariat himself.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Chicago Poems and American Realism
These readings were interesting. "Under the Lion's Paw" communicated a message of hierarchy, where the poor man makes himself rich, and then uses this power he created for himself to keep down the poor. More importantly, I felt it emphasized how easy it is to be the rich guy or the poor guy- though the rich guy is the villain, he came from the same place the poor guy is, and any other man in his position would not necessarily make any different choices.
"Curious Shifts of the Poor" has an interesting concept- not just begging, which some of the poor population is forced to do, but others donating to their needs through a man who sounds like he's an auctioneer- "That... pays for two beds for two men and leaves five for the next one. Who will give seven more?" But the auctioneer himself is not a rich man, out to the theatre, he is helping get beds for the homeless. And the way that the rich folk stare at these poor men as if they really are the "curious" part of the story, staring at them as if they're just another attraction on Broadway.
"The Law of Life" seems wise and resigned at the same time. However, it also communicates a fleeting thought that, perhaps, this isn't the way things need to be. The young do not need to abandon the old because they've done their part of reproducing, they could take care of all because the value of a life, of a person, is equal.
"A Deal in Wheat" is confusing in and of itself, but the message is clear- in the interest of screwing each other, the Bulls and the Bears screw themselves. In the process of trying to outwit one, they themselves are outwitted; but the real question is, did they truly learn their lesson? If they had, wouldn't then they work together?
"The Lynching of Jube Benson" was one of the more unfortunate stories in this series. The fact that there could be so little trust for a man who has only been loyal and kind is disheartening.
"A Church Mouse" was interesting. The woman, who only wanted a place to stay and was willing to work for it, was not welcome. Why it took so long to be reasonable to her simple desires, and to accommodate a person who only asked a place to sleep and eat, all while making a public House of God a pleasant place to be- seems anti-Christian of those who claim to be on the holier half of men.
Sandburg's Chicago Poems were great. There were some I really enjoyed, especially with the images that accompanied my reading. Each piece had a personality, in which the different walks of life were embodied through words- one of my favorites was Sketch, the piece about the water and ships. Others I really enjoyed were Harbor, Passers-by, Graceland and Right to Grief.
Each was captivating in its own way, and scenes passed through my mind so vivid that I felt like I could see what Sandburg was talking about.
"Curious Shifts of the Poor" has an interesting concept- not just begging, which some of the poor population is forced to do, but others donating to their needs through a man who sounds like he's an auctioneer- "That... pays for two beds for two men and leaves five for the next one. Who will give seven more?" But the auctioneer himself is not a rich man, out to the theatre, he is helping get beds for the homeless. And the way that the rich folk stare at these poor men as if they really are the "curious" part of the story, staring at them as if they're just another attraction on Broadway.
"The Law of Life" seems wise and resigned at the same time. However, it also communicates a fleeting thought that, perhaps, this isn't the way things need to be. The young do not need to abandon the old because they've done their part of reproducing, they could take care of all because the value of a life, of a person, is equal.
"A Deal in Wheat" is confusing in and of itself, but the message is clear- in the interest of screwing each other, the Bulls and the Bears screw themselves. In the process of trying to outwit one, they themselves are outwitted; but the real question is, did they truly learn their lesson? If they had, wouldn't then they work together?
"The Lynching of Jube Benson" was one of the more unfortunate stories in this series. The fact that there could be so little trust for a man who has only been loyal and kind is disheartening.
"A Church Mouse" was interesting. The woman, who only wanted a place to stay and was willing to work for it, was not welcome. Why it took so long to be reasonable to her simple desires, and to accommodate a person who only asked a place to sleep and eat, all while making a public House of God a pleasant place to be- seems anti-Christian of those who claim to be on the holier half of men.
Sandburg's Chicago Poems were great. There were some I really enjoyed, especially with the images that accompanied my reading. Each piece had a personality, in which the different walks of life were embodied through words- one of my favorites was Sketch, the piece about the water and ships. Others I really enjoyed were Harbor, Passers-by, Graceland and Right to Grief.
Each was captivating in its own way, and scenes passed through my mind so vivid that I felt like I could see what Sandburg was talking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
