Yeah, Charlie Sheen; that's who I chose to compare Dr. Jekyll to. Most people have heard the stories from about a year ago. The producer of Sheen's new show actually called Charlie a "'Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde' sort of guy." I'm not sure the producer understood just how good that comparison was. Well, we talked about the connection between the potion Jekyll created and a drug addiction, so who better to compare him to than Charlie Sheen? I think that he really is the modern day Jekyll, going on the assumption that what he says is honest and true for the sake of this comparison. "It was cringeable, yeah. Because I didn't recognize parts of who that guy was. I mean, the verbiage, you know, him looking like a real insane wordsmith was fine, but it was -- it was a trip down."With his coming back to Hollywood for his new show, people are starting to wonder whether or not he's a "volcano waiting to erupt" or how we could put it in AP English class, whether or not he's going through the phase Jekyll went through of trying not to let Hyde take over.
Now, I'm not ready to admit that Charlie Sheen is evil. He had (or has) a serious drug problem. Is that his fault? I'd say yes. Was Jekyll's addiction problem his fault? I would say yes to that, too. I consider both men both evil and good, not purely one or the other. I don't think Charlie Sheen not on drugs is a good man and I don't think that Dr. Jekyll is a good man. So focussing in on the literature now... Dr. Jekyll is supposed to represent good and Mr. Hyde evil. However, how can anyone possibly see Jekyll as good when Mr. Hyde was born from him? Hyde is a part of Jekyll that comes out and blocks the good in Jekyll.
The reason that The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is in this unit on monsters inside us is that, well, Mr. Hyde is the monster in Dr. Jekyll, Jekyll just learned of a way to let him out. Many people chose to contain their monsters, which is why Dr. Jekyll appears so good and average to his friends before he lets Mr. Hyde out.
Mr. Hyde could not exist without Dr. Jekyll and his curiosity for "forbidden knowledge" and therefore, Dr. Jekyll does not represent good and Mr. Hyde evil. Dr. Jekyll represents humanity and Mr. Hyde represents humanity absent of goodness and judgement. It ties very closely to how drugs affect some people, who are still humans, just absent of some of their morals and judgement.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Who is Mary Carmichael? Is she important?
"Here then was I (call me Mary Beton, Mary Seton, Mary Carmichael or by any name you please — it is not a matter of any importance) sitting on the banks of a river a week or two ago in fine October weather, lost in thought." Who are Mary Beton, Mary Seton, and Mary Carmichael? Since Mary Carmichael comes up again toward the end of Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, I decided to do some research into the names to see if they are at all relevant, or were chosen by Woolf at random.
The characters are from a ballad entitled "The Four Marys". Woolf mentions three of the Marys in the ballad, only ignoring the narrator of the poem, Mary Hamilton. Mary Beton is the narrator in Woolf's essay. I think that Woolf used Beton as her narrator so that she could detach herself from the essay to write it more effectively, but why did she use all these Marys? I think this question is answered by looking at Woolf's character Judith Shakespeare, who becomes trapped in a life that is "imposed on her", the life of a woman. This is the story of the Marys, too. Woolf sees all five women as powerless and treated as inferiors to men. Whether she intended for readers to understand the connection or not, I interpreted it as Woolf trying to show that she was not alone in her ideas and that other women stood with her.
"She had — I began to think — mastered the first great lesson; she wrote as a woman, ‘but as a woman who has forgotten that she is a woman, so that her pages were full of that curious sexual quality which comes only when sex is unconscious of itself." I think this is the most important part about the Marys. Through Woolf's essay, I did start to see some things differently, but it was this part where I actually agreed with her on something. I think that statement about the imaginary book by Mary Carmichael really shows equality between the genders.
In society today, people in general are very quick to judge on whether something/someone is too feminist or too anti-feminist. The happy medium, I believe, would be Mary Carmichael (as the author of the book Woolf's narrator was reading). On the feminist side in modern culture, we have characters in the media like Rory Gilmore (from Gilmore Girls) who graduated valedictorian, studied at Yale, and turned down marriage because she didn't want to be tied down. Characters like Rory are too few in the media. Instead, we've had characters like Blair Waldorf of Gossip Girl (who's goal in life was to marry a prince), Lauren Conrad of The Hills (whose entire life revolved around having a boyfriend), and Snooki from Jersey Shore (who is quoted saying "I want to marry a guido. My ultimate dream is to move to Jersey, find a nice, juiced, hot, tan guy, and live my life.") We need more in the media of characters like the women in imaginary Mary Carmichael's book. Though Virginia Woolf came before Snooki, Lauren Conrad, and Blair Waldorf, I think that she would agree about having some books or television shows where "sex is unconscious of itself" through the directors and authors.
The characters are from a ballad entitled "The Four Marys". Woolf mentions three of the Marys in the ballad, only ignoring the narrator of the poem, Mary Hamilton. Mary Beton is the narrator in Woolf's essay. I think that Woolf used Beton as her narrator so that she could detach herself from the essay to write it more effectively, but why did she use all these Marys? I think this question is answered by looking at Woolf's character Judith Shakespeare, who becomes trapped in a life that is "imposed on her", the life of a woman. This is the story of the Marys, too. Woolf sees all five women as powerless and treated as inferiors to men. Whether she intended for readers to understand the connection or not, I interpreted it as Woolf trying to show that she was not alone in her ideas and that other women stood with her.
"She had — I began to think — mastered the first great lesson; she wrote as a woman, ‘but as a woman who has forgotten that she is a woman, so that her pages were full of that curious sexual quality which comes only when sex is unconscious of itself." I think this is the most important part about the Marys. Through Woolf's essay, I did start to see some things differently, but it was this part where I actually agreed with her on something. I think that statement about the imaginary book by Mary Carmichael really shows equality between the genders.
In society today, people in general are very quick to judge on whether something/someone is too feminist or too anti-feminist. The happy medium, I believe, would be Mary Carmichael (as the author of the book Woolf's narrator was reading). On the feminist side in modern culture, we have characters in the media like Rory Gilmore (from Gilmore Girls) who graduated valedictorian, studied at Yale, and turned down marriage because she didn't want to be tied down. Characters like Rory are too few in the media. Instead, we've had characters like Blair Waldorf of Gossip Girl (who's goal in life was to marry a prince), Lauren Conrad of The Hills (whose entire life revolved around having a boyfriend), and Snooki from Jersey Shore (who is quoted saying "I want to marry a guido. My ultimate dream is to move to Jersey, find a nice, juiced, hot, tan guy, and live my life.") We need more in the media of characters like the women in imaginary Mary Carmichael's book. Though Virginia Woolf came before Snooki, Lauren Conrad, and Blair Waldorf, I think that she would agree about having some books or television shows where "sex is unconscious of itself" through the directors and authors.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
If You Can Find Yourself, You'll Never Starve
In Kate Chopin's The Awakening, Edna says "I would give up the unessential; I would give my money, I would give my life for my children, but I wouldn't give myself." Now when I first read what Edna told Adele, I had to reread it. I thought "did she just say that?". In my personal opinion, when a person has kids, the kids become a significant part of that person, or at least they should become a significant part. Of course she should giver at least parts of her self up for her children, I thought. I tried to connect Edna's suicide to modern day society, and that was where I went wrong. I tried to put myself in her shoes and told myself that if I had been Edna, unable to give up myself for my children, then I would never have had children in the first place. But after our class discussed it over a few long class periods, not to drag out this part of my blog more, I realized that you have to step back and really think about Edna's situation from a different point of view.
Edna never really found her "self" to begin with, and therefore she had no "self" to give, and that is where I believe we (17 and 18 year olds of 2012) find ourselves unable to relate/understand. The problem starts there. Though I don't believe that as Seniors in high school we have all "found ourselves", we have been raised in a society where you're supposed to "find yourself." Though it isn't close to being perfected, gender equality is very encouraged in America. Young men and women go off to college, males and females are managers and CEOs, and boys and girls both compete for Class President in school.
Last week, I read The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, and the following quote about a girl trying to understand who she really is stuck out to me: "I knelt down in the water, my fingers digging into the roots. Small, bluish tubers that don’t look like much but boiled or baked are as good as any potato. 'Katniss,' I said aloud. It’s the plant I was named for. And I heard my father’s voice joking, 'As long as you can find yourself, you’ll never starve.'" Katniss' father was literally talking about finding the plant to eat and literally not starve, but it also has a deeper meaning. I applied it to The Awakening and the idea of women finding themselves. Now back to what I started to say at the beginning of the previous paragraph, Edna was never given a chance to find herself. She was raised for the sole purpose of becoming a mother and a wife. She never had the opportunity to find anything about herself until it was too late. Edna "starved" without grasping who she really was as an individual and that it why she committed suicide in the end.
Edna never really found her "self" to begin with, and therefore she had no "self" to give, and that is where I believe we (17 and 18 year olds of 2012) find ourselves unable to relate/understand. The problem starts there. Though I don't believe that as Seniors in high school we have all "found ourselves", we have been raised in a society where you're supposed to "find yourself." Though it isn't close to being perfected, gender equality is very encouraged in America. Young men and women go off to college, males and females are managers and CEOs, and boys and girls both compete for Class President in school.
Last week, I read The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins, and the following quote about a girl trying to understand who she really is stuck out to me: "I knelt down in the water, my fingers digging into the roots. Small, bluish tubers that don’t look like much but boiled or baked are as good as any potato. 'Katniss,' I said aloud. It’s the plant I was named for. And I heard my father’s voice joking, 'As long as you can find yourself, you’ll never starve.'" Katniss' father was literally talking about finding the plant to eat and literally not starve, but it also has a deeper meaning. I applied it to The Awakening and the idea of women finding themselves. Now back to what I started to say at the beginning of the previous paragraph, Edna was never given a chance to find herself. She was raised for the sole purpose of becoming a mother and a wife. She never had the opportunity to find anything about herself until it was too late. Edna "starved" without grasping who she really was as an individual and that it why she committed suicide in the end.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Stigma in the Cultural Revolution
Stigma, according to the World English Dictionary, is a "distinguishing mark of social disgrace" but it can also refer to a blemish, mark of disease, or a brand on the skin. Looking at those definitions, it's hard to believe that such a negative thing still exists today. In my psychology class, we learned about this word and about how many psychological disorders have stigmas associated with them in America today. Most people will hear "mentally disabled" and automatically jump to conclusions about a person without even thinking about him or her as a human being. Humans are ignorant and egotistic. If a culture is different from our own we usually discredit it and rationalize it as wrong, believing our own culture to be superior. For example, (from the reading) the Callatians used to eat the bodies of their dead fathers. This, to an American, seems absurd, disgusting, disrespectful, and meaningless. I know that I, in reading about the Callatians, immediately jump to conclusions about their culture, comparing it to the culture I have been raised in, where we bury the dead in respect. The story told in the article, though, says that the Callatians were told by King Darius of the Greek way of burning their deceased fathers' bodies and they were outraged at the dreadfulness of that idea. "Burying the dead could be seen as an act of rejection and burning the corpse as positively scornful."To them, their culture was respectful of the dead and they saw nothing wrong with it. "It could be taken as a symbolic act that says: We wish this person's spirit to dwell within us."They weren't practicing those traditions because they didn't know better or anything like that, but rather because that was the right thing in their culture.
In reading the article, I noticed that the same question kept returning in my head: How do we know what culture is right? I know what I believe is right and wrong and I personally know this from the Bible and how I was raised, but in other cultures, people believe just as firmly in other things. This is the question of Cultural Relativism. "To determine whether the conclusion [of the other culture] is true, we need arguments in its support. Cultural Relativism proposes this argument, but unfortunately the argument turns out to be fallacious. So it proves nothing." Again, how can any one culture prove that it is better and more valid than the many others in the world? "There is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one's society: 'The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, or independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is right.'" After I got to this point, I started to connect this article more directly to Things Fall Apart. In America, I think I can safely say that most people would disagree with killing baby twins just because they are twins. The Christians that came to Okonkwo's village also disagreed because it is against their beliefs. To Okonkwo, though, it was just right and it always had been. How dare someone come into his village and tell him that he and all of his ancestors and gods were wrong? I think that if everyone would read the section titled "Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems", there would actually be less stigma. "We agree that we shouldn't eat grandma; we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be) Grandma." I personally had never thought about it that way before. Okonkwo's people weren't killing the twins because it was inconvenient to raise two babies or because they love killing babies, but because they thought twins were evil omens sent from the gods and that killing them was the right thing to do. It seems absurd to other cultures because other cultures don't think twins are evil omens sent by the gods.
On a final note, the "second lesson" to be learned from Cultural Relativism "has to do with keeping an open mind."We hear something that doesn't seem right to us or that seems different and we assume that it is wrong and we are right. Cultural Relativism points out our use of stigma and prejudice, because we cannot keep open minds. That is man's downfall; ignorance.
In reading the article, I noticed that the same question kept returning in my head: How do we know what culture is right? I know what I believe is right and wrong and I personally know this from the Bible and how I was raised, but in other cultures, people believe just as firmly in other things. This is the question of Cultural Relativism. "To determine whether the conclusion [of the other culture] is true, we need arguments in its support. Cultural Relativism proposes this argument, but unfortunately the argument turns out to be fallacious. So it proves nothing." Again, how can any one culture prove that it is better and more valid than the many others in the world? "There is no measure of right and wrong other than the standards of one's society: 'The notion of right is in the folkways. It is not outside of them, or independent origin, and brought to test them. In the folkways, whatever is, is right.'" After I got to this point, I started to connect this article more directly to Things Fall Apart. In America, I think I can safely say that most people would disagree with killing baby twins just because they are twins. The Christians that came to Okonkwo's village also disagreed because it is against their beliefs. To Okonkwo, though, it was just right and it always had been. How dare someone come into his village and tell him that he and all of his ancestors and gods were wrong? I think that if everyone would read the section titled "Why There Is Less Disagreement Than It Seems", there would actually be less stigma. "We agree that we shouldn't eat grandma; we simply disagree about whether the cow is (or could be) Grandma." I personally had never thought about it that way before. Okonkwo's people weren't killing the twins because it was inconvenient to raise two babies or because they love killing babies, but because they thought twins were evil omens sent from the gods and that killing them was the right thing to do. It seems absurd to other cultures because other cultures don't think twins are evil omens sent by the gods.
On a final note, the "second lesson" to be learned from Cultural Relativism "has to do with keeping an open mind."We hear something that doesn't seem right to us or that seems different and we assume that it is wrong and we are right. Cultural Relativism points out our use of stigma and prejudice, because we cannot keep open minds. That is man's downfall; ignorance.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Pretend or Real?
Hamlet pretended to be crazy in Shakespeare's play with the goal of futhering his plans at revenge. Hamlet's actions and behavior towards Ophelia in Act 3, scene 1, makes me wonder if he eventually drove himself to insanity. His actions towards her seem out-of-the-blue and over-the-top; they were somewhat on the self-destructive side for Hamlet in the way that he was treating her. He rejects and insults her, and I feel like those are the worst possible two things he could have done. He was ruining things, if he was still pretending, for only the reason of making himself believable when he already had people fooled. I think he really did love Ophelia, and was mostly convinced when he said "I loved Ophelia. Forty thousand brothers could not with all their quantity of love make up my sum." He said this after Ophelia was already dead, and he could have had no reason other than love to say that. The fact that he does really love her begs to question how he could do anything to hurt her that really wasn't necessary. Hamlet actually announces that he is pretending to be crazy to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern so is it really possible that he actually is driven crazy? There is something in Hamlet's actions that makes me believe that he really is crazy. I just don't believe he would treat Ophelia like that if he was only in a pretend state of craziness. I think that he could have tried to be more real with her.
In my psychology class, we learned about the Stanford Prison Expiriment and I thought of this when reading the scene with Ophelia. In this experiment, volunteers signed up for an experiment, knowing ahead of time not what the expiriment was studying but what was going to happen. Some people were going to be chosen to be prison guards in a fake prison and some people were going to be chosen to be prisoners. The experiment was supposed to go for two weeks but had to be cut off before the end of one. When assigned their roles, at first, the volunteer subjects didn't get too into their roles. After a day, though, even though the people knew it was not real, they started to get really into their roles as prisoners or prison guards. The volunteer subjects were allowed to leave, too, like Hamlet was allowed to stop being crazy, but they didn't. After only two days, they were so into it, violence was breaking out, some men cried and tried to break out, and it really did not look like an experiment anymore, but the real thing. They had to stop early because it got so out of hand.
From the experiment, Stanford learned that when a person is burdened with a defining word (in the expiriment, "Prisoner 347", for example), or "crazy" in Hamlet, they cannot help but be consumed by the word they are telling themselves they are or that they are being told they are.Hamlet pretends to be crazy for long enough that I really think that it actually makes him crazy. I don't think, though, that he was pretending to be in love; he really did love Ophelia. It was his pretending to be crazy that drove him to actually being crazy that clouded and confused his love.
In my psychology class, we learned about the Stanford Prison Expiriment and I thought of this when reading the scene with Ophelia. In this experiment, volunteers signed up for an experiment, knowing ahead of time not what the expiriment was studying but what was going to happen. Some people were going to be chosen to be prison guards in a fake prison and some people were going to be chosen to be prisoners. The experiment was supposed to go for two weeks but had to be cut off before the end of one. When assigned their roles, at first, the volunteer subjects didn't get too into their roles. After a day, though, even though the people knew it was not real, they started to get really into their roles as prisoners or prison guards. The volunteer subjects were allowed to leave, too, like Hamlet was allowed to stop being crazy, but they didn't. After only two days, they were so into it, violence was breaking out, some men cried and tried to break out, and it really did not look like an experiment anymore, but the real thing. They had to stop early because it got so out of hand.
From the experiment, Stanford learned that when a person is burdened with a defining word (in the expiriment, "Prisoner 347", for example), or "crazy" in Hamlet, they cannot help but be consumed by the word they are telling themselves they are or that they are being told they are.Hamlet pretends to be crazy for long enough that I really think that it actually makes him crazy. I don't think, though, that he was pretending to be in love; he really did love Ophelia. It was his pretending to be crazy that drove him to actually being crazy that clouded and confused his love.
Monday, October 31, 2011
The Various Ideas of a Hero
The poem Beowulf tells the story of a man considered to be quite the hero in Pagan culture. A few of our Socratic Seminar questions discuss Beowulf's heroic qualities. In Pagan culture, Beowulf would have been regarded as an esteemed hero. He demonstrated qualities of loyalty, generosity, and bravery. Beowulf accepts the challenge of fighting Grendel even though many before him have failed and most would run away from the challenge in fear. Obviously, it takes quite an amount of bravery and courage to do what he did. Many years later, Beowulf musters up the bravery to fight the dragon, again demonstrating that Pagan value of a hero. Beowulf also exemplifies the characteristics of loyalty and generosity through his care for his people. In the end, as he lies dying, Beowulf asks to see the treasure of the dragon to know that his battle was not for nothing and that his people will reap the benefits. "I give thanks that I behold this treasure here in front of me, that I have been allowed to leave my people so well endowed". He sees the treasure and is pleased that even though he cannot stay with his people, they will be alright.
In modern culture, I think that Beowulf would be considered as arrogant and overly prideful. I can understand why in Pagan culture is was called a hero, but I probably would not call him one myself. His bravery seems to come when he has something to gain personally. To me, it seemed like Beowulf was only fighting Grendel because he thought it would be an impressive feat. When Beowulf first arrived in Heorot, he told stories of his previous great accomplishments and sounded like he was simply bragging about his life and how great he was. Today, I think your average hero (or at least what people assume to be the "average hero") would not brag about himself or herself but would say something like "Oh, don't thank me. The real heroes are..."I just can't see someone who we take as a hero to say something like what Beowulf said to Unferth after being accused of being reckless, "Well, friend Unferth, you have had your say about Breca and me. But it was mostly beer that was doing the talking. The truth is this: when the going was heavy in those high waves, I was the strongest swimmer of all." Beowulf is just too prideful and arrogant to be a true hero. I'll admit, some of his actions were definitely heroic (like defeating Grendel and fighting the dragon), but I don't think he was a hero, according to the modern idea of a hero.
This brings me to why I think that the modern idea of a hero has become warped. I'm not about to say that someone who signs up to be in the military isn't heroic and honorable, because they most certainly are and they should not be forgotten, but they shouldn't be deemed as heroes for that one action. In my opinion, heroes are quite different from role models, and those people would be more like role models. A role model, to me, is someone you respect and look up to. A hero is someone who puts others ahead of him or herself, takes risks for the benefit of others, and makes a positive influence or change in the world. I don't think that Beowulf would, today, be considered a role model or a hero, but his actions were still heroic, he just wasn't doing those actions for the reasons a hero would.
In modern culture, I think that Beowulf would be considered as arrogant and overly prideful. I can understand why in Pagan culture is was called a hero, but I probably would not call him one myself. His bravery seems to come when he has something to gain personally. To me, it seemed like Beowulf was only fighting Grendel because he thought it would be an impressive feat. When Beowulf first arrived in Heorot, he told stories of his previous great accomplishments and sounded like he was simply bragging about his life and how great he was. Today, I think your average hero (or at least what people assume to be the "average hero") would not brag about himself or herself but would say something like "Oh, don't thank me. The real heroes are..."I just can't see someone who we take as a hero to say something like what Beowulf said to Unferth after being accused of being reckless, "Well, friend Unferth, you have had your say about Breca and me. But it was mostly beer that was doing the talking. The truth is this: when the going was heavy in those high waves, I was the strongest swimmer of all." Beowulf is just too prideful and arrogant to be a true hero. I'll admit, some of his actions were definitely heroic (like defeating Grendel and fighting the dragon), but I don't think he was a hero, according to the modern idea of a hero.
This brings me to why I think that the modern idea of a hero has become warped. I'm not about to say that someone who signs up to be in the military isn't heroic and honorable, because they most certainly are and they should not be forgotten, but they shouldn't be deemed as heroes for that one action. In my opinion, heroes are quite different from role models, and those people would be more like role models. A role model, to me, is someone you respect and look up to. A hero is someone who puts others ahead of him or herself, takes risks for the benefit of others, and makes a positive influence or change in the world. I don't think that Beowulf would, today, be considered a role model or a hero, but his actions were still heroic, he just wasn't doing those actions for the reasons a hero would.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Lifting or Lowering the Veil of Ignorance?
We did discuss Question 10 from the Invisible Man Socratic Seminar questions in class, but not for very long. The statue of the Founding Father at the narrator's college raises some questions for some people. Is "the veil...really being lifted, or lowered more firmly in place?" Is the narrator "witnessing a revelation or a more efficient binding?" I think that the concept of the statue actually not only ties into the novel but also into the "real world."
I believe that the veil was actually being lowered more firmly in place. I did some research on the statue and it was a monument of Booker T. Washington lifting the veil of ignorance off a scared slave. Apparently, the statue has a lot of controversy with it, not just in Ellison's book. Maybe the sculptor actually meant for the veil to be lifted in a "revelation", but it provokes a real point about the veil actually being place more firmly in place. I think the college in the book had the statue because to them, the man was not removing the veil. Throughout Invisible Man, the narrator tries and tries again to lift that veil. Through the Brotherhood, his speeches, and his actions, he tries to see and reveal the truth about racial equality. In the end, though, he goes underground, unable to see through the "veil." The Brotherhood and other white people in the novel lie to the narrator constantly, making him believe his "veil" is being lifted. They almost convince him that he is doing good for African Americans, except that it was all just a fairytale that wasn't real. Truly, the others are blinding the narrator to the truth and they are just reinforcing the idea of racial segregation.
The concept of the veil can be related to discrimination during any time period, including now. There is a lot of discrimination in the world still and, though some problems have been made better, most still exist inside of people's heads. I hear things all of the time in the media about how everybody is getting along more and how there is less hate towards different minorities. In all of the new books and on all of the new television shows, kids who belong to different cliques, have different preferences, and look different are all always best friends. The books and shows might be trying to help make America more like that, but it puts the idea in some people's heads that we've solved our problems and that there is nothing to worry about. In my opinion, the media is not lifting a veil from our faces about discrimination, but rather it is placing one over us. If someone sees or reads about all the problems being solved, I don't think they will be motivated to go out and try to solve ones themselves. I think they will just assume someone else is working on it and that the problem is solved, when in fact it is not.
I believe that the veil was actually being lowered more firmly in place. I did some research on the statue and it was a monument of Booker T. Washington lifting the veil of ignorance off a scared slave. Apparently, the statue has a lot of controversy with it, not just in Ellison's book. Maybe the sculptor actually meant for the veil to be lifted in a "revelation", but it provokes a real point about the veil actually being place more firmly in place. I think the college in the book had the statue because to them, the man was not removing the veil. Throughout Invisible Man, the narrator tries and tries again to lift that veil. Through the Brotherhood, his speeches, and his actions, he tries to see and reveal the truth about racial equality. In the end, though, he goes underground, unable to see through the "veil." The Brotherhood and other white people in the novel lie to the narrator constantly, making him believe his "veil" is being lifted. They almost convince him that he is doing good for African Americans, except that it was all just a fairytale that wasn't real. Truly, the others are blinding the narrator to the truth and they are just reinforcing the idea of racial segregation.
The concept of the veil can be related to discrimination during any time period, including now. There is a lot of discrimination in the world still and, though some problems have been made better, most still exist inside of people's heads. I hear things all of the time in the media about how everybody is getting along more and how there is less hate towards different minorities. In all of the new books and on all of the new television shows, kids who belong to different cliques, have different preferences, and look different are all always best friends. The books and shows might be trying to help make America more like that, but it puts the idea in some people's heads that we've solved our problems and that there is nothing to worry about. In my opinion, the media is not lifting a veil from our faces about discrimination, but rather it is placing one over us. If someone sees or reads about all the problems being solved, I don't think they will be motivated to go out and try to solve ones themselves. I think they will just assume someone else is working on it and that the problem is solved, when in fact it is not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)