Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
THE TEMPEST IN THE WILDERNESS
THE TEMPEST IN THE WILDERNESS- The Racialization of Savagery
In this article, the author, Takaki Ronald illustrates how the performance of William Shakespeare’s Tempest can be approached as a fascinating tale that served as a masquerade for the creation of a new society in America. The article also shows how the English conquered the Irish and Indians by force and took over their land. In this process, many Indians were killed and those that survived were deprived of the opportunities that they initially possessed. “The English claimed they had a God given responsibility to inhabit and reform so barbarous a nation.” The English saw the Irish and Indians as savages whose savagery, they believed, could be improved if these people became civilized showing that the difference between the English and these people was a matter of culture. The Indians were seen as devils that lived in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and the worship of God.
In the view of bringing the true knowledge of God to the Indians and Irish, the English settlers ended up in a competition of resources with the Indians. Part of the competition was for arable land. Takaki concludes that “within this economic and cultural framework, a discovery occurred: the Indian “other” became a manifest devil. Thus savagery was racialized as the Indians were demonized… once the process of this cultural construction was under way; it set a course for the making of a nation identity in America for centuries to come.” Takaki concludes that “civilizing the Indians was a strategy designed to acquire land for white settlements. All Indians, regardless of whether they were farmers or hunters, were subject to removal, even extermination, if they continued in their “barbarism.” Thus Indians were only given one option and that was to adopt the white man’s culture in order for them to survive.
In his argument, Takaki states that the Indians were subject to extermination regardless of whether they attained the civilization that was to be brought upon them by the English settlers. I agree with his assumption here because throughout the article, we could see that the intentions of the English settlers were more than just bringing civilization to the Indians and Iris, but to actually possess their land. Actually the Indians themselves saw this leading their governor Pequots to protest: “we see plainly that their [the English] chiefest desire is to deprive us of the privilege of our land, and drive us off to our utter ruin.” This is one of the evidences showing that the English had other intentions of satisfying their own desires in the conquest of the Indians as Takaki argues.
While reading the article, I was so amazed at how these English settlers used the God as their sender to get that which they needed. Indeed you would wonder what type of God would find pleasure in the death of thousands of people without prior warning just so others can have possession of temporal things like land.
In this article, the author, Takaki Ronald illustrates how the performance of William Shakespeare’s Tempest can be approached as a fascinating tale that served as a masquerade for the creation of a new society in America. The article also shows how the English conquered the Irish and Indians by force and took over their land. In this process, many Indians were killed and those that survived were deprived of the opportunities that they initially possessed. “The English claimed they had a God given responsibility to inhabit and reform so barbarous a nation.” The English saw the Irish and Indians as savages whose savagery, they believed, could be improved if these people became civilized showing that the difference between the English and these people was a matter of culture. The Indians were seen as devils that lived in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and the worship of God.
In the view of bringing the true knowledge of God to the Indians and Irish, the English settlers ended up in a competition of resources with the Indians. Part of the competition was for arable land. Takaki concludes that “within this economic and cultural framework, a discovery occurred: the Indian “other” became a manifest devil. Thus savagery was racialized as the Indians were demonized… once the process of this cultural construction was under way; it set a course for the making of a nation identity in America for centuries to come.” Takaki concludes that “civilizing the Indians was a strategy designed to acquire land for white settlements. All Indians, regardless of whether they were farmers or hunters, were subject to removal, even extermination, if they continued in their “barbarism.” Thus Indians were only given one option and that was to adopt the white man’s culture in order for them to survive.
In his argument, Takaki states that the Indians were subject to extermination regardless of whether they attained the civilization that was to be brought upon them by the English settlers. I agree with his assumption here because throughout the article, we could see that the intentions of the English settlers were more than just bringing civilization to the Indians and Iris, but to actually possess their land. Actually the Indians themselves saw this leading their governor Pequots to protest: “we see plainly that their [the English] chiefest desire is to deprive us of the privilege of our land, and drive us off to our utter ruin.” This is one of the evidences showing that the English had other intentions of satisfying their own desires in the conquest of the Indians as Takaki argues.
While reading the article, I was so amazed at how these English settlers used the God as their sender to get that which they needed. Indeed you would wonder what type of God would find pleasure in the death of thousands of people without prior warning just so others can have possession of temporal things like land.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Rosenblum Article
The Meaning of Difference
In this article, the author, Rosenblum Karen, considers issues of how difference is constructed in contemporary America. To do so, she has divided the article in what she considers key questions about difference, i.e. how difference is constructed, how it is experienced by individuals, how meaning is attributed to difference, and how difference can be bridged. To answer these questions, she divides the primary axes of difference also called master statuses into race, sex and gender, social class, sexual orientation, and disability.
In looking at disability-one of the master statuses, Rosenblum concludes that disability is socially constructed. It is created by environments that lack the physical design or social support that would make life worth living. To illustrate this point, she quotes Morris, 1991:40-40 who gave an example of Larry McAfee who was involved in a motorcycle accident which resulted in complete paralysis and the need to use a ventilator. After spending all the money that he had on private care in his own home, Larry ended up in a nursing home where he thought that life was not worth living. He therefore, decided that his life should be ended and went through legal procedures for that. But when finally he won the support to end his life, Larry decided to delay his decision. Morris concludes that what Larry wanted “was to live in his own home and get a job.” He further argues that “it is not the physical disability itself but the social and economic circumstances of the experience which can lead to a diminished quality of life” (page 24). Therefore, disability should be understood as a result of disabling environment.
In her argument, Rosenblum also concludes that the categories of disability are themselves socially constructed. They are not the “givens in nature… but rather socially constructed categories that emerge from the interpretive activities of people acting together in social situations (P24). She gives learning disabilities as an example of a disability that did not exist until educators began to popularize it. However, she states that almost two million students are served as learning disabled. She further argues that disability is created in both physical and conceptual ways. People are labeled as disabled depending on the helplessness created by their physical limitations. Thus Higgins comments that disability is made and remade through our beliefs, behaviors, policies, and practices, interpersonal, organizational and social activities (P24).
In dealing with the master statuses, Rosenblum states that society has reduced the complexity of a population to aggregates and then to a simplistic dichotomy. Aggregation ignores the conflicting statuses an individual inevitably occupies and assumes that those who share a master status are alike in essential ways. She concludes that dichotomizing “promotes the image of a mythical other who is not like ‘us’ and ultimately results in stigmatizing those who are less powerful” (25). This has led to constructing ‘others’ as profoundly different. She gives an example of how biological differences in males and females have been the grounds from which to infer an extensive range of non biological differences hence leading to different legal, social, and economic roles and rights. Though these differences are highly held by society, very few significant differences have been found between men and women. The differences are thought to be there because we are all socialized to produce such differences. The expectations of such differences are also seen in race, class and sexual orientation. For example, Rosenblum argues that differences of race are expected to involve more than just differences of color.
Rosenblum further notes the similarities that are there in the sanctioning received by those who cross race, sex, class or sexual orientation boundaries. She gives an example of how a child who marries from a different race is as likely to be disowned by his parents as a child who is gay. This leads to labeling of one another based on the features on seems to acquire. Men that appear feminine are labeled gay and thus boys are structured at an early stage not be behave like women to avoid public humiliation. Due to this labeling, it is likely that people will pretend to be what they are not and these labels have become as Rosenblum concludes, the social control mechanisms which are effective up to now because all of us are guilty of effecting them in one way or the other.
This article made me realize the stereotypes that are labeled on race, sex and gender and especially disability. In our society today, those who are disabled are never thought of being able to do what others without physical disability are able to do. If they perform beyond people’s expectations, then they are considered to be almost supernatural because society’s view is that they should perform below that level. I also liked the way she illustrated that both of us are dependent in one way or another despite the stereotype on the disabled as the only ones being dependent.
In this article, the author, Rosenblum Karen, considers issues of how difference is constructed in contemporary America. To do so, she has divided the article in what she considers key questions about difference, i.e. how difference is constructed, how it is experienced by individuals, how meaning is attributed to difference, and how difference can be bridged. To answer these questions, she divides the primary axes of difference also called master statuses into race, sex and gender, social class, sexual orientation, and disability.
In looking at disability-one of the master statuses, Rosenblum concludes that disability is socially constructed. It is created by environments that lack the physical design or social support that would make life worth living. To illustrate this point, she quotes Morris, 1991:40-40 who gave an example of Larry McAfee who was involved in a motorcycle accident which resulted in complete paralysis and the need to use a ventilator. After spending all the money that he had on private care in his own home, Larry ended up in a nursing home where he thought that life was not worth living. He therefore, decided that his life should be ended and went through legal procedures for that. But when finally he won the support to end his life, Larry decided to delay his decision. Morris concludes that what Larry wanted “was to live in his own home and get a job.” He further argues that “it is not the physical disability itself but the social and economic circumstances of the experience which can lead to a diminished quality of life” (page 24). Therefore, disability should be understood as a result of disabling environment.
In her argument, Rosenblum also concludes that the categories of disability are themselves socially constructed. They are not the “givens in nature… but rather socially constructed categories that emerge from the interpretive activities of people acting together in social situations (P24). She gives learning disabilities as an example of a disability that did not exist until educators began to popularize it. However, she states that almost two million students are served as learning disabled. She further argues that disability is created in both physical and conceptual ways. People are labeled as disabled depending on the helplessness created by their physical limitations. Thus Higgins comments that disability is made and remade through our beliefs, behaviors, policies, and practices, interpersonal, organizational and social activities (P24).
In dealing with the master statuses, Rosenblum states that society has reduced the complexity of a population to aggregates and then to a simplistic dichotomy. Aggregation ignores the conflicting statuses an individual inevitably occupies and assumes that those who share a master status are alike in essential ways. She concludes that dichotomizing “promotes the image of a mythical other who is not like ‘us’ and ultimately results in stigmatizing those who are less powerful” (25). This has led to constructing ‘others’ as profoundly different. She gives an example of how biological differences in males and females have been the grounds from which to infer an extensive range of non biological differences hence leading to different legal, social, and economic roles and rights. Though these differences are highly held by society, very few significant differences have been found between men and women. The differences are thought to be there because we are all socialized to produce such differences. The expectations of such differences are also seen in race, class and sexual orientation. For example, Rosenblum argues that differences of race are expected to involve more than just differences of color.
Rosenblum further notes the similarities that are there in the sanctioning received by those who cross race, sex, class or sexual orientation boundaries. She gives an example of how a child who marries from a different race is as likely to be disowned by his parents as a child who is gay. This leads to labeling of one another based on the features on seems to acquire. Men that appear feminine are labeled gay and thus boys are structured at an early stage not be behave like women to avoid public humiliation. Due to this labeling, it is likely that people will pretend to be what they are not and these labels have become as Rosenblum concludes, the social control mechanisms which are effective up to now because all of us are guilty of effecting them in one way or the other.
This article made me realize the stereotypes that are labeled on race, sex and gender and especially disability. In our society today, those who are disabled are never thought of being able to do what others without physical disability are able to do. If they perform beyond people’s expectations, then they are considered to be almost supernatural because society’s view is that they should perform below that level. I also liked the way she illustrated that both of us are dependent in one way or another despite the stereotype on the disabled as the only ones being dependent.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
INTRODUCTION
My name is Carol Mayuni.
I am a sophomore majoring in Nursing and Public Health minor.
I'm originally from Zambia- Africa.
I took this class because it meets one of my BG perspective requirements but most importantly because i want to learn more about different issues of race and gender. I hope to learn alot from everyone.
I am a sophomore majoring in Nursing and Public Health minor.
I'm originally from Zambia- Africa.
I took this class because it meets one of my BG perspective requirements but most importantly because i want to learn more about different issues of race and gender. I hope to learn alot from everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)