Monday, May 3, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Multiplicity...
The idea of using multi-genre forms and techniques in a rhetoric of resistance is a very effective tool. For example Carl Beam was using collage in the form of panting over or distorting images that have already been created by another source. Adding to or altering already made and developed images provides a collage like effect for his audience. Collage and multiple message images is a very effective form of communication. For example a multi-message piece has the ability to speak to multiple audiences without watering-down and lessening any particular arguments. Multiple arguments have the ability to work both individually and collectively. I think using multiplicity is a very strong rhetorical tool. It is one that I am interested in incorporating in my individual piece and I enjoy reading as well.
An example of multiplicity is what Laurie used in her piece. She aimed to incorporate multiple arguments by making her own and placing quotes of others arguments in their entirety. That technique of incorporating multiple arguments while having them work as individuals gave her piece and authenticity that cannot be duplicated in paraphrasing. Having the ability to utilize someone else words in that persons authentic voice adds personality and duality to her piece; similar to Carl Beams usage of alteration in his art.
Another rhetorical tool in writing that can provide the same sense of multiplicity is font usage. Differentiation of fonts in text can provide a realistic personality development between different viewpoints and voices throughout a piece. This could be an extremely effective rhetorical tool in a rhetoric of resistance. Part of the creation of a rhetoric of resistance is having the ability to present the opinion or viewpoint of the audience one is resistance against while simultaneously presenting the viewpoint of the audience you are resisting for. Font differentiation could be a very effective told in creating this duality for ones reader. Font can also be a tool used to create ethos for an audience. For example if there some of your audience is a more visual audience they may be able to relate to “handwritten – looking” font as more personable. While a “type-writer-font” like Times New Roman may read more like a textbook and build a barrier for your audience. That is a great tool to use. If in my rhetoric of resistance I am attempting to create a perspective that I want to work as a personable perspective; a perspective that is working against an ill-informed historical perspective that font differentiation could be an effective rhetorical tool to use.
In looking at my rhetoric of resistance as I am now beginning to enter into my creation phase these tools are interesting and important tools to keep in mind. As I reference in a previous post I want to define my audience as I write my piece. A visual way for me to represent that and for myself as a write to control maybe conflicting arguments or perspective in my piece visually two different fonts could allow me to jeep that control over my piece. It may also help my audience to clearly differentiate between the confliction views I may be presenting. I do aim to step out of my comfort zone in this piece and try new techniques and schemes. I want to obtain as wide of an audience as possible but also make sure that audience would be able to completely grasp my point. Using multiplicity could be an effective tool in accomplishing this.
An example of multiplicity is what Laurie used in her piece. She aimed to incorporate multiple arguments by making her own and placing quotes of others arguments in their entirety. That technique of incorporating multiple arguments while having them work as individuals gave her piece and authenticity that cannot be duplicated in paraphrasing. Having the ability to utilize someone else words in that persons authentic voice adds personality and duality to her piece; similar to Carl Beams usage of alteration in his art.
Another rhetorical tool in writing that can provide the same sense of multiplicity is font usage. Differentiation of fonts in text can provide a realistic personality development between different viewpoints and voices throughout a piece. This could be an extremely effective rhetorical tool in a rhetoric of resistance. Part of the creation of a rhetoric of resistance is having the ability to present the opinion or viewpoint of the audience one is resistance against while simultaneously presenting the viewpoint of the audience you are resisting for. Font differentiation could be a very effective told in creating this duality for ones reader. Font can also be a tool used to create ethos for an audience. For example if there some of your audience is a more visual audience they may be able to relate to “handwritten – looking” font as more personable. While a “type-writer-font” like Times New Roman may read more like a textbook and build a barrier for your audience. That is a great tool to use. If in my rhetoric of resistance I am attempting to create a perspective that I want to work as a personable perspective; a perspective that is working against an ill-informed historical perspective that font differentiation could be an effective rhetorical tool to use.
In looking at my rhetoric of resistance as I am now beginning to enter into my creation phase these tools are interesting and important tools to keep in mind. As I reference in a previous post I want to define my audience as I write my piece. A visual way for me to represent that and for myself as a write to control maybe conflicting arguments or perspective in my piece visually two different fonts could allow me to jeep that control over my piece. It may also help my audience to clearly differentiate between the confliction views I may be presenting. I do aim to step out of my comfort zone in this piece and try new techniques and schemes. I want to obtain as wide of an audience as possible but also make sure that audience would be able to completely grasp my point. Using multiplicity could be an effective tool in accomplishing this.
Monday, March 29, 2010
A reflection on creation
1. What specific genre you intend to craft
For this project I intent to write in a multi-form genre one that may include poetry, song, memoir, autobiography, creative non-fiction, 1st person narrative and autohistoria. The overall genre of this piece will be memoir; I will be reflecting on my experiences on campus and at home through memories. I will also be drawing conclusions about these memories and what that means for me. I also want to reflect on what my placement in society is and how that placement has affected these experiences. A writer who used writing in different genres as a rhetorical tool is Gloria Anzaldua in Borderlands. She uses her interweaving of multiple genres as an expository example of living with multiple identities.
There are many features and rhetorical strategies used in the genre of memoir. For example the option to write in a liner narrative or non-linear narrative is a rhetorical tool; in this piece I would like to attempt to write a circular narrative. My goal is to start the reader/audience in an experience or a place – I would like to end my audience in that same place but with a different perspective. A writer who does that beautifully for me is Octavia E. Butler. Butler has the ability in her novel Kindred to engage the reader in her family’s history and experiences by traveling through time into memories told by her ancestors. She defines her place in society through her history and her genealogy. In her novel she ends at her beginning – that expresses the crippling effects of slavery on a woman in the 1970s; she makes no clear distinction between past and present because the atrocities of the past are still alive in the present. Also I have read rhetoric’s of resistance in memoir that use flashbacks as a rhetorical tool; for example the author is writing in the present – talking with the audience but flashes back to experiences that has shaped their life or influenced the conversation the writer is now having with their readers. A writer who exemplifies this in my eyes is Bell Hooks. In many of her writings she challenges topics like race, class and gender but through flashbacks. I enjoyed reading a piece where the author is talking directly to the reader. Jamaica Kincaid also does this very well in her book, A Small Place; she challenges her readers by directly questioning and talking to them.
I have chosen to write in and explore these genres because they are genres that interest me and because they are genres that I enjoy reading. Similar to Anzaldua, Kincaid, Butler and Hooks are all very boisterous, independent and explosive female writers. They are all writers that I aspire to be like and all write in genres that not only excite me but ignite me. I think a rhetoric of resistance is a text that defines a truth; a truth that has been ignored publicly, privately and historically. I think that any genre has the ability to inflame that truth, and I plan to explore multiple genres to explain my own.
2. What audience you intend to target
It is hard for me to clearly define who my audience is at this particular point in my writing. I haven’t truly begun to write and craft the story that I want to tell or how I plan to tell it. I will be writing about my college experience at Syracuse University. One of my audiences would be the Syracuse community and other college communities like it. I would also want to talk to the community of education and educators; the institution of learning itself. What does it mean to educate? How can you educated in a place that hierarchies embody and encourage mis-education. I want to speak to education in the United States and the bodies that run the education institution.
I am also speaking to an audience both for and against social justice. I hope that my rhetoric of resistance will encourage social justice in the United States and the re-education of those justices and injustices in the histories of the United States. I have chosen these audiences because they are both the audiences that can change and re-define what history has mis-defined or mis-interpreted both from the top and the bottom.
My goal is to not make assumptions about my audience. I know it is inevitable not to assume but I want to write first and have my writing define my audience instead of writing for a particular audience. I feel that in writing this way it will encourage a more authentic work.
Again I want to caution myself from researching a particular audience because I do not want to limit myself in either my creative liberty or authenticity. One of the audiences that I know I will be writing to is the Syracuse University community and other university communities. Since I am a part of that community I plan to write in – I can write in a way that is understandable to all sub-communities in that community. I think that experience is the most effective research, and many of the communities that I would assume would be the audience of this piece I am already a member of that community.
The biggest goal here in regard to audience is to write in and with experiences that everyone can relate to. If I write in a way that refers to specific events I may exclude certain members of my audience. But if I try to write about an experience that is relatable to a wide audience my piece will be more effective.
3. What identities you are resisting and what identities you are crafting
It is hard to define which identities I will be crafting exactly because I haven’t crafted them yet. But my main goal in this piece is not for me to craft a “new identity” but it is for me to define myself through the identities that have been crafted for me. I will talk about the positive and negative effects of having a society that crafts an identity or categorizes a person without that persons consent or input. I plan on challenging the ideal of identities as a whole. Who makes the identity? Me or Society. If I make my own identity will society accept that identity? Do I have power over what my identity is? These are some questions I will be asking and in asking these questions I hope that my readers will ask the same questions for themselves. In asking those questions I also hope they will challenge themselves and their identities. Do they need to craft a new one? I don’t think so I just think there is a need to understand where identities are derived from and what that acceptance of those identities mean for oneself and for society at large.
I don’t know if I’m crafting a new identity or a project identity as much as I am reclaiming an identity that was stolen from me; the identity of the individual. I hope the challenge the ideal of individualize and categorize. What was first the individual or the category? In today’s society I would argue the category people are born into categories; we are defined from birth. The individual is an identity that has been lost; and I hope in my writing to reclaim it for myself and challenge others to reclaim it as well.
I think most of the texts we have read this semester resonate in some way to the identity of the individual. Said was challenging the category of the oriental. What is ortienalism? Why are Middle Eastern peoples automatically thrown into the category of the oriental by western perspective? Anzaldua was challenging the idea of identity itself. She was embracing identity and the categories that embody it. Anzaldua was making the conscious choice to choose her own identity. Kincaid challenges the idea of identity stemming from place. Similar to Anzaldua they were both defined by their places of origin – that was their identity. I think all of these writers are grappling with the same idea; overall the question is where do these identities stem from? Who created them? And why do they continue to be prominent? These are the same questions I aim to ask.
4. What kind of research you will do for this project
The main research that I would need to do for this project is to research the ways that others craft and use rhetoric’s of resistance. For example one of my main influences for this project will be Bell Hooks. She does a wonderful job of using memoir to define her placement in society as she learned to define it herself. That understanding is important to me. I am in a stage in my life where I am just learning that placements in society exist and are implanted by hierarchies that have been in place since the founding of this country. It is my personal experience that makes this act of resistance authentic and it is that authenticity that makes it relevant, relatable and readable. Bell Hooks uses her experiences to educate a wide audience; one that may already understand her experiences and another they may not even know that experiences like this exist. I also plan to analyze some rhetorical strategies that some of the authors I am interested (Hooks, Butler, Anzaldua and Kincaid) in researching used to keep their audience engaged while simultaneously resisting.
5. Why you intend to embark on this project
Honestly, the topics this semester have not particularly influenced my reasons for wanting to create a rhetoric of resistance. My passions, influences and inquiries have always rested in a genre of this nature. I enjoy writing and when I think about what I want to write about I want to write something meaningful about my life, my experiences, the experiences of family and people I have known. I want to educate and encourage people through my writing and write a piece that is both timeless and malleable. I think that this assignment allowed me the opportunity to express myself and write in the genres that interest me. It also allowed me to explore some of my favorite writers that are already writing in the genres that I indulge in and we have discussed this semester in this class.
I want to write. I have always wanted to write about my experiences in a way that would educate people and help them. I feel as though this assignment has allowed me a space to do so. I have many concerns when writing anything and I never feel that anything I write is “good enough”. But that is all in the process of writing and the process that I choose to write in. I hope that I can craft my writing in a way that is both understandable and relatable to my readers and a wide audience of people. My writing should be meaningful, thought provoking, eloquent and pungent. I believe in the beauty of writing and flow of words; I don’t think that because I am writing a rhetoric of resistance. My main goal is to express and educate – I hope that my writing will accomplish that.
For this project I intent to write in a multi-form genre one that may include poetry, song, memoir, autobiography, creative non-fiction, 1st person narrative and autohistoria. The overall genre of this piece will be memoir; I will be reflecting on my experiences on campus and at home through memories. I will also be drawing conclusions about these memories and what that means for me. I also want to reflect on what my placement in society is and how that placement has affected these experiences. A writer who used writing in different genres as a rhetorical tool is Gloria Anzaldua in Borderlands. She uses her interweaving of multiple genres as an expository example of living with multiple identities.
There are many features and rhetorical strategies used in the genre of memoir. For example the option to write in a liner narrative or non-linear narrative is a rhetorical tool; in this piece I would like to attempt to write a circular narrative. My goal is to start the reader/audience in an experience or a place – I would like to end my audience in that same place but with a different perspective. A writer who does that beautifully for me is Octavia E. Butler. Butler has the ability in her novel Kindred to engage the reader in her family’s history and experiences by traveling through time into memories told by her ancestors. She defines her place in society through her history and her genealogy. In her novel she ends at her beginning – that expresses the crippling effects of slavery on a woman in the 1970s; she makes no clear distinction between past and present because the atrocities of the past are still alive in the present. Also I have read rhetoric’s of resistance in memoir that use flashbacks as a rhetorical tool; for example the author is writing in the present – talking with the audience but flashes back to experiences that has shaped their life or influenced the conversation the writer is now having with their readers. A writer who exemplifies this in my eyes is Bell Hooks. In many of her writings she challenges topics like race, class and gender but through flashbacks. I enjoyed reading a piece where the author is talking directly to the reader. Jamaica Kincaid also does this very well in her book, A Small Place; she challenges her readers by directly questioning and talking to them.
I have chosen to write in and explore these genres because they are genres that interest me and because they are genres that I enjoy reading. Similar to Anzaldua, Kincaid, Butler and Hooks are all very boisterous, independent and explosive female writers. They are all writers that I aspire to be like and all write in genres that not only excite me but ignite me. I think a rhetoric of resistance is a text that defines a truth; a truth that has been ignored publicly, privately and historically. I think that any genre has the ability to inflame that truth, and I plan to explore multiple genres to explain my own.
2. What audience you intend to target
It is hard for me to clearly define who my audience is at this particular point in my writing. I haven’t truly begun to write and craft the story that I want to tell or how I plan to tell it. I will be writing about my college experience at Syracuse University. One of my audiences would be the Syracuse community and other college communities like it. I would also want to talk to the community of education and educators; the institution of learning itself. What does it mean to educate? How can you educated in a place that hierarchies embody and encourage mis-education. I want to speak to education in the United States and the bodies that run the education institution.
I am also speaking to an audience both for and against social justice. I hope that my rhetoric of resistance will encourage social justice in the United States and the re-education of those justices and injustices in the histories of the United States. I have chosen these audiences because they are both the audiences that can change and re-define what history has mis-defined or mis-interpreted both from the top and the bottom.
My goal is to not make assumptions about my audience. I know it is inevitable not to assume but I want to write first and have my writing define my audience instead of writing for a particular audience. I feel that in writing this way it will encourage a more authentic work.
Again I want to caution myself from researching a particular audience because I do not want to limit myself in either my creative liberty or authenticity. One of the audiences that I know I will be writing to is the Syracuse University community and other university communities. Since I am a part of that community I plan to write in – I can write in a way that is understandable to all sub-communities in that community. I think that experience is the most effective research, and many of the communities that I would assume would be the audience of this piece I am already a member of that community.
The biggest goal here in regard to audience is to write in and with experiences that everyone can relate to. If I write in a way that refers to specific events I may exclude certain members of my audience. But if I try to write about an experience that is relatable to a wide audience my piece will be more effective.
3. What identities you are resisting and what identities you are crafting
It is hard to define which identities I will be crafting exactly because I haven’t crafted them yet. But my main goal in this piece is not for me to craft a “new identity” but it is for me to define myself through the identities that have been crafted for me. I will talk about the positive and negative effects of having a society that crafts an identity or categorizes a person without that persons consent or input. I plan on challenging the ideal of identities as a whole. Who makes the identity? Me or Society. If I make my own identity will society accept that identity? Do I have power over what my identity is? These are some questions I will be asking and in asking these questions I hope that my readers will ask the same questions for themselves. In asking those questions I also hope they will challenge themselves and their identities. Do they need to craft a new one? I don’t think so I just think there is a need to understand where identities are derived from and what that acceptance of those identities mean for oneself and for society at large.
I don’t know if I’m crafting a new identity or a project identity as much as I am reclaiming an identity that was stolen from me; the identity of the individual. I hope the challenge the ideal of individualize and categorize. What was first the individual or the category? In today’s society I would argue the category people are born into categories; we are defined from birth. The individual is an identity that has been lost; and I hope in my writing to reclaim it for myself and challenge others to reclaim it as well.
I think most of the texts we have read this semester resonate in some way to the identity of the individual. Said was challenging the category of the oriental. What is ortienalism? Why are Middle Eastern peoples automatically thrown into the category of the oriental by western perspective? Anzaldua was challenging the idea of identity itself. She was embracing identity and the categories that embody it. Anzaldua was making the conscious choice to choose her own identity. Kincaid challenges the idea of identity stemming from place. Similar to Anzaldua they were both defined by their places of origin – that was their identity. I think all of these writers are grappling with the same idea; overall the question is where do these identities stem from? Who created them? And why do they continue to be prominent? These are the same questions I aim to ask.
4. What kind of research you will do for this project
The main research that I would need to do for this project is to research the ways that others craft and use rhetoric’s of resistance. For example one of my main influences for this project will be Bell Hooks. She does a wonderful job of using memoir to define her placement in society as she learned to define it herself. That understanding is important to me. I am in a stage in my life where I am just learning that placements in society exist and are implanted by hierarchies that have been in place since the founding of this country. It is my personal experience that makes this act of resistance authentic and it is that authenticity that makes it relevant, relatable and readable. Bell Hooks uses her experiences to educate a wide audience; one that may already understand her experiences and another they may not even know that experiences like this exist. I also plan to analyze some rhetorical strategies that some of the authors I am interested (Hooks, Butler, Anzaldua and Kincaid) in researching used to keep their audience engaged while simultaneously resisting.
5. Why you intend to embark on this project
Honestly, the topics this semester have not particularly influenced my reasons for wanting to create a rhetoric of resistance. My passions, influences and inquiries have always rested in a genre of this nature. I enjoy writing and when I think about what I want to write about I want to write something meaningful about my life, my experiences, the experiences of family and people I have known. I want to educate and encourage people through my writing and write a piece that is both timeless and malleable. I think that this assignment allowed me the opportunity to express myself and write in the genres that interest me. It also allowed me to explore some of my favorite writers that are already writing in the genres that I indulge in and we have discussed this semester in this class.
I want to write. I have always wanted to write about my experiences in a way that would educate people and help them. I feel as though this assignment has allowed me a space to do so. I have many concerns when writing anything and I never feel that anything I write is “good enough”. But that is all in the process of writing and the process that I choose to write in. I hope that I can craft my writing in a way that is both understandable and relatable to my readers and a wide audience of people. My writing should be meaningful, thought provoking, eloquent and pungent. I believe in the beauty of writing and flow of words; I don’t think that because I am writing a rhetoric of resistance. My main goal is to express and educate – I hope that my writing will accomplish that.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue in 1492... (a reflection)
When asked to research, construct and lead a class in a college classroom I viewed it as a challenge to educate and inform rather than a challenge to lead. Leadership in all settings has never really been an issue for me but what I discovered in this project in particular is that power dynamics and presets can hinder education and information in a greater way than the lack of leadership itself. This understanding of power dynamics and hierarchies draws a direct correlation between similar dynamics in the texts we have read in class and the societies in which these texts where derived from. After completing this project I was both satisfied and dissatisfied. I think with any project when a goal is set there is always a possibility for failure. In this project in particular I viewed failure with an open mindset; failure is a space for improvement - a space for education and a space to inform.
For example, Anzaldua is struggling with a clear power dynamic of her society and other personal dynamics derived from her community, her family, and herself. In creating a rhetoric of resistance Anzaldua was seeking to create a rhetoric that resist but in resisting creates a new identity for herself and creates a space where new identities can be safely formed for others as well. Similar to how both Tupac Shakur and Fredric Douglas are both writing in spaces where conflicting dynamics and identities exist. Some dynamics differ in both Shakur’s and Douglas’s pieces because of the era and time both were writing in. Both Douglas and Shakur was similar to Anzaldua in creating a space where personal identity is being created and in that creation of personal identity it is creating a space where new identities can be accepted and infiltrated into society.
One of the points that my partner and I wanted to the class to understand was the link between Aunzaldua, Shakur, and Douglas – they were all crafting a new identity, and were all crafting a rhetoric of resistance. But in this instance and in many instances these rhetoricians (Anzaldua, Shakur, Douglas) messages can be easily overlooked or misunderstood either because of the genre they are writing or because of the reader’s personal dynamics that over-complicate their messages. That representation of misinterpretation of messages or overcomplicating messages is reflective of the reactions and discussion that developed and evolved during out class project. In many instances the discussion and the topic of discussion was not exactly what my partner and I had expected it to be, and in many instances were not as deep or meaningful as my partner and I wanted it to be- it was still a positive learning experience.
As the class discussion continued I began to realize that in many settings, in classrooms, or anywhere personal histories, ideologies, and prejudices can hinder teaching and education. One of the larger points of our project was to show the complexities and immensities of colonization. My partner and I presented the class with two texts both written almost a century apart and both writers writing after slavery ended. Even though Douglas and Shakur were a century apart their struggles with family, identity, power and literacy were all the same. Why? What are the implications of very little to no positive change in society for African Americans in America in 100 years? The United States and African Americans are products of colonization. The implications of colonization go far beyond conquering, killing and murdering a generation in order to colonize. Colonization is an act that has the ability to (and in this case did) infect, belittle, and dehumanize generations upon generations on human beings. Colonization is more then a history term; it is an act, an act that could potentially diminish cultures, races, and traditions. The act of colonization of the Americas supported and propelled Eurocentric views and ideologies worldwide. We wanted to challenge the class to think about how we got to where we are today? Have we really moved that far from the original views and ideologies implanted during colonization?
These points were central to our project and our goal. As we tried to unpack these ideas in class I felt that they were skipped over and misunderstood by many of the people in the class. The question for me isn’t why that happened – because I have seen it happen before in this class and other classes. It is fear or guilt. It is the same issue that in my opinion hinders Pratt’s ideas about “contact zones”. I truly find it hard to believe that there is a space where human being can leave their moral beliefs, ethical beliefs and life histories aside to talk in the present moment about a particular issue. That is one of the reasons why I have chose to move forward with the experiment about Pratt’s “contact zones”.
Overall I think the project was satisfactory - not because we got to all the points and ideas that we had hoped to discuss, but because I began to discover the roots to why it is hard to get to those points in public spaces. Is that a bad thing? No. I think that it is merely a reflection of society and the beings (humans) that operate within it. It is human nature to feel, to remember and to experience. To ask humans to walk into a space and to ask them hostile questions about race, gender, religion, sexual orientation how could one expect them not to feel, to reminisce, and to experience that moment?
The truth is that Columbus did sail the ocean blue in 1492. The forgotten truth is that he got lost, landed on the Americas, slaughter hundreds of Native Americans, then invited his friends to come and live with stolen humans from Africa treat them like animals and use the blood of there ancestors to fertilize the seeds of dehumanization for generations to come.
How can I expect a class to have meaningful conversation when they and the generations preceding them have been taught a misguided truth?
For example, Anzaldua is struggling with a clear power dynamic of her society and other personal dynamics derived from her community, her family, and herself. In creating a rhetoric of resistance Anzaldua was seeking to create a rhetoric that resist but in resisting creates a new identity for herself and creates a space where new identities can be safely formed for others as well. Similar to how both Tupac Shakur and Fredric Douglas are both writing in spaces where conflicting dynamics and identities exist. Some dynamics differ in both Shakur’s and Douglas’s pieces because of the era and time both were writing in. Both Douglas and Shakur was similar to Anzaldua in creating a space where personal identity is being created and in that creation of personal identity it is creating a space where new identities can be accepted and infiltrated into society.
One of the points that my partner and I wanted to the class to understand was the link between Aunzaldua, Shakur, and Douglas – they were all crafting a new identity, and were all crafting a rhetoric of resistance. But in this instance and in many instances these rhetoricians (Anzaldua, Shakur, Douglas) messages can be easily overlooked or misunderstood either because of the genre they are writing or because of the reader’s personal dynamics that over-complicate their messages. That representation of misinterpretation of messages or overcomplicating messages is reflective of the reactions and discussion that developed and evolved during out class project. In many instances the discussion and the topic of discussion was not exactly what my partner and I had expected it to be, and in many instances were not as deep or meaningful as my partner and I wanted it to be- it was still a positive learning experience.
As the class discussion continued I began to realize that in many settings, in classrooms, or anywhere personal histories, ideologies, and prejudices can hinder teaching and education. One of the larger points of our project was to show the complexities and immensities of colonization. My partner and I presented the class with two texts both written almost a century apart and both writers writing after slavery ended. Even though Douglas and Shakur were a century apart their struggles with family, identity, power and literacy were all the same. Why? What are the implications of very little to no positive change in society for African Americans in America in 100 years? The United States and African Americans are products of colonization. The implications of colonization go far beyond conquering, killing and murdering a generation in order to colonize. Colonization is an act that has the ability to (and in this case did) infect, belittle, and dehumanize generations upon generations on human beings. Colonization is more then a history term; it is an act, an act that could potentially diminish cultures, races, and traditions. The act of colonization of the Americas supported and propelled Eurocentric views and ideologies worldwide. We wanted to challenge the class to think about how we got to where we are today? Have we really moved that far from the original views and ideologies implanted during colonization?
These points were central to our project and our goal. As we tried to unpack these ideas in class I felt that they were skipped over and misunderstood by many of the people in the class. The question for me isn’t why that happened – because I have seen it happen before in this class and other classes. It is fear or guilt. It is the same issue that in my opinion hinders Pratt’s ideas about “contact zones”. I truly find it hard to believe that there is a space where human being can leave their moral beliefs, ethical beliefs and life histories aside to talk in the present moment about a particular issue. That is one of the reasons why I have chose to move forward with the experiment about Pratt’s “contact zones”.
Overall I think the project was satisfactory - not because we got to all the points and ideas that we had hoped to discuss, but because I began to discover the roots to why it is hard to get to those points in public spaces. Is that a bad thing? No. I think that it is merely a reflection of society and the beings (humans) that operate within it. It is human nature to feel, to remember and to experience. To ask humans to walk into a space and to ask them hostile questions about race, gender, religion, sexual orientation how could one expect them not to feel, to reminisce, and to experience that moment?
The truth is that Columbus did sail the ocean blue in 1492. The forgotten truth is that he got lost, landed on the Americas, slaughter hundreds of Native Americans, then invited his friends to come and live with stolen humans from Africa treat them like animals and use the blood of there ancestors to fertilize the seeds of dehumanization for generations to come.
How can I expect a class to have meaningful conversation when they and the generations preceding them have been taught a misguided truth?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Pushing through Dominant Borders
“Culture forms our beliefs. We perceive the version of reality that is communicates. Dominant paradigms, predefined concepts that exist as unquestionable, unchallengeable, are transmitted to us through the culture. Culture is made by those in power – men” (38). It is hard to combat ideas that have been imposed and imperialized on generations of peoples, but combating those ideas is exactly what Anzulada does in her text, Borderlands: La Frontera. Anzulada uses numerous rhetorical strategies to use and enact her writing as a form of resistance against the white-male- paradigms that have imperialized and is slowly diminishing her culture. One strategy that was extremely effective for me was her use of Spanish-English in her text. Anzulada’s book is an autoethnographic text; this text is a representation of the Mexican “border” culture. Because of invasions by European explorers and the massive loss of Mexican land after the war in 1846 at the hands of the United States, Mexico and its Us-Mexican border has become a representation of these merging cultures.
Anazulada argues that the US-Mexican border has become a faded line between two merging cultures. That line has become more then a border; it is now a country of its own, a “border country”. She comments that “The convergence has created a shock cultures, a border culture, a third country, a closed country” (33). This “border country” is a representation of two cultures the US and the Mexican; two cultures that as Azuluada argue are very much defined by their language and dialect. That precisely is why Anzulada’s use of English-Spanish and Spanish-English is such a strong rhetorical tool. Anzulada comments that, “Ethnic identity is two skins to linguistic identity – I am my language” (81).
One of Anzulada’s main arguments is a call for a shift in history. It is the claim as human as an individual – one that is not defined or molded by dominant-white-masculine paradigms but to be an human begin that creates oneself and is not confined to “absolute despot duality” (41). She comments, “… that human nature is limited and cannot evolve into something better. But I, like other queer people, am two in one body, both male and female. I am the embodiment of the heiros gamos: the coming together of opposite qualities within” (41). Anzulada’s main challenge is for humans to become a participant in humanity, in society, to think and create, instead of to follow. “… yet I am cultured because I am participating in the creation of yet another culture, a new story to explain the world and out participation in it, a new value system with images and symbols that connect us to each other and to planet” (103).
It is precisely the merge of these two cultures the Mexican and the American, the male and the female, the individual and the society that Anzaluda created her identity; a self-created identity that she is challenges other to self-create. In Anzaluda’s self-created identity she challenges the foundations of both languages and dialects; she refuses to choose one over the other and instead merges and created a new dialogue between the two languages, the two identities. Anzulada’s choice to create is a rhetorical tool, and he choice to write within that creation is a rhetorical strategy; a strategy she uses well and very effectively.
Similarly to Dussel and Mignolo, after defining the problem or fallacy in history Anzulada proposes an innovative way to create and develop a new history. Similar to ideas of transmodernity or colonization Anzulada is calling for a shift; a shift in the way history is drafted, in its creation itself. She comments, “Borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe to distinguish us from the. A border is a dividing line, a narrow strip along a steep edge” (25). Anzulada is calling for the fading of divisions in history. History is compiled of borders; nations crossing borders into other nations, dominant cultures imperialized, conolonization – these words are the borders. Similar to Mignolo’s discussion of historical terminology and the redefining of those dominating terms – Anzulada is calling for the redefining of culture and history itself.
Culture defines history; but who defines culture? Dominant paradigms do. How do you change those definitions? How do you change those borders? ASSESS AND COMMUNICATE.
“Her first step is to take inventory… She communicates that rupture, documents the struggle. She reinterprets history and using new symbols she shapes new myths” (104).
Anazulada argues that the US-Mexican border has become a faded line between two merging cultures. That line has become more then a border; it is now a country of its own, a “border country”. She comments that “The convergence has created a shock cultures, a border culture, a third country, a closed country” (33). This “border country” is a representation of two cultures the US and the Mexican; two cultures that as Azuluada argue are very much defined by their language and dialect. That precisely is why Anzulada’s use of English-Spanish and Spanish-English is such a strong rhetorical tool. Anzulada comments that, “Ethnic identity is two skins to linguistic identity – I am my language” (81).
One of Anzulada’s main arguments is a call for a shift in history. It is the claim as human as an individual – one that is not defined or molded by dominant-white-masculine paradigms but to be an human begin that creates oneself and is not confined to “absolute despot duality” (41). She comments, “… that human nature is limited and cannot evolve into something better. But I, like other queer people, am two in one body, both male and female. I am the embodiment of the heiros gamos: the coming together of opposite qualities within” (41). Anzulada’s main challenge is for humans to become a participant in humanity, in society, to think and create, instead of to follow. “… yet I am cultured because I am participating in the creation of yet another culture, a new story to explain the world and out participation in it, a new value system with images and symbols that connect us to each other and to planet” (103).
It is precisely the merge of these two cultures the Mexican and the American, the male and the female, the individual and the society that Anzaluda created her identity; a self-created identity that she is challenges other to self-create. In Anzaluda’s self-created identity she challenges the foundations of both languages and dialects; she refuses to choose one over the other and instead merges and created a new dialogue between the two languages, the two identities. Anzulada’s choice to create is a rhetorical tool, and he choice to write within that creation is a rhetorical strategy; a strategy she uses well and very effectively.
Similarly to Dussel and Mignolo, after defining the problem or fallacy in history Anzulada proposes an innovative way to create and develop a new history. Similar to ideas of transmodernity or colonization Anzulada is calling for a shift; a shift in the way history is drafted, in its creation itself. She comments, “Borders are set up to define the places that are safe and unsafe to distinguish us from the. A border is a dividing line, a narrow strip along a steep edge” (25). Anzulada is calling for the fading of divisions in history. History is compiled of borders; nations crossing borders into other nations, dominant cultures imperialized, conolonization – these words are the borders. Similar to Mignolo’s discussion of historical terminology and the redefining of those dominating terms – Anzulada is calling for the redefining of culture and history itself.
Culture defines history; but who defines culture? Dominant paradigms do. How do you change those definitions? How do you change those borders? ASSESS AND COMMUNICATE.
“Her first step is to take inventory… She communicates that rupture, documents the struggle. She reinterprets history and using new symbols she shapes new myths” (104).
Monday, February 22, 2010
Universalism...
Monday night, Alonna, Kevin and I (Victoria) met to discuss the readings and our responses to the material and terms. After re-reading the chapters and becoming aquatinted with terms such ‘European universalism” “universal universalism” and debated America’s position and view as a global superpower.
Some of our initial responses to the text included Kevin’s thoughts on Bush and his presentation of the situation in the Middle East as the US mission from heaven, the presence of US troops in Iran and Afghanistan as culturally imperialistic, and this country’s view of Muslim nations as oppressive and backwards in comparison to the advancement and modernity of the US. He also drew comparisons to many American’s vacation habits and rituals, which is the popularity of resorts in foreign countries instead of exploring, living near and interacting with locals. He claims that it is a tendency to avoid the reality of the country one is visiting instead Americans want to believe our ‘island vacation fantasy’. Although (many) Americans say that wherever they are visiting is complex, beautiful and exotic we lack the will and interest to explore it beyond the means of a resort. We create the image, which Said’s Orientalism and the first few pages of Jamaica Kincad’s A Small Place addresses. Tourists/foreigners see what they create and want to see, they impose an image and even package an American ideal back to the natives.
This leads into my own thoughts about our education on Cold War Era Communism (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea) vs. Democracy (U.S, N.A.T.O). I always look back upon our education as American citizens and how we viewed the world. It never ends even today because the US still presents itself as the moral, cultural, political, and economical example for a ‘great’ country that ‘helps’ the world. We make ourselves superior like Europeans made themselves during the period of colonialisation. Before an extensive university education I felt that my high school courses presented Americans as the ‘good guy’ in political “intervening” throughout history and the Communists as ‘revolutionary rebels that hurt everyone”. It is strange how we felt obligated to storm through the crumbling Berlin Wall and ‘liberate’ the eastern Germans from communism. The Korean and Vietnam war also demonstrate our ability to justify intervention and war for a form of government we want to be dominant. The events also demonstrate the US reaffirming its status as the ‘protector of truth, rights, freedom and equality in democracy. We set ourselves up and sells the image of the U.S police who protects and intervenes under the flag of human rights and ending torture.
I noticed, like Kevin and Alonna, that the US has a very us and them view of the entire world: “God bless America” why not everyone else?(K), “Bring democracy to the world” what if they don’t want it? (V), “We are bringing good and civilization” same question but with exclamation marks(A), “it is modern Eurocentricism unchanged and obviously embedded in our culture and education” we are Americans, we have the democratic answer(A/V).
Alonna brought up how European universalism stems from Eurocentric views of culture, history and nations outside Europe (even those in Eastern and parts of southern Europe). She talked about how Europeans created a sense of superior history and culture in order to create the paradigm. Once one creates the paradigm and set the rules then there is a sense of power over others. She also related ideas from Said and McClintock by relating how this author makes theories that went against the mainstream way to understand the historical and culture patterns of Europe and US in indigenous areas. Alonna also cited that because this author, unlike Dussel, uses sources like Las Casas to demonstrate that historically there were those that did go against the paradigm but were oppressed by the dominant powers. With period-based examples we can draw upon notions that clash with the ‘white-standard’ education that has trickled through time and into the textbooks.
Drawing from Wallerstein, I (Kevin) feel as if European Universalism was also expressed throughout the Pear Soap advertisements. In these advertisements, the object was to paint the “others” as inferior. By doing this, the British now appear to be superior. This type of European Universalism is showcased in many aspects of American culture. Take for example, sports in the United States. For baseball, it’s not the United States Series, it’s the World Series. Although maybe they’re representing the multitude of foreign players, it’s still held in the United States, and the game is completely commercialized with American culture. If it truly was the World Series, we would play teams such as Japan, China, and Mexico. Also, they’re are zero advertisements from foreign countries. The stands, commercials, and advertisements are completely Americanized. The fact the Major League Baseball calls it the “World Series” shows that the US is the center of the world. And it also shows that the power dictated from the powerful trickles down into all aspects of the culture, and that’s problematic.
Some of our initial responses to the text included Kevin’s thoughts on Bush and his presentation of the situation in the Middle East as the US mission from heaven, the presence of US troops in Iran and Afghanistan as culturally imperialistic, and this country’s view of Muslim nations as oppressive and backwards in comparison to the advancement and modernity of the US. He also drew comparisons to many American’s vacation habits and rituals, which is the popularity of resorts in foreign countries instead of exploring, living near and interacting with locals. He claims that it is a tendency to avoid the reality of the country one is visiting instead Americans want to believe our ‘island vacation fantasy’. Although (many) Americans say that wherever they are visiting is complex, beautiful and exotic we lack the will and interest to explore it beyond the means of a resort. We create the image, which Said’s Orientalism and the first few pages of Jamaica Kincad’s A Small Place addresses. Tourists/foreigners see what they create and want to see, they impose an image and even package an American ideal back to the natives.
This leads into my own thoughts about our education on Cold War Era Communism (Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea) vs. Democracy (U.S, N.A.T.O). I always look back upon our education as American citizens and how we viewed the world. It never ends even today because the US still presents itself as the moral, cultural, political, and economical example for a ‘great’ country that ‘helps’ the world. We make ourselves superior like Europeans made themselves during the period of colonialisation. Before an extensive university education I felt that my high school courses presented Americans as the ‘good guy’ in political “intervening” throughout history and the Communists as ‘revolutionary rebels that hurt everyone”. It is strange how we felt obligated to storm through the crumbling Berlin Wall and ‘liberate’ the eastern Germans from communism. The Korean and Vietnam war also demonstrate our ability to justify intervention and war for a form of government we want to be dominant. The events also demonstrate the US reaffirming its status as the ‘protector of truth, rights, freedom and equality in democracy. We set ourselves up and sells the image of the U.S police who protects and intervenes under the flag of human rights and ending torture.
I noticed, like Kevin and Alonna, that the US has a very us and them view of the entire world: “God bless America” why not everyone else?(K), “Bring democracy to the world” what if they don’t want it? (V), “We are bringing good and civilization” same question but with exclamation marks(A), “it is modern Eurocentricism unchanged and obviously embedded in our culture and education” we are Americans, we have the democratic answer(A/V).
Alonna brought up how European universalism stems from Eurocentric views of culture, history and nations outside Europe (even those in Eastern and parts of southern Europe). She talked about how Europeans created a sense of superior history and culture in order to create the paradigm. Once one creates the paradigm and set the rules then there is a sense of power over others. She also related ideas from Said and McClintock by relating how this author makes theories that went against the mainstream way to understand the historical and culture patterns of Europe and US in indigenous areas. Alonna also cited that because this author, unlike Dussel, uses sources like Las Casas to demonstrate that historically there were those that did go against the paradigm but were oppressed by the dominant powers. With period-based examples we can draw upon notions that clash with the ‘white-standard’ education that has trickled through time and into the textbooks.
Drawing from Wallerstein, I (Kevin) feel as if European Universalism was also expressed throughout the Pear Soap advertisements. In these advertisements, the object was to paint the “others” as inferior. By doing this, the British now appear to be superior. This type of European Universalism is showcased in many aspects of American culture. Take for example, sports in the United States. For baseball, it’s not the United States Series, it’s the World Series. Although maybe they’re representing the multitude of foreign players, it’s still held in the United States, and the game is completely commercialized with American culture. If it truly was the World Series, we would play teams such as Japan, China, and Mexico. Also, they’re are zero advertisements from foreign countries. The stands, commercials, and advertisements are completely Americanized. The fact the Major League Baseball calls it the “World Series” shows that the US is the center of the world. And it also shows that the power dictated from the powerful trickles down into all aspects of the culture, and that’s problematic.
Monday, February 8, 2010
On Images...
Said, Pratt and Dussel all challenged different ideas and concepts in their pieces. Pratt wrote from a modern understanding and analyzed past representations of historical documents and recognized the need for autoenthnographic texts in popularized history. While Dussel analyzed the structures in which history was written (imperialism, colonizations, etc) and why these Eurocentric historical texts and ideas emerged and why they emerged so prominently. Lastly, Said demonstrated the need for autoenthnographic texts by actually creating one refuting the ideas of orientalism.
The scientific drawing presented in Set 1, represent ideas of Darwinism, orentialism, eurocentrism and much more. The first image depicts genealogy of the dominant Eurocentric race to their counterparts (Negro and Irish Iberian). The claim this image is depicting is that Irish Iberian and Negro races are both derived from Africa due to their similar facial structures and bone structure. The caption below the picture clearly defines this claim. The center of the image depicts an Anglo-Tuetonic (this person features and bone structures reflect those of the European – Anglo race). The purpose of this image is to give scientific evidence for the separation of the Anglo-race from those that originated in Africa (Negro and Irish Iberian).
The second and third images are making a claim for Darwinism; the idea that Negros are the lesser developed products of evolution and are closely related or cousins to the Ape species. The claim is being argued from the scientific perspective that the shape and structure of the skull of the Negro race is the connecting evolutionary stage (“species”) between the ape and the Anglo man. These two pictures are a clear depiction of how eurocentrism and imperialism work together. Eurocentric views (dominant culture) are being imposed on other cultures through texts and historical images.
The last two images most reflect the ideas that Said presented in his autoenthnographic text, “On Orientalism.” My understanding of orientalism from Said documentary is when a group of people or cultures have a pre-conceived notion about other cultures. Many times these stereo types are derived from historical misrepresentations published and promoted by Eurocentric views. For many years these were the only views represented and taught throughout history. These imperialistic views were taught and imposed on non-western cultures and peoples. The last two images make a clear distinction between animals and Negro and Middle Eastern races. Said mentions in his documentary that the image Eurocentric historical views have depicted the Middle Eastern as a mysterious people who live in mysterious places in a very barbaric fashion. In both of these images the Middle Eastern and the Negro are showed with accentuated ape-like facial features. The Middle Eastern people are depicted as mysterious hooded people that are very dark in color. There facial expressions are less inviting and more intimidating then their Anglo counterparts.
It is because of historical texts and images that Pratt references to the need to ethnographic texts. These Eurocentric images have been accepted throughout history. Pratt is calling for a rebuttal to these misrepresentations. She is calling for text, like Said’s, that create a new image of cultures from the members of those cultures. In order to present and accurate representation of history all perspectives are needed and must be represented. Pratt, Said and Dusell are all calling for the equal representations of all cultures both from academic and experiential perspectives. Many of these texts for forced on cultures due to imperialism and colonization that led to acculturation and eventually assimilation. It is necessary to have the perspective of the dominant class as well as the mis-represented culture to have an accurate depiction of history. The text presented in Set 1 were only reflective of the dominant culture and how they viewed other cultures; they were an inaccurate representation and only with text and images like those shown in Said’s text and images “On Orientalism” could a true representation ever be accomplished.
The scientific drawing presented in Set 1, represent ideas of Darwinism, orentialism, eurocentrism and much more. The first image depicts genealogy of the dominant Eurocentric race to their counterparts (Negro and Irish Iberian). The claim this image is depicting is that Irish Iberian and Negro races are both derived from Africa due to their similar facial structures and bone structure. The caption below the picture clearly defines this claim. The center of the image depicts an Anglo-Tuetonic (this person features and bone structures reflect those of the European – Anglo race). The purpose of this image is to give scientific evidence for the separation of the Anglo-race from those that originated in Africa (Negro and Irish Iberian).
The second and third images are making a claim for Darwinism; the idea that Negros are the lesser developed products of evolution and are closely related or cousins to the Ape species. The claim is being argued from the scientific perspective that the shape and structure of the skull of the Negro race is the connecting evolutionary stage (“species”) between the ape and the Anglo man. These two pictures are a clear depiction of how eurocentrism and imperialism work together. Eurocentric views (dominant culture) are being imposed on other cultures through texts and historical images.
The last two images most reflect the ideas that Said presented in his autoenthnographic text, “On Orientalism.” My understanding of orientalism from Said documentary is when a group of people or cultures have a pre-conceived notion about other cultures. Many times these stereo types are derived from historical misrepresentations published and promoted by Eurocentric views. For many years these were the only views represented and taught throughout history. These imperialistic views were taught and imposed on non-western cultures and peoples. The last two images make a clear distinction between animals and Negro and Middle Eastern races. Said mentions in his documentary that the image Eurocentric historical views have depicted the Middle Eastern as a mysterious people who live in mysterious places in a very barbaric fashion. In both of these images the Middle Eastern and the Negro are showed with accentuated ape-like facial features. The Middle Eastern people are depicted as mysterious hooded people that are very dark in color. There facial expressions are less inviting and more intimidating then their Anglo counterparts.
It is because of historical texts and images that Pratt references to the need to ethnographic texts. These Eurocentric images have been accepted throughout history. Pratt is calling for a rebuttal to these misrepresentations. She is calling for text, like Said’s, that create a new image of cultures from the members of those cultures. In order to present and accurate representation of history all perspectives are needed and must be represented. Pratt, Said and Dusell are all calling for the equal representations of all cultures both from academic and experiential perspectives. Many of these texts for forced on cultures due to imperialism and colonization that led to acculturation and eventually assimilation. It is necessary to have the perspective of the dominant class as well as the mis-represented culture to have an accurate depiction of history. The text presented in Set 1 were only reflective of the dominant culture and how they viewed other cultures; they were an inaccurate representation and only with text and images like those shown in Said’s text and images “On Orientalism” could a true representation ever be accomplished.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Valued Education...
Judging that I really did not know what this course was about until the first day of classes my expectations and goals for this class have changed as well. I am very interested in the topic of “rhetoric of resistance;” all forms of rhetoric interest me for many reasons. As I stated before in my last blog that I plan on becoming an attorney and eventually a judge – rhetoric and the use of it is the basis for defining justice in the United States presently. Having a knowledge of all forms of rhetoric are very important to me. What intrigued me the most is the idea of study rhetoric of different non-westernized cultures. Being a Rhetoric and Writing major tends to mean that we study rhetoric from its alleged “origin;” we study Socrates and Plato. These readings give a theoretical framework to how rhetoric was originally defined and used, but rhetoric like all language has evolved over time and so should the curriculum in which it is taught. With that being said I hope to study all aspects of rhetoric from different cultures in all its forms. I would hope to use analysis, critical reading and response, practicing the creation of autoenthnographic texts and more. It is hard for me to decipher a particular topic because I believe it is the culmination of all of these topics and ideas that will give me a greater understanding of rhetoric and rhetoric of resistance.
The Pratt article was very useful and informative in providing a framework for what we will be discussing over the semester. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being the most frustrating) I would rank the Pratt article at about a 3. It took me some time to read through the article it was pretty dense but it was still readable. I don’t mind reading dense texts if they are crucial to my understanding of the course material and learning. I always enjoy a class that challenges me but challenge can come in many different forms. Challenging does not necessarily mean reading a lot of dense texts but maybe less dense texts with challenging ideas or ideologies. I value both forms of reading and in either I think a detailed class discussion is useful.
Other then that I just think that it is important as always to remind professors that most undergraduates have more than one class. In the writing program that means multiple classes of this caliber demanding dense readings and response at the same time. In preparing any course or course load I think that is an essential reminder for any professor.
The Pratt article was very useful and informative in providing a framework for what we will be discussing over the semester. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being the most frustrating) I would rank the Pratt article at about a 3. It took me some time to read through the article it was pretty dense but it was still readable. I don’t mind reading dense texts if they are crucial to my understanding of the course material and learning. I always enjoy a class that challenges me but challenge can come in many different forms. Challenging does not necessarily mean reading a lot of dense texts but maybe less dense texts with challenging ideas or ideologies. I value both forms of reading and in either I think a detailed class discussion is useful.
Other then that I just think that it is important as always to remind professors that most undergraduates have more than one class. In the writing program that means multiple classes of this caliber demanding dense readings and response at the same time. In preparing any course or course load I think that is an essential reminder for any professor.
Monday, January 25, 2010
In Response to Pratt...
I’m a little unclear on what exactly a genre of resistance is. But I do think that Pratt introduces the idea of resistance through communication verbal v. non-verbal, and written v. non-written and how those texts work to form societies “Accepted westernized history.” She explores this idea through the analysis of autoenthnographic texts. These texts are those written by someone within a culture that seeks to analyze their placement in the world as a culture against how someone outside of their culture places them. There are many purposed of this genre to not only combat a westernized view of non westernized cultures but also to show how history falsely represents non-written cultures.
Pratt contextualizes Guaman Poma’s project through the theory of contact zones. She defines each picture as a cultural representation of its infrastructures and social placement of sexes, religions, and how symbolism can be more descriptive then pages and pages of text. Many cultures wrote their histories in books, and historical text but Pratt aimed to represent the idea that non-written history can be just as effective and any other type of written history.
The most important point that Pratt makes in this article is that history can be recorded and written or not-written and any form. A cultures history does not lose its significance because it is not recorded in textual format. Another point that Pratt makes is what contact zones actually are. She begins her piece with an example of contact zones with her son and children and ends her piece with a contact zone within her classroom. She also aims to point out the positive and negative effects of contact zones. Contact zones can provoke meaningful conversation and argumentative ones. But contact zones can also get to the derivative of problems that have been continually overlooked because it’s easier to do so.
I would like to discuss Pratt’s discussion of Guaman Poma’s and its effectiveness. It would also be effective to discuss Pratt’s definition of “safe houses” and if such a space could actually exist.
Pratt contextualizes Guaman Poma’s project through the theory of contact zones. She defines each picture as a cultural representation of its infrastructures and social placement of sexes, religions, and how symbolism can be more descriptive then pages and pages of text. Many cultures wrote their histories in books, and historical text but Pratt aimed to represent the idea that non-written history can be just as effective and any other type of written history.
The most important point that Pratt makes in this article is that history can be recorded and written or not-written and any form. A cultures history does not lose its significance because it is not recorded in textual format. Another point that Pratt makes is what contact zones actually are. She begins her piece with an example of contact zones with her son and children and ends her piece with a contact zone within her classroom. She also aims to point out the positive and negative effects of contact zones. Contact zones can provoke meaningful conversation and argumentative ones. But contact zones can also get to the derivative of problems that have been continually overlooked because it’s easier to do so.
I would like to discuss Pratt’s discussion of Guaman Poma’s and its effectiveness. It would also be effective to discuss Pratt’s definition of “safe houses” and if such a space could actually exist.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Privilege & Pain
I walked into the eight-story high hospital and the smell almost knocked me over. What kind of medicine do they practice here? I feel like that make more people sick then they help. I was quickly quieted as we began out ascent up the stairs. The babies were on the eighth floor. As we continued to climb I realized the smell must have something to do with the lack of air conditioning in the summer heat. By the fifth flight of stairs everyone was panting; the heat was unbearable. The smell was beginning to permeate through my open pores; I began to dry heave. There was no ventilation and all of the windows were bolted shut and covered in bars. We climbed and climbed. I hoped with every bone in my body that at the top of the stairs there would be pink and blue painted walls, smiling babies, and fans at the least.
When I reached the top of the stairs; I was wrong. The babies were screaming and many of them were deformed. My face fell into my hands as my hands began to overflow. I wanted to scream! Where are the nurses? I frantically looked around; I spotted two on the entire floor. Neither of them spoke English. They were walking from crib to crib, uninterested, taking bottles and placing the same ones in the next babies’ mouth. I couldn’t believe my eyes; my heart stopped. I turned to look at the other volunteers; their eyes were abounding as well.
-Can I hold them? Someone asked.
It was translated into Romanian so the nurse could understand.
-No! She shook her head several times at us and walked away.
-We’ve come to visit the babies every day we have been here. Some days they let us hold them, and some days they say no. No one else holds them. The only human contact they receive is from volunteers and the nurses when they are changing them.
-Can I at least change their diapers? A woman with tears in her eyes anxiously looked around.
-No all of the babies are on a strict schedule. They are changed twice a day the same time of day. The hospital does not have enough diapers to change them more than…
-So they just sit in their dirty diapers?! She screamed.
She nodded.
-But that is why we come. If we can’t do anything else we can hold them, and help them hold their bottles.
I looked around all the babies seemed so young. They had to have been less than six months, and their bodies were twisted and mangled. It looked like their bones couldn’t figure out how to grow the right way. I walked towards a crib. It was a girl. I was scared if I touched her that he bones would fall apart.
I softly grazed her hand.
-How old is she?
-She is actually a year old. But her hands are so frail she can’t hold her bottle to feed herself and the nurses will not feed the babies.
My knees tightened. I looked around and saw a bottle lying in her crib. Her head was lying beside the nipple of the bottle. It looked as though she had scooted her body to the bottle to let the milk drip into her mouth…
I turned around and saw my father quickly turn the corner into the hallway.
¬¬- Mom, where is he going?
¬-There was a very sick baby over there. The baby is dying from a disease. Your father went over to look at the baby. I think he just needed some air.
I ran down the hallway to find my father weeping in the corner. I slowly approached him.
-That baby is green, Alonna. A green baby…
I quickly walked around the corner, but as I turned to see the baby… my feet stopped.
I turned to go back into the other room.
As we descended the eight floors of stairs I realized how privileged I really am. Each of those babies is an orphan. It was cheaper for their parents to sell them to the government then to take care of them. The country of Romania has very few health regulations; therefore this “hospital” will never incur a penalty for its harsh treatment of human beings.
There are millions of people on Earth. Some are privileged and some are not and many have no control over which country and to what family they are born into or discarded from.
That experience changed my life. I could have never imagined that human beings, infants could actually suffer that much and it be legal. Children’s bodies were actually deformed from lack of being held and nurtured. Going to Romania helped me to realize how privileged I am to live in America. More importantly it helped me to center my life. From that moment on I knew that I wanted to help people. It didn’t matter how or what are or country. What matter is that I didn’t take the privileges I had for granted.
I was 16 then and now at 20 I still believe in the spirit of service. Throughout my life I will continue to service others in my career and life. I plan to be an attorney and later a judge. I have chosen this because having the knowledge that service is needed is important but also understanding that power and education can sway the amount of influence I have on the world is also significant. In every government there are laws and institutions in place to harm and prevent its citizens from a prosperous life. The only way to change those laws is by being a law maker.
I also hope that as class such as this one will help me gain a greater understanding of human beings of all cultures and how they relate and communicate with one another. Communication is pertinent in service and in law; I hope to take the skills learned in this class and apply them to my future aspirations.
When I reached the top of the stairs; I was wrong. The babies were screaming and many of them were deformed. My face fell into my hands as my hands began to overflow. I wanted to scream! Where are the nurses? I frantically looked around; I spotted two on the entire floor. Neither of them spoke English. They were walking from crib to crib, uninterested, taking bottles and placing the same ones in the next babies’ mouth. I couldn’t believe my eyes; my heart stopped. I turned to look at the other volunteers; their eyes were abounding as well.
-Can I hold them? Someone asked.
It was translated into Romanian so the nurse could understand.
-No! She shook her head several times at us and walked away.
-We’ve come to visit the babies every day we have been here. Some days they let us hold them, and some days they say no. No one else holds them. The only human contact they receive is from volunteers and the nurses when they are changing them.
-Can I at least change their diapers? A woman with tears in her eyes anxiously looked around.
-No all of the babies are on a strict schedule. They are changed twice a day the same time of day. The hospital does not have enough diapers to change them more than…
-So they just sit in their dirty diapers?! She screamed.
She nodded.
-But that is why we come. If we can’t do anything else we can hold them, and help them hold their bottles.
I looked around all the babies seemed so young. They had to have been less than six months, and their bodies were twisted and mangled. It looked like their bones couldn’t figure out how to grow the right way. I walked towards a crib. It was a girl. I was scared if I touched her that he bones would fall apart.
I softly grazed her hand.
-How old is she?
-She is actually a year old. But her hands are so frail she can’t hold her bottle to feed herself and the nurses will not feed the babies.
My knees tightened. I looked around and saw a bottle lying in her crib. Her head was lying beside the nipple of the bottle. It looked as though she had scooted her body to the bottle to let the milk drip into her mouth…
I turned around and saw my father quickly turn the corner into the hallway.
¬¬- Mom, where is he going?
¬-There was a very sick baby over there. The baby is dying from a disease. Your father went over to look at the baby. I think he just needed some air.
I ran down the hallway to find my father weeping in the corner. I slowly approached him.
-That baby is green, Alonna. A green baby…
I quickly walked around the corner, but as I turned to see the baby… my feet stopped.
I turned to go back into the other room.
As we descended the eight floors of stairs I realized how privileged I really am. Each of those babies is an orphan. It was cheaper for their parents to sell them to the government then to take care of them. The country of Romania has very few health regulations; therefore this “hospital” will never incur a penalty for its harsh treatment of human beings.
There are millions of people on Earth. Some are privileged and some are not and many have no control over which country and to what family they are born into or discarded from.
That experience changed my life. I could have never imagined that human beings, infants could actually suffer that much and it be legal. Children’s bodies were actually deformed from lack of being held and nurtured. Going to Romania helped me to realize how privileged I am to live in America. More importantly it helped me to center my life. From that moment on I knew that I wanted to help people. It didn’t matter how or what are or country. What matter is that I didn’t take the privileges I had for granted.
I was 16 then and now at 20 I still believe in the spirit of service. Throughout my life I will continue to service others in my career and life. I plan to be an attorney and later a judge. I have chosen this because having the knowledge that service is needed is important but also understanding that power and education can sway the amount of influence I have on the world is also significant. In every government there are laws and institutions in place to harm and prevent its citizens from a prosperous life. The only way to change those laws is by being a law maker.
I also hope that as class such as this one will help me gain a greater understanding of human beings of all cultures and how they relate and communicate with one another. Communication is pertinent in service and in law; I hope to take the skills learned in this class and apply them to my future aspirations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
