political mishaps

in the two articlles we read they were arguing about who is a better choice for the chairwoman of MLA. they aregued that having this woman wouldnt be a good idea since she was not acredited an enough college courses. George Will argues that "all Literature is political"(111). He supports his argument with examples of literary works from Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, and Jane Austen. His support includes political models such as feminism, colonialism, and, racism. His believe by criticizing literary work the critic will make the authors intended purpose into a political argument. He feels that literary work should be defined by what the text implies not what happens between the lines. He also says that if literary work is criticized it becomes a matter of "who had power and whom the powerful victimized"(111).

Now on the other hand Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite. When he finds the message in the passage he believes that the message heightens the readers experience. He thinks if we do not find the hidden politics and analyze them we will face “the risk that we might turn our artistic inheritance into a simple, reassuring, soporific life.” Greenblatt doesn't think that there should not be a specific way to analyze the literature. He says that "art is not cement"(115). He believes that the reader should be able to have their own opinion about the text and should be able to state their opinion.

After reading both the debate between both authors I could not decide on whose side I would take. Half of me agreed with George Will and the other half agree with Stephen Greenblatt, but something about Greenblatt made him stand out more to me. So i would probably agree with Greenblatt only, because everyone interprets passages or the message from the passage differently. Whether their belief or thought about the passage or its message be right or wrong, everyone has their own opinion. I believe people should be able to state them too just like Greenblatt believes. Literature is a place were the mind can sorta run free and just be whatever it wants too be.

colonialization

in the very first line of act 2 scene two Caliban enters with a bundle of wood for Prospero. Caliban is Prospero's slave even though Caliban was a native to the very island they live on. This is a great example of colonialization. Prospero comes from a time and land where it was okay to take over countries and enslave a populace. just like Bessler explains "Western Europeans were biologicaly superior to any other race". Prospero only knew to do as he was taught. or his hegemony. he was predestined to take over a land and capture it for all its worth including the people who lived on the island. I feel as though shakespeare accurately depicts what was going on in the world at the time this play was written. he was trying to show that colonies were being enslaved and abused.
moving gears now i want to talk about the video we had a chance to watch about american indians and how they were depicted. just like Caliban, American Indians are written off as savages and mindless killers of all white men. we all know that this is incorrect and what i think is that white men or anglo saxons needed a way to convince themselves that what they were doing was alright that by putting down a nation or set of people was okay only because the way people viewed these "natives" was scewed by the white men trying to shed a bad light on them. "a nation that does not know its history has no future". This is the final quote of the video and it has a deep meaning. it can relate to caliban and prospero. prospero did not take the time to fully understand the inside of the monster Caliban. there fore the island that he controls will have no future only becuase he doesnt fully understand it.

tempest

in act one prospero senses something due to his magical powers. he feels that his brother, Antonio, is on a nearbye ship near the island he has been cast away on. because Prospero was cast away to this island he has read many books which is why he has magical powers and can conjure a tempest to run his brother against the rocks in order to confront him.

he uses this divine power which means he can control whatever he wants. as we have been talking about for the past few weeks in class is controlling of the past. a great example of prosperos control is how he keeps miranda niave of the world around her. by taking her to the island at such a young age she never really got the chance to understand people besides those who are on the island. he only tells miranda what she needs to know and nothing more. just like in 1984 the past is changed in order to keep order. Just like when Prospero tells miranda where she has com from and how they got to the island

also prospero makes Ariel his slave and servant to his every whim. although he had saved this ambiguous form from a tree in which this form was imprisoned. this shows that even though prospero does something kind for ariel he in turn is still trapped in prosperos tree of control over what he does. caliban, another one of prospero's slaves, is taught by miranda and prospero how to speak when they arrive at the island. prospero then tricks caliban using his words to confuse him and caliban gives the island to Prospero! this use of language manipulation is best seen in the second scene of act one. prospero wants caliban to fetch mroe firewood but, caliban curses at him and refuses. caliban then states, "you taught me language, and my profit on't...the red pague rid you!" this shows that caliban is trying to use hwat was taught to him by his master against the master. prospero using his words and magical force then threatens caliban and caliban fethces wood. just like in 1984 speech and words are used against the people in order to control them

last Thursday on block we all participated in a Socratic cirlce. what we discussed was how Texas wanted to change the content in their history books in order to depict a more conservative view of history. this was achieved by deleting parts of the text that did not favor white conservative views. in other words minorties were put down and given smaller roles in the text book. to me this is not an outrage by any means but just how life is. i dont want to take sides and say what is wrote in the text books are wrong but i do have to say that we cant just focus on the views of white conservatives. other people need to have a voice. this is Amercia after all.
Another point i want to make about what was said and about what Dominguez wrote on his blog is that the messaged portrayed about his from the teacher might be more important than what the actual book has to say about the subject. i would say that kids listen to what they are tought by their instructor more than what a text book may say. also, the pupil is not limited to what the teacher and the book are saying. there are no rules outlining students to only learn from teachers and books. students can find out information on their own if they want.

tree harvesting

Lately all i can hear about is the fact that Americans are destroying our forests due to logging. This is not entirely true. Yes, in many third world countries billions of acres of rainforests are being torn down to make way for grazing cattle and homes. On the other hand, millions of acres of beautiful forest burn every year becuase the U.S. does not manage our forests correctly. We leave debris and undergrowth in the forests unmanaged. Then if a lightening strike occurs, the forest goes up in flames. Also, because BLM will not allow logging in National Forests, there are no roads that firefighters can use to access the raging out of control wild fires.

Fortunately some private forest companies are noticing how destructive the mismanagement of forests can be. For instance, Southern California Edison is allowing the logging of 1 million bore feet a year. You may say wow that seems like alot of lumber. But in actuality it isnt. 1 million bore feet using selective logging is almost entirely unnoticeable to the public.
All im trying to say is, really think about the use of our forests.
USE BUT DONT ABUSE