Wednesday, November 14, 2007
11.14.07
After reading the book and understanding what the Magistrate purpose was throughout the story, I think he did what he did for more than one reason. The first reason he says is "To repair some of the damage wrought by the forays of the Third Bureau." The second reason being, "And to restore some of the goodwill that previously existed, I am undertaking a brief visit to the Barbarians"(pg.57). The third reason being and the most obvious is a feeling of love and gratitude towards the barbarian woman. I feel he went on this excursion to show the girl and the other barbarians that his life wasn't going to be dictated by the colonel and that he wasn't scared of the barbarians. I think he also went to show the barbarians that even though he works for the Colonel and that there goal is to capture the barbarians that he wasn't like them he was different and didn't want to do any harm to them. As he stated before he went, "To repair some of the damage wrought by the forays of the third bureau", he didn't go there to justify what the colonel and his people did. He went there to show them that he wasn't like them he didn't agree what they did and explain to them he was different. I think he uses the Barbarian girl to show the other barbarians that he can be trusted by bringing her back to them. Showing them he risks his life to save one of there own, and probably thinking to himself this would beneficial to him in case the barbarians would strike or in case he needed them in a time of trouble. Even though his feelings were true towards the Barbarian girl I think they both were using each other. For him to have a reason to leave and pursue the barbarians and raise his stock as an overall good guy. For her it was her ticket out she knew he would be her only chance to get free and find her way back to the barbarians.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The magistrate’s actions seem to be driven by different purposes at different points. He acts out of love, for instance, when he escorts the blind nomad girl through the desert and into the arms of her kin. His crying out in protest to the flogging of the prisoners was out of outrage at the savagery of his own people. Mostly though, I get the feeling that he wants to disassociate himself with the Empire. He’s seen what it has to offer with the oppression, torture and death (“You are depraving these people!” he exclaims), and he wants no part of it. He hates the position his superior put him in. He hates that he is unable to fight back at first because of the laws restricting him. “We live in a world of laws” he tries convincing himself earlier in his career as a magistrate though he knows that, when the empire’s concerned, the law is not as orderly as first apparent. As the years go by, he cannot lie to himself any longer, and, upon meeting Joll, a product of the Empire, he realizes that things cannot continue as is. Joll is the embodiment of what the Empire stands for and he knows that, if the Empire had its way, he would have turned out as twisted as that man. He does not want to become Joll. That is something he wants to avoid above all else. Joll is his opposite, his reflection in a twisted mirror. He sees in Joll’s actions the evils the Empire would eventually force him to perform upon the peaceful people and he knows he must cut all ties to it.
I honestly cannot say that the Magistrate accomplishes anything and as to why he does the things he does; I don’t even think he knows why he did them. As we talked about in class he pretty much stumbles into every situation either totally oblivious to the consequences of any of his actions or he is simply naïve enough to believe that nothing will happen to him. This is not to say however that the man I stupid. I think the flaw in his character lies in recognition in worldly matters. There is one progression or accomplishment that he has made however. Early on in the book he talked to the girl about grim, very melancholy subjects. He even goes as far to say that he talks to her about his self resentment. As we come to the end and he is beaten, starved, bruised, broken (in more than one way) and humiliated he no doesn’t talk much about how this resentment toward himself. I can certainly see that clearing this personal obstacle could be some sort of accomplishment but does this end really justify the means in which he obtained it? There is a chilling line that he lip syncs to Joll “The crime that is latent in us we must inflict on ourselves.” I think this is where the Magistrate is summed up. To understand you must be wronged, and true understanding is when you do it for yourself. I believe that even though he might be oblivious he is doing it in the interests of bettering himself. To call that self-serving however, I leave that for Adam to decide.
The magistrates reasons for doing what he did, is he came to the realization that 1). He, himself has realized the lack of justice in his ability to plead his case. 2). the punishment of the Barbarians was not justified. The magistrate has realized that he will not receive a fair trial, or the ability to explain his actions, he has critiqued “Civilization” and its ability to maintain and promote justice. The colonel has his perceived assumptions of the magistrates’ dealings and therefore finds the magistrates truths to be false.
The Magistrate then goes on to question whether crushing the Barbarians feet was justice. “Justice: once the word is uttered, where will it all ends? Easier to shout No! Easier to be beaten and made a martyr. Easier to lay my head on the chopping block than to defend the cause of justice for the Barbarians” (p.106)
The Magistrate sees justice for those that have the whole world against them as pointless, the “civilized” ones have their idea of a fair punishment for an unknown crime, and despite what this old man has said they will stick too it.
The Magistrate was not successful in his ranting; the Barbarians were still whooped senselessly by the Mob. Whether or not the Nomads were guilty of any crime was not discussed, nor was awareness raised. The settlers seemed not to be disturbed in any way by the actions that had occurred, they seemed elated that some form of twisted “JUSTICE” was served at their hands.
The Magistrate then goes on to question whether crushing the Barbarians feet was justice. “Justice: once the word is uttered, where will it all ends? Easier to shout No! Easier to be beaten and made a martyr. Easier to lay my head on the chopping block than to defend the cause of justice for the Barbarians” (p.106)
The Magistrate sees justice for those that have the whole world against them as pointless, the “civilized” ones have their idea of a fair punishment for an unknown crime, and despite what this old man has said they will stick too it.
The Magistrate was not successful in his ranting; the Barbarians were still whooped senselessly by the Mob. Whether or not the Nomads were guilty of any crime was not discussed, nor was awareness raised. The settlers seemed not to be disturbed in any way by the actions that had occurred, they seemed elated that some form of twisted “JUSTICE” was served at their hands.
The Magistrate and his confusing actions...
Although I have finished reading the novel, I still find the Magistrate's actions to be confusing. I have several opinions about him and what he has done throughout the book, but it seems to be impossible to precisely pinpoint any reasons.
That being said, on the third to last paragraph on page 71, we can read about the Magistrate's encounter with the barbarians as he is giving the girl the option to return to the Empire with him or go back with her people: " 'Tell them what you like. Only, now that I have brought you back, as far as I can, I wish to ask you very clearly to return to the town with me. Of your own choice.' I grip her arm. 'Do you understand me? That is what I want.' " My interpretation of this is that the Magistrate felt it to be his responsibility to return the girl to her people because he had already made it his responsibility to take care of her whilst at the Empire; he bathed her, healed her wounds, provided her with shelter, clothing, food, etc. However, in the end, he grew so fond of her company that he found it difficult to actually have to say bye to her, which is why he made it clear to the girl that he honestly wanted her to return to the Empire with him. We obvioiusly learn that the girl did not feel the same as he did because she decided to abandon him and proceed with the barbarians.
That being said, on the third to last paragraph on page 71, we can read about the Magistrate's encounter with the barbarians as he is giving the girl the option to return to the Empire with him or go back with her people: " 'Tell them what you like. Only, now that I have brought you back, as far as I can, I wish to ask you very clearly to return to the town with me. Of your own choice.' I grip her arm. 'Do you understand me? That is what I want.' " My interpretation of this is that the Magistrate felt it to be his responsibility to return the girl to her people because he had already made it his responsibility to take care of her whilst at the Empire; he bathed her, healed her wounds, provided her with shelter, clothing, food, etc. However, in the end, he grew so fond of her company that he found it difficult to actually have to say bye to her, which is why he made it clear to the girl that he honestly wanted her to return to the Empire with him. We obvioiusly learn that the girl did not feel the same as he did because she decided to abandon him and proceed with the barbarians.
Silly Magistrate, Empirical Opposition Is For Barbarians
"Amazed I stare at this elaborate utterance as it winds its way out of me. Am I mad enough to intend a provocation?" (Coetzee 116)
Prior to this passage, The Magistrate questions the torturer as to how he can devote himself to torturing people. The response that he receives is indeed a provocation as he seemingly knows how the torturers would respond, despite his inquisition. This leads me to believe that The Magistrate might actually be "mad enough to intend a provocation". One has to take into account that he is an elderly man who has been serving the very empire that brands him as an enemy for his entire life. As he draws closer to death, he might begin to wonder if his service to the empire is for a greater good or a greater injustice. While it isn't explicitly revealed in the text, it seems as if The Magistrate would not be one for the use of torture and execution to bring justice to those who have done the empire wrong.
It seems as if he was surprised at his actions and the reactions that they caused, though one could attribute that to his seemingly naive nature. However, I do believe that while he may be surprised at the actions of the empire (though he really shouldn't be), he does have a hidden motive behind his actions as his last living action could be to make change within the world, or at the very least, open people to the idea that the empire is slaughtering an entire group of people for being what they are and nothing more. The Magistrate may be reckless and careless in his actions, but his potential intentions could stretch years beyond his lifespan.
It seems as if he was surprised at his actions and the reactions that they caused, though one could attribute that to his seemingly naive nature. However, I do believe that while he may be surprised at the actions of the empire (though he really shouldn't be), he does have a hidden motive behind his actions as his last living action could be to make change within the world, or at the very least, open people to the idea that the empire is slaughtering an entire group of people for being what they are and nothing more. The Magistrate may be reckless and careless in his actions, but his potential intentions could stretch years beyond his lifespan.
Washing the dirts off her legs
After the magistrate takes the begger woman to his abode, he starts washing her body. On page 28 there's a description of that scene "I begin to wash her. She raises her feet for me in turn. I knead and massage the lax toes through the soft milky soap. Soon my eyes close, my head droops. It is rapture, of a kind." Why the rapture? The first thing that came to my mind was his sexual drive which was later on disproved after sleeping next to her on the same bed for days there would be no sexual activity between the two. Also magistrate knows his limits as an old man to a young woman, and over and over what magistrate wants from her is for her to talk to him, answer his questions, not sex.
When he brought her to his place, he knew about the tortures committed by the interrogators to her (specifically to her legs and eyes). He also confesses later on how he feels about the empire and what it's doing to the Africans. He just can't stand the injustice and wanton cruelty of his greedy empire, and is shamed for being a part of it. The source of this "rapture", in my opinion, was the relief that she is now on his safe and caring hands, and by washing her legs and kneading her body he felt as if he is kneading her scarred and tortured soul, washing off the injustice done to her in the jail. This is another scene where we can witness what a conscientious individual he is.
Another scene I would like to point out is when one day he goes out to hunt, he sees a buck. It was just another hobby of his, his usual activity, in which he shoots to kill an animal or miss it. However, this time he doesn't shoot. He tries but he cannot. Here's the scene: "With the fuck before me suspended in immobility, there seems to be time for all things, time even to turn my gaze inward and see what it is that has robbed the hunt of its savour." He never figures out why he didn't pull that trigger. Not even a hint. What did he see in that buck that disabled him to shoot? The defenseless buck that's only good at being shot at. Maybe he saw a barbarian. A barbarian in the crosshair of the empire's rifle. The empire that he hates for its barbaric measures of fulfilling its greed. Shooting the buck would have been a confirmation that he also is part of the empire, and for that reason, I believe, he didn't shoot.
When he brought her to his place, he knew about the tortures committed by the interrogators to her (specifically to her legs and eyes). He also confesses later on how he feels about the empire and what it's doing to the Africans. He just can't stand the injustice and wanton cruelty of his greedy empire, and is shamed for being a part of it. The source of this "rapture", in my opinion, was the relief that she is now on his safe and caring hands, and by washing her legs and kneading her body he felt as if he is kneading her scarred and tortured soul, washing off the injustice done to her in the jail. This is another scene where we can witness what a conscientious individual he is.
Another scene I would like to point out is when one day he goes out to hunt, he sees a buck. It was just another hobby of his, his usual activity, in which he shoots to kill an animal or miss it. However, this time he doesn't shoot. He tries but he cannot. Here's the scene: "With the fuck before me suspended in immobility, there seems to be time for all things, time even to turn my gaze inward and see what it is that has robbed the hunt of its savour." He never figures out why he didn't pull that trigger. Not even a hint. What did he see in that buck that disabled him to shoot? The defenseless buck that's only good at being shot at. Maybe he saw a barbarian. A barbarian in the crosshair of the empire's rifle. The empire that he hates for its barbaric measures of fulfilling its greed. Shooting the buck would have been a confirmation that he also is part of the empire, and for that reason, I believe, he didn't shoot.
Justice or Freedom?
I think that the Magistrate does what he does because of his sense of justice? He believes he is doing the right thing by helping the barbarians. There are many scenes where he aids the barbarians. In the second chapter page 47-48 in my book the Magistrate is having nightmares because he probably feels guilty because he was unable to help the barbarians. Then there is another scene page 71 in my book where the barbarian girl is speaking with another barbarian. The magistrate tells her to “Tell them the truth.” I kind of got the impression that the Magistrate wanted her to tell them about what a nice man he is and stuff but I guess she didn’t. It seems to me that the Magistrate wants someone to recognize him for his honorable actions?
Or perhaps there was an ulterior motive? After he was put in a cell he seemed pretty happy. Page 78 in my book “I am aware of the source of my elation: my alliance with the guardians of the Empire is over, I have set my self in opposition, the bond is broken, I am a free man.” Did the Magistrate intentionally help the barbarians so he would be expelled of his position? We know that earlier in the book the Magistrate was talking about just living out the rest of his life doing whatever. I don’t know these are just some things I thought about as I was reading the book. If the Magistrates goal was to become free he accomplished it otherwise he just really screwed the people. The town lost their crops. I’m pretty sure that the barbarians got word of what they were doing and what they did to other barbarians so they got revenge.
The Magistrate's Trial
The Magistrate did what he did to satisfy his own guilt not just because he kept the girl, but because of the entire movement against a people, their culture. By returning the girl to her people, he thought he was squaring it between the empire and the barbarians in his own mind. ( However, I think the Empire were the Barbarians, and the natives waited for them)
"I want to say that nothing passed between myself and the barbarians concerning military matters. It was a private affair. I went to return the girl to her family. For no other purpose." I think the magistrate put himself on trial and the only righteous action to take was to bring the girl back. I think his age was constantly on trial, and the 'road trip' was another action to take to prove his virility (mostly to himself).
The magistrate says something very interesting at the end of chapter six "I think: 'I wanted to live outside history. I wanted to live outside the history that Empire imposes on its subjects, even its lost subjects. I never wished it for the barbarians that they should have the history of Empire laid upon them. How can I believe that that is cause for shame?'" I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
"I want to say that nothing passed between myself and the barbarians concerning military matters. It was a private affair. I went to return the girl to her family. For no other purpose." I think the magistrate put himself on trial and the only righteous action to take was to bring the girl back. I think his age was constantly on trial, and the 'road trip' was another action to take to prove his virility (mostly to himself).
The magistrate says something very interesting at the end of chapter six "I think: 'I wanted to live outside history. I wanted to live outside the history that Empire imposes on its subjects, even its lost subjects. I never wished it for the barbarians that they should have the history of Empire laid upon them. How can I believe that that is cause for shame?'" I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
For Love?
The Magistrate’s actions are still quite ambiguous. It is difficult to interpret the true meaning that lies behind his performance. Even though his actions are vague, a progress can certainly be observed. His feelings for the girl develop gradually. At the beginning of the novel, he views her as a vulnerable girl who would do anything for shelter, care, and food. Hence, he takes advantage of this notion and utilizes her for his sexual needs. If his intentions were any different, then why didn’t he shelter and clothe a young lad?
However, half way in to the novel, specifically during their dreadful trip, he demonstrates his true and evolving feelings towards the girl. Most importantly he reveals the true meaning that lies behind his actions. On page 67 he says “For five hours we huddle behind the piles firewood and the horses while the wind lashes us with snow, ice, rain, sand, grit. We ache with cold to our very bones, the flanks of the horses, turned to the wind, are caked with ice. We press together, man and breast, sharing our warmth, trying to endure.” Why does he endure this crucial weather? His sincere love for the girl pushes him forward to complete his journey and to hand her to the barbarians. He could have simply turned back once he sensed the cold weather approaching. He did not even have to initiate the trip in the first place. Further, this trip caused him his job, self identity, and respect. This idea can be further demonstrated through when he says “In twelve days on the road we have grown closer than in months of living in the same rooms” (page 70). Perhaps, this statement can demonstrate the fact that he was truly happy with the trip and its gains. Even thought he illustrated his true love towards the girl through what he did, I am not sure if he actually accomplished anything.
However, half way in to the novel, specifically during their dreadful trip, he demonstrates his true and evolving feelings towards the girl. Most importantly he reveals the true meaning that lies behind his actions. On page 67 he says “For five hours we huddle behind the piles firewood and the horses while the wind lashes us with snow, ice, rain, sand, grit. We ache with cold to our very bones, the flanks of the horses, turned to the wind, are caked with ice. We press together, man and breast, sharing our warmth, trying to endure.” Why does he endure this crucial weather? His sincere love for the girl pushes him forward to complete his journey and to hand her to the barbarians. He could have simply turned back once he sensed the cold weather approaching. He did not even have to initiate the trip in the first place. Further, this trip caused him his job, self identity, and respect. This idea can be further demonstrated through when he says “In twelve days on the road we have grown closer than in months of living in the same rooms” (page 70). Perhaps, this statement can demonstrate the fact that he was truly happy with the trip and its gains. Even thought he illustrated his true love towards the girl through what he did, I am not sure if he actually accomplished anything.
Monday, November 12, 2007
11/12
On Wednesday, we will finish up our discussion of Waiting for the Barbarians. For the response, let's try to point to a passage that particularly illuminates your final reason behind your answer to the following question(s): Why did the Magistrate do what he did, and did he accomplish anything by it? Quote that passage, and then explain your reasoning.
11/12
My essay will cover Achebe on Novels in Africa, Conrad on Achebe. And will also include Waiting, somehow, not sure since I'm still reading it.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Essay 2 Topic
My topic for this paper will be on feminism. I am going to analyze the works Aimee Bender and also refer to a movie..possibly Mona Lisa Smile or Tootsie.
My Topic
My second essay is a, I guess feminist reading on the two readings Debbieland and Sarah Cole.
Essay #2
I will be exploring the field of feminism for my second essay. I will attempt to relate the movie ,Wicked Man, to the feminist writings that we have read. I will also strive to interpret the movie according to a feminist point of view.
Kafka?
I read the back of Waiting and I found that one of the reviewers mentioned Kafka and how Coetzee writes like Kafka. I have The Metamorphasis by Kafka and was thinking about comparing the two.
Essay #2
Ive decided that my second essay will be about Post Colonialism. Using the works of J.M Coetzee's Waiting For The Barbarians and the works of Mary Rawlandson's Women's Indian Captivity Narratives. This should make an interesting paper because both stories are like looking in a mirror seeing double.........
The most wonderful blog ever!!!
My second essay, I have decided will deal with feminism and I will be discussing the two pieces we have read, A Room of One's Own and The Company of Wolves in the essay and how a feminist would analyze them.
Essay 2 Topic
I plan on focusing on the theory of feminism and relating it to the Judd Aptow movies. I am not sure exactly which ones yet. And also, back to the theorists in the class Woolf definitely being one of them.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
my topic
As we've talked about on Wednesday, I'll be discussing Attack of the 50ft. Woman, reviewing it as a feminist would and comparing it to the reading of As Things Fall Apart in my report on feminism.
Most difficult blog ever produced ever!
I too, will be taking the feminist route. The center of this essay will be the film "Dogma", as there were some interesting ideas about the film that I have touched upon on the blog, but have not truly explored as of yet. I will be discussing this film in relation to what can be considered as "feminist" in relation to the general cultural capital of feminism and in relation to two of the feminist philosophy readings done in class.
Kasey's a douche for stealing my essay topic
I decided I want to take the feminist route and discuss two peices we have done in class as well as how they fit into the general ideas of mainstream society, and how men view women. Now that my topics been theifed (and no thats not a real word) this is my default Idea
Friday, November 9, 2007
Topic #2
For my topic I'm going to analyze Waiting for the Barbarians, through the theme of colonization found in the story. I will also talk about another major example of colonization in another country, that can be related and be useful in comparing it to the story. I will also include examples that are useful in Achebe's essay, hopefully these work out in order to write my essay.
Essay 2 Topic
I will be analyzing 'Waiting for the Barbarians' in a feminist perspective, in other words, analyzing the Magistrate's relationship with the barbarian girl. I'm planning on referring to the feminist criticism of Achebe's 'Things Fall Apart' and compare Woolf's 'The New Dress' to Carter's 'The Company of Wolves'.
Essay #2
For my Second Essay I plan to talk about Feminism and how two works we have discussed offer different representations of women. The two pieces I am going to focus on are, Luce Irigaray "Sexual Difference", and Aimee Bender "Mfer". I will show through each piece a different interpretation of how the author portrays the role of women in society. Then examine how one of their opinions compare to the viewpoint of another Feminist theorist that we have discussed in class, showing overall if all Feminist theorists have the same or a different perspective when talking about the role of women in society. Finally evaluating the benefits that one theorist could have over the other when talking about Feminism.
Does this mean I don't have to email it?
I'll be writing (hopefully, if you approve and all that) on how feminist views are represented in Sarah Cole and Waiting, with a focus on how both main characters idolize women, yet use them. I might even throw some Motherf*cker in there, I'm not sure yet.
11/07
In the interests of what alleviating a generalized fatigue, no response for class on Monday. Please post your topic for your next essay, however, so we all can see it.
And read at least to the beginning of Part V of Waiting, though the discussion will be much richer if you can finish the book.
And read at least to the beginning of Part V of Waiting, though the discussion will be much richer if you can finish the book.
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Is he black?
The problem with both Conrad and Coetzee I have is that when they say he, they, women, prisoners, or boy, they don't specify whether the person is white or black, and I believe if they did, it would have helped. Coetzee thought Conrad is a racist based on the way Conrad portrayed the Africans as a group. It doesn't take Coetzee to realize that the main character is a kind, sympathetic, and conscious man. And yet, there's not much going on in the first chapter I just read. I remember the three women (I assume they're black) walking by, looking at the party curiously. And there's a boy who seemed to lost his grandfather, killed by interrogator. The main character is very kind to the boy. When he learns that the boy hadn't eaten anything that evening, his heart "grows heavy." Well I guess this might not be enough for Achebe to conclude that this person isn't a racist. I mean, even Marlow in Heart of Darkness gave a biscuit to one of the African who was finding a shelter from the explosioin under the tree? All I can say is, we do not seem to have enough stuff to judge him through Achebe's eyes (or any theorists). But I do know that when the main character says "barbarian", I know he is refering to an African.
Misrepresentation
As many people have stated already Coetzee does the same thing that Conrad did."The characters are not represented as individuals but as stereotypes." This is a short line from the Achebe/Conrad Controversy. If you have been reading the book you should have noticed that for some reason not much is known about the barbarians yet. We just know minor things and they aren't supported really by facts yet because we don't know if the barbarians are really like the way the author depicts them to be. Hopefully as we get further into the story the barbarians will appear so they can represent themselves. The barbarians have to appear in the book and do what they do. If they come pillage villages, rape women, and steal things then we will know that Coetzee was not just making up stereotypes.
It is not just with the barbarians either. There is also the fishermen and the other prisoners in chapter one. When they are first introduced they don’t seem like very pleasant people and they don’t speak because no one speaks their language. Then comes all of the bad things about that like they pick each others lice and they go to the bathroom in a corner. Also the people living in the frontier, they dream about barbarians doing horrible things but have they ever met a barbarian in person? Everything about the barbarians so far are just stereotypes. Achebe would probably be furious if he only read up to this point. Just like with the African people in Conrads novel, Achebe would feel that Coetzee is devaluing the barbarians.
A way Achebe would read it
The story of 'Waiting for the Barbarians', in my opinion connects to the known example of what Achebe wrote in his essay towards Conrad. I think that the narrator Achebe can be compared to the Magistrate in this story. THe way the Magistrate feels guilt of how the people, 'the barbarians', where treated by the colonell joll, as being a racist. The colonel treated these people as if they wheren't worth anything, although the Magistrate was also in a way racist by describing the people as "simple people",(4), who where separated from other classes. There was the people who live within the empire, and the other who lived along the river.
The way Achebe would read this story, is in a similar way he wrotew for 'Heart of Darkness', it focused on the meaning of racism, mistreatment, casualties. The way the Magistrate introduces the colonell, as being someone superior to everyone, afterwards the colonell discriminate the prisoners who where brought by interogating them in painful ways by torturing them,"Pain is truth; all else is subject to doubt." (5) A way of seeing the Magistrate as racist is when he compares the people captive as animals, "We stand watching them eat as though they are strange animals." (18) The prisoners as one could compare them to slaves where beaten, and at the end of the first chapter are compared to words said by Achebe as being "ugly people", "It would be best if this obscure chapter in the history of the world were terminated at once, if these ugly people were obliterated from the face of the earth and we swore to make a new start, to run an empire in which there would be no more injustice, no more pain." (24) Therefore, the magistrate refers to the prisoners as being ugly. although the words would have come by all the events that took place when the colonell interogated them. In the end, the Magistrate would have been also seen as a racist when he discriminates the girl he helped after she was in the streets begging, he would compare her as having "alien" characteristics, who where not attracted to him. The Magistrate resulted discriminating the girl, and also taken advantage of other girls who worked for him, as making him feel superior.
The way Achebe would read this story, is in a similar way he wrotew for 'Heart of Darkness', it focused on the meaning of racism, mistreatment, casualties. The way the Magistrate introduces the colonell, as being someone superior to everyone, afterwards the colonell discriminate the prisoners who where brought by interogating them in painful ways by torturing them,"Pain is truth; all else is subject to doubt." (5) A way of seeing the Magistrate as racist is when he compares the people captive as animals, "We stand watching them eat as though they are strange animals." (18) The prisoners as one could compare them to slaves where beaten, and at the end of the first chapter are compared to words said by Achebe as being "ugly people", "It would be best if this obscure chapter in the history of the world were terminated at once, if these ugly people were obliterated from the face of the earth and we swore to make a new start, to run an empire in which there would be no more injustice, no more pain." (24) Therefore, the magistrate refers to the prisoners as being ugly. although the words would have come by all the events that took place when the colonell interogated them. In the end, the Magistrate would have been also seen as a racist when he discriminates the girl he helped after she was in the streets begging, he would compare her as having "alien" characteristics, who where not attracted to him. The Magistrate resulted discriminating the girl, and also taken advantage of other girls who worked for him, as making him feel superior.
Waiting...for something to happen!
After reading up to page 70, I am still waiting for something to happen, or even a description of where this takes place and more information about the barbarians and why the Empire wants
them to move up towards the mountains. I keep trying to put myself in the place of Achebe or Hooks and read it maybe through their eyes. I believe that just like everything we discuss in class, there is most definitely two arguments that can be made. First of all, I don't even recall the name of the character who is the narrator. As a matter of fact, the only name that I do know is Colonel Joll, so I wish there would be more description in this book by Coetzee, however, I assume (without making an ass out of u and me, as they say) there is a reason for everything an author does, therefore, I try to stop myself from questioning too much and read it nevertheless.
Also, like Hook says himself, this type of literature, "excludes certain information."
I believe that the arguments could go as follows: maybe Achebe or another post colonialism theorist would say that Coetzee is a racist because he writes a story where the main character is fascinated with the barbarian women and completely takes advantage of them, almost as if that is how he gains his feeling of power by subjugating them, i.e. the barbarian girl he shares his bed with and the barbarian prostitute. The other argument could be that he is not racist at all, because there are many examples where he shows such concern and discernment for helping the barbarians that are taken to be prisoners and feels such pity for them, screaming at the guards when they take in a family of fishing people for prisoners, which is where the barbarian girl he shares his bed with came into play, although he doesn't remember her at all. All he remembers is a blank space next to her father.
I am looking foward to finishing this book to see where it goes because it is easy reading, but it leaves me with so many questions and wonderment, but I almost womnder if that's what Coetzee intended for his readers to feel.
them to move up towards the mountains. I keep trying to put myself in the place of Achebe or Hooks and read it maybe through their eyes. I believe that just like everything we discuss in class, there is most definitely two arguments that can be made. First of all, I don't even recall the name of the character who is the narrator. As a matter of fact, the only name that I do know is Colonel Joll, so I wish there would be more description in this book by Coetzee, however, I assume (without making an ass out of u and me, as they say) there is a reason for everything an author does, therefore, I try to stop myself from questioning too much and read it nevertheless.
Also, like Hook says himself, this type of literature, "excludes certain information."
I believe that the arguments could go as follows: maybe Achebe or another post colonialism theorist would say that Coetzee is a racist because he writes a story where the main character is fascinated with the barbarian women and completely takes advantage of them, almost as if that is how he gains his feeling of power by subjugating them, i.e. the barbarian girl he shares his bed with and the barbarian prostitute. The other argument could be that he is not racist at all, because there are many examples where he shows such concern and discernment for helping the barbarians that are taken to be prisoners and feels such pity for them, screaming at the guards when they take in a family of fishing people for prisoners, which is where the barbarian girl he shares his bed with came into play, although he doesn't remember her at all. All he remembers is a blank space next to her father.
I am looking foward to finishing this book to see where it goes because it is easy reading, but it leaves me with so many questions and wonderment, but I almost womnder if that's what Coetzee intended for his readers to feel.
Coetzee and hook = Radical Posmodernism ???
From the very perspective of bell hooks (Gloria Jean Watkins), Coetzee’s Waiting for Barbarians would definitely fit on the shelves with all the other postmodernist literature. Hooks argues that postmodernism ‘excludes certain information’. It is literature, by the voices of ‘academic elites who speak to and about one another with coded familiarity’. After reading Adams post, it became clear that the setting isn’t precisely mentioned (I haven’t read the entire book. I’ll take his word for it). Through our own fascinations we can predict a given setting, within the context of our class room, and having background information on Coetzee, we can assume (invalidly) that the setting takes place in Africa. Nevertheless, this information is not given to the readers. Under the scopes of postmodernism, the very notion of ambiguity is extremely present. In Waiting for the Barbarians, it is very clear that the audience is aware what a ‘barbarian’ is, but the narrator does not seem to really emphasize in detail what a barbarian is. After reading the posts of Leslie and Julia, who have equally demonstrated the dehumanizing elements as the pertain to women in the text, I also realized that Coetzee does not seem to put much thought into the detail of each, raped, or physically abused female. It is this unclearness that hooks would focus on. She argues that “Postmodernism does not focus on ‘otherness and difference’, or mentions very little with no emphasis” (p.362). Postmodernism hardly ever mentions black experience. It is books like Coetzee, that helped contribute to Black Movement, which has helped focus on the issue of ‘identity’. And Coetzee’s literature helps to create, what Hooks calls ‘hopelessness’, which in tern states that “this hopelessness creates longing for insight and strategies for change that can renew spirits and reconstruct grounds for collective black liberation.”
Achebe and the Unknown
One problem I have with Coetzee's waiting for the barbarians is that you don't really get a good description of anything. For instance we really don't know much about the narrator's people just as much as not knowing much about the barbarians. The only diffrence explained is that their ways of living seem to be different. But the way the narrator's people see the barbarians, is as those people who annually come by town to trade that are dirty and reek of all the time. This is where Achebe's arguement comes into play depending how far along in the book you been through, that you really don't get a good view of Africa and what their people are all about just what one town feels about a group with nothing good to say about them; just like we seen in Conrad. Also the way the narrator describes the "barbarian girl" he keeps in his room that he has pity for because his people tortured the Barbarians AKA Nomads is seen as a person to feel bad for and that is what the Megistrate(narrator) is getting at. He stands up for these Nomads knowing that their must be more to them than they know about. This arguement yet again brings up the arguement of seeing a story from one point of view, you really don't have a sense of everything going on especially in this case with the Barbarians.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
is coetzee like conrad?
As we have seen ourselves in Heart of Darkness, Achebe criticized Conrad of being, without a doubt, racist as the man kept on using derogatory terms to describe the people of Africa, describing them as if they were wild, unkempt and, even diseased animals. Through the exploits of the main character (and all other characters) in his story, Conrad has descriptively treated the African people as inhuman savages. Does Coetzee do the same in Waiting for the Barbarians? From what I’ve read so far, I would have to say yes and no simultaneously. Though it is true we find a similar treatment of one group subjugating another, treating another as total dogs, we are not given any detail as to what two groups these are. They’re pretty much two generic social, political, racial or religious classes. And, as has been proven by history, with two different groups occupying the same space, whichever one’s in power will look down upon the other. In Conrad’s text, he, whether intentionally or not, makes it clear that he is a part of the “superior” race deriding the other “less superior” one. His character seems to be an extension of himself. Coetzee, on the other hand, seems to want to expose such ugly prejudice to the light. He to uses a lot of negative, insulting terms in his description of the poor fisher-people but it’s not in the same tone as Conrad. It’s more like he’s building up from such bigoted feelings in a way to understand why they are present in the first place.
Waiting on a feminist
When asked to use one of the Theories so far in combination with the reading, I thought it would be interesting to respond with a reading done from a feminist perspective, probably should have emailed to ask, but it is extremely late and I doubt I will get a response. First I would like to say I agree with Lesley's notion that there is alot of sexualized content in the novel. This is the main reason I decided to do the reading as a feminist. Besides the sexual mentions in the text there are also moments where the main character has Maternal moments or feelings that would be associated with a mother or woman in general. An example of this can be cited on (P7)
Though he does exhibit some form of caring towards the boy this does not stop him from doing his job, he later on asks that after the boy has eaten his hands be bound, just not as tightly which struck me as a sort of 'rough him up but don't kill him yet" mentality. The author I chose to compare "Waiting" to in this case was I decided to use "To his Coy Mistress" to compare it to.I think that the argument can go back to when we talked about Misrepresentation of women in works of literature. First we are given a stereotype of what women are supposed to behave like when their children are threatened. Then later on though unintentionally done there is a child on (P9) that is described in a sexual manner, this was seen in
Wheter women in the novel are being depicted as animals, helpless or maternal there is no definite way to identify women in the story that is positive, if a feminist were to read this, it could easily be said that objectification is present. Also the way the author first describes the children playing in the snow makes it seem like he is talking about animals or pygmies. Going back to the Novel, I was able to find much more when arguing the ideas that women are barely represented, represented in a negative light, and sexualized. Citing page thirteen, the main character is dreaming
I cannot pretend to be any better than a a mother comforting a child between a fathers spells of rath. It has not escaped me that an interegator can wear two masks, speak with two voices, one harsh on seductive
Though he does exhibit some form of caring towards the boy this does not stop him from doing his job, he later on asks that after the boy has eaten his hands be bound, just not as tightly which struck me as a sort of 'rough him up but don't kill him yet" mentality. The author I chose to compare "Waiting" to in this case was I decided to use "To his Coy Mistress" to compare it to.I think that the argument can go back to when we talked about Misrepresentation of women in works of literature. First we are given a stereotype of what women are supposed to behave like when their children are threatened. Then later on though unintentionally done there is a child on (P9) that is described in a sexual manner, this was seen in
She sits in the snow with her hooded back to me working at the door of the Castle, her legs splayed, burrowing, patting, molding I stand behind her and watch. I try to Imagine the face between the petals of her peaked hood but cannot
Wheter women in the novel are being depicted as animals, helpless or maternal there is no definite way to identify women in the story that is positive, if a feminist were to read this, it could easily be said that objectification is present. Also the way the author first describes the children playing in the snow makes it seem like he is talking about animals or pygmies. Going back to the Novel, I was able to find much more when arguing the ideas that women are barely represented, represented in a negative light, and sexualized. Citing page thirteen, the main character is dreaming
I sleep, wake to another round of dance-music from the square, fall asleep again and dream of a body spread on its back, a wealth of pubic hair glistening liquid black and gold across the belly,up the loins, and down like an arrow into the furrow of the legs. When I stretch out a hand to brush the hair it begins to writhe it its not hair but bees clustered atop one another honey drenched stickyIn comparison to His Coy mistress, though each interpretation of women of female characters is different, I was still reminded of Marvell's use of isolating body parts of the woman in the poem and having the speaker identify them as separate entities, leaving the reader with the idea that the woman in the poem has no sense of identity, until the author choses to give her one
Waiting for the Barbarians and Achebe
Achebe claims that Conrad in his novel Heart of Darkness describes Africa as “a place where man’s vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality.” In the novel Conrad describes the people through animalistic characteristics. This idea can be observed, for example, by when he illustrate the thirsty man by the lake. Not only was the man drinking directly from the lake, but was also positioned on his four limbs. He even calls them “creatures”. The aspect of “triumphant beastiality” can also be observed in Waiting for the Barbarians.
The people of this book are also portrayed as beastly. They are abused, tortured, and neglected. This idea can be demonstrated through a number of examples. (Or what I have read so far). The narrator on page 34 states that “People say that I keep two wild animals in my rooms, a fox and a girl.” The girl is considered to be an animal. The people automatically compare her to a wild fox. They dehumanize her by bestowing animalistic traits upon her. Also on page 36, the narrator asked a few men about how and where the young girl was abused. One of the men replied by saying that “I do not know sir, most of the time I was not there.” “Some times there was screaming, I think they beat her.” Why did they beat her? How can a man abuse a woman? They accomplished these actions due to the fact that they did not consider her as a human or a woman with genuine feelings. An animal does not possess feelings.
After the narrator has a number of sexual encounters with the girl he states that “I can not imagine what ever drew me to that alien body”. Why did he specifically utilize the term “alien”? Did she physically appear different than non-African women or did his stereotype of African women cloud his judgment and eyes. By using the term “alien” he is practically describing her as an aspect that is non-existence in this world. This term is far worse than describing them as creatures.
Finally, the term Barbarian is a well illustration of degrading the natives. Why did the narrator and his colleagues utilize this repulsive word? If their purpose was simply to identify them, they could have used terms such as natives, the Africa people, or other non-discriminating names. Their main intention was to illustrate these people as non-humans.
The people of this book are also portrayed as beastly. They are abused, tortured, and neglected. This idea can be demonstrated through a number of examples. (Or what I have read so far). The narrator on page 34 states that “People say that I keep two wild animals in my rooms, a fox and a girl.” The girl is considered to be an animal. The people automatically compare her to a wild fox. They dehumanize her by bestowing animalistic traits upon her. Also on page 36, the narrator asked a few men about how and where the young girl was abused. One of the men replied by saying that “I do not know sir, most of the time I was not there.” “Some times there was screaming, I think they beat her.” Why did they beat her? How can a man abuse a woman? They accomplished these actions due to the fact that they did not consider her as a human or a woman with genuine feelings. An animal does not possess feelings.
After the narrator has a number of sexual encounters with the girl he states that “I can not imagine what ever drew me to that alien body”. Why did he specifically utilize the term “alien”? Did she physically appear different than non-African women or did his stereotype of African women cloud his judgment and eyes. By using the term “alien” he is practically describing her as an aspect that is non-existence in this world. This term is far worse than describing them as creatures.
Finally, the term Barbarian is a well illustration of degrading the natives. Why did the narrator and his colleagues utilize this repulsive word? If their purpose was simply to identify them, they could have used terms such as natives, the Africa people, or other non-discriminating names. Their main intention was to illustrate these people as non-humans.
11.7
One of the many racist undertones that I gathered from "Waiting" was the casual mention of many rampant sexual acts throughout the book. How the magistrate visited the same young lady at the inn (her name escapes me and I do not have my copy handy), forming almost a suedo-relationship with her, only to actually bear witness (sort of) to her conducting business with another man. The magistrate's odd sexual acts with the barbarian girl stuck out at me as well. As it was only until far later in the book did he actually "enter her." Instead choosing to rub oils on her and sleep (literally) with her while visiting the girl at the inn on the side. Even towards the end of the book, the magistrate describes his lack of self control, leading him to seek out the not-quite-so-satisfying cook to fulfill his sexual desires. This all serves to paint the picture that people out on the frontier (wherever that may be) have little to know control over their sexual desires, and seemingly go at it like wild dogs, not even bothering to cover it up, as the magistrate mentions several girls who were not kept secret. He even goes so far as to refer to the barbarian girl as the magistrate's slut (from the other men's perspective, that is). Not once is there mention of any form of birth control or protection, which means decease and pregnancy would run rampant. Is this the right message to be sending about the frontier (wherever it may be)? Not from the perspective of a racist reader, I imagine they would take much offense at the inclination that these people have no self control. Which, as the book goes, happens to be true in more ways than one, but that's a different argument.
Waiting For Hatred and Lies?
Given that Chiuna Achebe found the ideas and the author behind Heart of Darkness to be racist, he might also consider J.M. Coetzee’s Waiting For The Barbarians to be racist as well. One particular scene that stuck out to me was when the narrator was speaking to Colonial Joll early on in the book about how Joll can distinguish lies from the truth when trying to find information about his prisoners AKA “the barbarians” through torture. This scene represents and begins to delve into how judgmental the character of Joll truly is (as he is the antagonist of the book). There is a portion where the magistrate (the narrator) asks how Joll would know if a prisoner is telling the truth. In response, Joll says that there is a “certain tone” that can be heard through “training and experience”. That “training and experience” that Joll speaks of could possibly be a bias, as the magistrate asks him immediately if he is speaking the truth at that moment in time. Joll’s response is: “No, you misunderstand me. I am speaking of a special situation… in which I have to exert pressure to find it. [the truth]” If I were looking at it from Achebe’s point of view, I would have reason to believe that this whole “certain tone” business is quite flawed and is basically an excuse to persecute people that Joll does not favor, regardless of any necessity of information, as the torture is truly the “tone of truth” that Joll speaks of. It’s a small portion of the book, but this section is particularly important to the idea of Joll being against “barbarians” in torturing and imprisoning them.
COETZEE THE BARBARIAN !
Coetzee seems to fall into the same problem that Achebe has with Conrad and his portrayal of the natives. Coetzee portrays the natives as Barbarians, in image they may look like Barbarians old, haggard, dirty, and unkempt. In actuality they are not Barbarians, they are just surviving off the land. The attributes that the settlers consider Barbaric, the raiding of camps, raping of tribesmen, are all attempts of the nomads reciprocate against the those who have invaded on there land.
Colonel Joll considers them barbaric when in actuality his actions of torture are barbaric and inhumane; the abuse of a young child is not the actions of a civilized nature. The actions of the settlers over the past 100 years can also be Barbaric, they invaded a land that did not belong to them, they set up villages and settlements in regions usually used for grazing and hunting, in nomadic society life revolves around the lake. They rape the land barren forcing the livestock away with their unconventional ways of hunting; guns have made hunting more efficient drastically dwindling populations.
The settlers see everything opposite to their confirmed lifestyle as being Barbaric, though many of the village soldiers have been drunk, they seem to find drunken nomads as utterly disgusting they describe them as lazy and dirty. The introduction of alcohol, a substance that they nothing about, alters the way the settlers view the nomads. Not only are the “Barbarians” savage but they are drunks too.
I don’t think the problem is with the lack of an explanation of what a Barbarian is, it lies with the fact that the settlers do not realize that their own actions are Barbaric in itself.
Colonel Joll considers them barbaric when in actuality his actions of torture are barbaric and inhumane; the abuse of a young child is not the actions of a civilized nature. The actions of the settlers over the past 100 years can also be Barbaric, they invaded a land that did not belong to them, they set up villages and settlements in regions usually used for grazing and hunting, in nomadic society life revolves around the lake. They rape the land barren forcing the livestock away with their unconventional ways of hunting; guns have made hunting more efficient drastically dwindling populations.
The settlers see everything opposite to their confirmed lifestyle as being Barbaric, though many of the village soldiers have been drunk, they seem to find drunken nomads as utterly disgusting they describe them as lazy and dirty. The introduction of alcohol, a substance that they nothing about, alters the way the settlers view the nomads. Not only are the “Barbarians” savage but they are drunks too.
I don’t think the problem is with the lack of an explanation of what a Barbarian is, it lies with the fact that the settlers do not realize that their own actions are Barbaric in itself.
11.7.07 Waiting For The Barbarians
When reading the first two chapters in story you can't help to picture what the scenery is like, where they're taking the "Barbarians" too and what they actually look like? You really don't find out in the early chapters why the Colonel goes after these people and why they are classified as "Barbarians" is it something they did wrong or are they just being taken at random? The real question throughout the first two chapters which was brought up in previous blogs was what classifies or who classifies what a 'Barbarian' is?
You don't really get to read about what a Barbarian is or what classifies the people he kidnaps as a 'Barbarian'. All you really know the people he kidnaps are women, men, older people, and young children. The only characteristics that describes a barbarian is telling the reader the imagery of broken limbs, cuts, and children standing on one leg. Going further and further into the story you begin to think are we ever going to find out who a 'Barbarian' is and what they actually look like? After thinking about all those questions while reading both chapters you then begin to question and analyze the main character, I'm guessing a member of the colonels crew? He is the one and only member of the group that is showing any sympathy for the 'Barbarians'. He cleans them and feeds them and he tries to protect them to some extent of being brutally beaten by anyone. He goes through a great deal of stress in order to try to do what he feels is right. When reading this story you can see how the theories of Achebe can be seen in this story through some extent. He will be impressed with the main character on how his will and strong mindedness to keep control in the place. Also not knowing what this term 'Barbarian' represents besides knowing there gender and physical injuries they posses.
Hopefully by the end of this story we will find out what a 'Barbarian' truly is and what physical qualities they might represent. Right now we are going on basic instincts on what we view them as, I'm sure we all have different opinions on what physical attributes make up a 'Barbarian'.
You don't really get to read about what a Barbarian is or what classifies the people he kidnaps as a 'Barbarian'. All you really know the people he kidnaps are women, men, older people, and young children. The only characteristics that describes a barbarian is telling the reader the imagery of broken limbs, cuts, and children standing on one leg. Going further and further into the story you begin to think are we ever going to find out who a 'Barbarian' is and what they actually look like? After thinking about all those questions while reading both chapters you then begin to question and analyze the main character, I'm guessing a member of the colonels crew? He is the one and only member of the group that is showing any sympathy for the 'Barbarians'. He cleans them and feeds them and he tries to protect them to some extent of being brutally beaten by anyone. He goes through a great deal of stress in order to try to do what he feels is right. When reading this story you can see how the theories of Achebe can be seen in this story through some extent. He will be impressed with the main character on how his will and strong mindedness to keep control in the place. Also not knowing what this term 'Barbarian' represents besides knowing there gender and physical injuries they posses.
Hopefully by the end of this story we will find out what a 'Barbarian' truly is and what physical qualities they might represent. Right now we are going on basic instincts on what we view them as, I'm sure we all have different opinions on what physical attributes make up a 'Barbarian'.
Barbarians
In the readings of J.M Coetzee Waiting for the Barbarians, I found myself back to square one of thinking the same thoughts I conveyed from Achebes analysis of " The Heart of Darkness" . Both stories to me have one of many things in common. One being the same level of ignorance when it comes to things they know nothing about. For example in both stories they Describe the people as aliens something other than being the human being they came into the world as.
In "Waiting for the barbarians" the Barbarians where thought to be savages and at any time they could attack you. For example, "There is no woman living along the frontier who has not dreamed of a dark Barbarian hand coming from under the bed to grip her ankle, no man who has not frightened himself with visions of the barbarians carousing in his home, breaking the plates, setting fire to the curtains , raping his daughters"( pg 9). The main idea I got just from reading this sentence was the very thing I said of people fearing something they don't know and instead of taking the time to know the person inside and out one rather make assumptions.
In the story of 'Heart of Darkness" the Africans where described as monsters with a numerous amount of other names they came up with. Just as, ' We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there you could look at a thing monstous and free" (pg 13). The Africans where treated like nothing as if only an object. In past times a fool was used as a form of entertainment and I believe that the Africans too are portrayed as the fool in the story.
A wise person always told me when you ASSume what you don't know you make an ASSume out of yourself.
In "Waiting for the barbarians" the Barbarians where thought to be savages and at any time they could attack you. For example, "There is no woman living along the frontier who has not dreamed of a dark Barbarian hand coming from under the bed to grip her ankle, no man who has not frightened himself with visions of the barbarians carousing in his home, breaking the plates, setting fire to the curtains , raping his daughters"( pg 9). The main idea I got just from reading this sentence was the very thing I said of people fearing something they don't know and instead of taking the time to know the person inside and out one rather make assumptions.
In the story of 'Heart of Darkness" the Africans where described as monsters with a numerous amount of other names they came up with. Just as, ' We are accustomed to look upon the shackled form of a conquered monster, but there you could look at a thing monstous and free" (pg 13). The Africans where treated like nothing as if only an object. In past times a fool was used as a form of entertainment and I believe that the Africans too are portrayed as the fool in the story.
A wise person always told me when you ASSume what you don't know you make an ASSume out of yourself.
'Waiting for the Barbarians'
In Chinua Achebe's criticism of 'Heart of Darkness', Achebe emphasized the fact that Conrad portrayed Africa to be "the other world" (para. 7), the geographical location where the Europeans, or colonizers in general, chose to settle and dominate and make of the civilians nothing but beasts, degrade them in a way that practically wiped them off of any existing map.
This can also be seen in the first two chapters of 'Waiting for the Barbarians'. Coetzee describes, through the Magistrate's eyes, a group of barbarians, which included men, women, elders, and children, that were sent to this undisclosed location and were held as prisoners. They were beaten and tortured; for example, the one girl that was left behind that the Magistrate took in as his companion had both her feet broken and was now blind. Some of these prisoners even died. Based on what Achebe wrote in his essay about 'Heart of Darkness', he would read this book and point out how these barbarians were treated as animals, without a legitimate reason; they were sent to that location by Colonel Joll to be interrogated but in the end, they had nothing prosecuting to say. Either way, they were treated as savages (with the exception of this one girl).
This can also be seen in the first two chapters of 'Waiting for the Barbarians'. Coetzee describes, through the Magistrate's eyes, a group of barbarians, which included men, women, elders, and children, that were sent to this undisclosed location and were held as prisoners. They were beaten and tortured; for example, the one girl that was left behind that the Magistrate took in as his companion had both her feet broken and was now blind. Some of these prisoners even died. Based on what Achebe wrote in his essay about 'Heart of Darkness', he would read this book and point out how these barbarians were treated as animals, without a legitimate reason; they were sent to that location by Colonel Joll to be interrogated but in the end, they had nothing prosecuting to say. Either way, they were treated as savages (with the exception of this one girl).
Adam took the easy one!
Just to agree with Adam I too thought the same thing about the barbarians and wondered about their actual existence being that we are given practically no information what so ever. From Achebe’s perspective I think she would admire the main character for his will and the amount of duress he endures (although self contrived). On page 44 of my text I found that the main character was trying to break out of this problem that we only see things from our reference point and cannot break form this. He says “What do I have to do to move you” and “Does no one move you.” The next paragraph the character comes to a self actualization that he is the only one putting conations and subtext into everything he is doing for her, even though they do seem rather odd for a non-intimate couple. He says that it his own vanity and his own seduction that he is getting caught up in this very awkward situation. He also refers to things as only being what they are: a bed only a bed and a woman’s body only a site of joy. He then talks about the Colonel and that he must not suffer his crimes as well as distancing himself as much as he can form him. After reading the first two chapters I find it unclear what the main character is doing concurrent to what the Colonel did.
What makes a "barbarian" a "barbarian"
Although the author’s bio includes details of his birth and upbringing in South Africa I think it is important to note that this novel is left deliberately without geography. This was probably done in order to preserve the allegorical nature of the story. The author would rather us look at the relationships between characters and the various themes rather than dwell on where’s and when’s.
That being said I can see Achebe reacting very similarly to “Waiting for the Barbarians” as he reacted to Heart of Darkness. His main complaint is still preserved. The fact is that as far as we’ve gotten we are given little to no details about the “barbarians”. I was starved for information to the point where early on in the novel I began to wonder if these “barbarians” really existed. If this entire story was going to culminate in some grand contagious mob mentality paranoia, inventing an aggressor that doesn’t exist at all except for in the delusions of the frightened wealthy.
But even as we get toward the end of chapter two we are still given almost nothing in terms of solid useful descriptions of the “barbarians”. Similar to Heart of Darkness the only time we see these “barbarians” is when the authorities of our citadel bring them in. And even then the only thing that seems to identify them as “barbarians” is their condition and appearance and perhaps the fact that they were found what would be considered “too close” to the citadel.
I wonder if we were forced to define a “barbarian” and describe one based on what the book gives us so far, what would we come up with? And perhaps more importantly how many of the features that we would ascribe to these “barbarians” would be inherently theirs as opposed to having been inflicted or assigned by the empire?
That being said I can see Achebe reacting very similarly to “Waiting for the Barbarians” as he reacted to Heart of Darkness. His main complaint is still preserved. The fact is that as far as we’ve gotten we are given little to no details about the “barbarians”. I was starved for information to the point where early on in the novel I began to wonder if these “barbarians” really existed. If this entire story was going to culminate in some grand contagious mob mentality paranoia, inventing an aggressor that doesn’t exist at all except for in the delusions of the frightened wealthy.
But even as we get toward the end of chapter two we are still given almost nothing in terms of solid useful descriptions of the “barbarians”. Similar to Heart of Darkness the only time we see these “barbarians” is when the authorities of our citadel bring them in. And even then the only thing that seems to identify them as “barbarians” is their condition and appearance and perhaps the fact that they were found what would be considered “too close” to the citadel.
I wonder if we were forced to define a “barbarian” and describe one based on what the book gives us so far, what would we come up with? And perhaps more importantly how many of the features that we would ascribe to these “barbarians” would be inherently theirs as opposed to having been inflicted or assigned by the empire?
Monday, November 5, 2007
11/05
As most of you have seen, the prompt for the second essay is to the right. I'm willing to extend the topic deadline to Friday of this week, but not further (I want you to get to work on the essay early). I'll also be posting potential works for analysis here (mostly post-colonial--the feminism is pretty well covered by the woolf, bender, carter, etc.) so keep an eye out. Be sure you've read to at least the end of the second chapter in Waiting, though in fact you'll want to read more, as you'll need to be through most of the book by the end of the weekend.
When you've finished reading, write a response which brings an idea drawn from one of the theorists (at this point Achebe, Said and hooks) into relationship with a moment or scene from Waiting. Based on what you've read so far, how would that author 'read' this book?
When you've finished reading, write a response which brings an idea drawn from one of the theorists (at this point Achebe, Said and hooks) into relationship with a moment or scene from Waiting. Based on what you've read so far, how would that author 'read' this book?
Indonesia
During the 17th century, the English and the Dutch had a fierce competition and the Dutch came out as the predominant power in
At the end of the 18th century, the Dutch East
So being under Dutch control at first really helped the Indonesian people advance. The Indonesian people did a lot of agriculture and were even educated. It was because of the Dutch that the Indonesian people grew in population and many other ways. The only price they had to pay was I guess something like slavery? The people of
Works cited: http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/2805/dutchind.htm
Colonial Mexico
Colonial Mexico, was based on what historians used to think when explaining the wealthy well organized government of New Spain. This occurred in the middle of the nineteenth century, when Mexico lost half its territory, which used to be parts of what is now the United States, this was California, New Mexico, parts of Texas, and more on the western territory. Although, according to the article 'Down From Colonialism: Mexico's 19th Century Crisis', "By the middle of the nineteenth century, the republic of Mexico not only had lost more than half its territory, nut also suffered from extreme political instability, severe economic depression, and both racial as well as class conflict." (1) Therefore, the problem of colonialization was the economy and territory, that was taken from Mexico.
New Spain was the most powerful empire in the Western Hemisphere during the 1800's, who controled the territories of present day Mexico, Central America, the Phillippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Florida, the coastal regions of Alabama and Mississippi, Alaska, and Western Canada. New S[ain was the most richest nation at the time, although New Spain provided two thirds of the revenue of the spanish empire, this was in 1799, for 20 million pesos, and 10 million pesos where used for their local administration and defense. Spain kept on growing in wealth power, but as a result in their colonization of the Mexican economy, where in 1806, Mexico raised 39 million pesos, sending 19 million to spain to help finance the wars in Europe,where conflicts started to arouse. The silver mines, where the main engines that made the econy grow in Mexico, "Mexico was the world's principle supplier of silver throught the colonial period." This explains how Mexico at the time was a great welathy nation, who was colonized by Spain in order to get as much welath and territory as they could, but in the end things eventually changed as Mexico was its own nation in the early 19th century. "Eighteenth century Mexico can be described as a wealthy, capitalist society whose economy was characterized by private ownership of the means of production." As a result, it was the most influential economy which contribute to the Spanish economy. In conclusion, Mexico was considered the most productive nation of the 18th century, with its exportation of silver, which helped many nations including the Europian nations when times of war, but the primary nation who colonized its economy was Spain, who controlled many nations at the time.
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=528
New Spain was the most powerful empire in the Western Hemisphere during the 1800's, who controled the territories of present day Mexico, Central America, the Phillippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Florida, the coastal regions of Alabama and Mississippi, Alaska, and Western Canada. New S[ain was the most richest nation at the time, although New Spain provided two thirds of the revenue of the spanish empire, this was in 1799, for 20 million pesos, and 10 million pesos where used for their local administration and defense. Spain kept on growing in wealth power, but as a result in their colonization of the Mexican economy, where in 1806, Mexico raised 39 million pesos, sending 19 million to spain to help finance the wars in Europe,where conflicts started to arouse. The silver mines, where the main engines that made the econy grow in Mexico, "Mexico was the world's principle supplier of silver throught the colonial period." This explains how Mexico at the time was a great welathy nation, who was colonized by Spain in order to get as much welath and territory as they could, but in the end things eventually changed as Mexico was its own nation in the early 19th century. "Eighteenth century Mexico can be described as a wealthy, capitalist society whose economy was characterized by private ownership of the means of production." As a result, it was the most influential economy which contribute to the Spanish economy. In conclusion, Mexico was considered the most productive nation of the 18th century, with its exportation of silver, which helped many nations including the Europian nations when times of war, but the primary nation who colonized its economy was Spain, who controlled many nations at the time.
http://www.historicaltextarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=528
My Homeland, Ukraine
The largest country wholly in Europe, and yet when I answer that I am Ukrainian when people ask what my ethniticity is, most of them say, "What? Where?" That is truly unbelievable to me.
Ukraine has culture stemming back from the 1st millenium BC and the first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians and Goths. These peoples were all well know to colonists and traders of the ancient world, and they created trading posts which eventually became city states. The slavic tribes occupied central and eastern Ukraine and they had an important role in establishing Kyiv. Kyiv is still in this day, the capital of Ukriane. In the 14th century, Ukrainians began to fell a very distinct feeling of passion and pride for their culture and people and began to feel that they were a distinct people, something that still to this day, is felt throughout the country. Ukrainian peasants fled from Poland, who tried to force them into servitude in the 17th century, and these people came to be known as the Cossacks and they are known for their fierce spirit and love of freedom.
Now moving into the 20th century, Ukraine has suffered an unbelievable amount of toils and tribulations. Living under Communist domination was horrific and suffering from two artificial famines because of the Communists stripping Ukraine of all it's agricultural prosperity in wheats and potatoes and later the Nazis doing the same, about 16 million Ukrianians were killed in WWII between the famines and the crazy Nazis slaughtering anything and anyone in their path. Everyone is always sympathetic to the killing of the Jews, which they should be, I am Jewish by way of my mother, so I feel the pain, but what about my Ukrainian forefathers? People don't mention when they speak of the holocaust as the unbelievable demise of the Ukrainians and I feel that we should also be remembered in all the museums too.
Finally, after almost a century of being under the Communist rule and living throught the Nazi regime, Ukraine received it's independence from the USSR and finally became an independent state on August 24th, 1991 and was a co-founder of Commonwealth of Independent States. The government of Ukraine has a parliamentary-presidential system with seperate executive, judicial and legislative branches. There are currently many people who live under the povery line, actually about 29%, and yet the laborers of Ukraine are highly trained and skilled and there are about eighty colleges and universities in Ukraine. This difference is quite amazing to me. The people of Ukraine are still regaining their spirit, understandably, after living under severe oppression from the Soviet domination, which in a way is just like colonization and what they are living in now, is post colonialism.
Work Cited:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3211.htm#people
Ukraine has culture stemming back from the 1st millenium BC and the first identifiable groups to populate what is now Ukraine were Cimmerians, Scythians, Sarmatians and Goths. These peoples were all well know to colonists and traders of the ancient world, and they created trading posts which eventually became city states. The slavic tribes occupied central and eastern Ukraine and they had an important role in establishing Kyiv. Kyiv is still in this day, the capital of Ukriane. In the 14th century, Ukrainians began to fell a very distinct feeling of passion and pride for their culture and people and began to feel that they were a distinct people, something that still to this day, is felt throughout the country. Ukrainian peasants fled from Poland, who tried to force them into servitude in the 17th century, and these people came to be known as the Cossacks and they are known for their fierce spirit and love of freedom.
Now moving into the 20th century, Ukraine has suffered an unbelievable amount of toils and tribulations. Living under Communist domination was horrific and suffering from two artificial famines because of the Communists stripping Ukraine of all it's agricultural prosperity in wheats and potatoes and later the Nazis doing the same, about 16 million Ukrianians were killed in WWII between the famines and the crazy Nazis slaughtering anything and anyone in their path. Everyone is always sympathetic to the killing of the Jews, which they should be, I am Jewish by way of my mother, so I feel the pain, but what about my Ukrainian forefathers? People don't mention when they speak of the holocaust as the unbelievable demise of the Ukrainians and I feel that we should also be remembered in all the museums too.
Finally, after almost a century of being under the Communist rule and living throught the Nazi regime, Ukraine received it's independence from the USSR and finally became an independent state on August 24th, 1991 and was a co-founder of Commonwealth of Independent States. The government of Ukraine has a parliamentary-presidential system with seperate executive, judicial and legislative branches. There are currently many people who live under the povery line, actually about 29%, and yet the laborers of Ukraine are highly trained and skilled and there are about eighty colleges and universities in Ukraine. This difference is quite amazing to me. The people of Ukraine are still regaining their spirit, understandably, after living under severe oppression from the Soviet domination, which in a way is just like colonization and what they are living in now, is post colonialism.
Work Cited:http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3211.htm#people
Haiti
It all started in 1492 when Christopher Columbus, in an attempt to reach India, landed on a small island in the Caribbean, which he later dubbed Hispaniola (little Spain). The natives, the Taino/ Arawaks, greeted him and his crew very hospitably. The Spanish sailors, seeing perfect servitude in the natives’ kindness, reported their findings to the people back home. Almost as soon as word broke out, more and more settlers from Spain began populating the isle. Abusing the peacefulness and cooperation of the Taino/ Arawaks, they enslaved them, forcing them to work the land and dig for gold. The invaders, however, had not foreseen that their diseases would be fatal to the natives, as the latter faction had never received protection from them. It was a sad fate for the Taino/ Arawaks as almost all of them succumbed to the sicknesses and died.
Having pretty much depleted most of their native slaves, the colonizers of Hispaniola had Africans shipped in to take up the load. Having been inoculated against the illnesses, the Africans were used as slaves by the Spaniards for the following century and a half. The colony was thriving most successfully… Then along came the pirates. The filibusters and the buccaneers, French pirates, began causing trouble for the Spanish invaders. Fearing future incursions, the latter willingly handed half the island over to France in 1697. From here came the great division of the isle, Spain occupying the east side (Santo Domingo) and the French owning the west (Saint Domingue).
By 1700, there were about 500,000 African slaves on the island, a number greatly superior to the invaders’. Some tried to rebel, attempting to escape or getting revenge on their “masters”. But it mattered little in the end. They were still being subjugated. One of them would go down in history as the most recognized and respected. His name was Toussaint Breda. Thought not originally from Africa, he heard many stories from his father, who used to be a free man over there. Listening to these, Toussaint was able to realize that he was more than just a slave, that he was a man with rights. Fortunate enough to have a liberal “master” who allowed him to learn to read and write on his own, Toussaint began reading books by enlightenment thinkers who wrote about equality of man. A defining point in his life was when he witnessed a slave being burnt alive as punishment for an escape attempt. After this, he would begin his road to becoming the leader of the revolution.
The last decade of the 16th century was where the sparks of upheaval really began to fly. In 1789, Boukman, a voodoo high priest, hosted a secret ceremony in the Caiman woods, to which Toussaint was attending, a ceremony that riled up the Africans to take up arms against their “masters”. They “moved as one body and put to the torch everything that belonged to the white people, at the same time killing every white person they could find.” The French Revolution was just about culminating around that time, resulting in a new government in France. The Rights of Man became a major issue for this new government. With that in mind, a proposition was made to abolish slavery in all French-owned territories, a proposition that was denied in 1791. Outraged, Toussaint, now known as L’Ouverture (the opening), led a group of slaves at war against the French colonists: a successful campaign. The abolition proposal was reintroduced in 1793, under the Jacobins’ rule, this time being accepted. The slaves were finally freed. They rejoiced. Toussaint ended up becoming an ally to the new French Government, using his skills as a brilliant general to help them out in many situations. This was not meant to last though. Napoleon Bonaparte soon replaced the Jacobins in power. He reinstated slavery in the French colonies, causing a civil war to erupt in Saint Domingue. In 1803, with the intention of ceasing the bloodshed, Toussaint agreed to meet up with Napoleon in order to sign a peace treaty that would simultaneously declare Saint Domingue, now called Haiti, as independent. Toussaint was betrayed. Napoleon had him captured and locked away. Toussaint eventually died while in captivity but his forces were stronger than ever as they carried on the war back in Haiti. In 1804, having forced the French government to surrender the territory, the former slaves had won. Haiti and its people were now finally independent.
WORKS CITED:
http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm
http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/2002-p4/baker_p4_12-01_db/index.htmhttp://www.pages.drexel.edu/~sd65/carib_history/arawaks.htm
Having pretty much depleted most of their native slaves, the colonizers of Hispaniola had Africans shipped in to take up the load. Having been inoculated against the illnesses, the Africans were used as slaves by the Spaniards for the following century and a half. The colony was thriving most successfully… Then along came the pirates. The filibusters and the buccaneers, French pirates, began causing trouble for the Spanish invaders. Fearing future incursions, the latter willingly handed half the island over to France in 1697. From here came the great division of the isle, Spain occupying the east side (Santo Domingo) and the French owning the west (Saint Domingue).
By 1700, there were about 500,000 African slaves on the island, a number greatly superior to the invaders’. Some tried to rebel, attempting to escape or getting revenge on their “masters”. But it mattered little in the end. They were still being subjugated. One of them would go down in history as the most recognized and respected. His name was Toussaint Breda. Thought not originally from Africa, he heard many stories from his father, who used to be a free man over there. Listening to these, Toussaint was able to realize that he was more than just a slave, that he was a man with rights. Fortunate enough to have a liberal “master” who allowed him to learn to read and write on his own, Toussaint began reading books by enlightenment thinkers who wrote about equality of man. A defining point in his life was when he witnessed a slave being burnt alive as punishment for an escape attempt. After this, he would begin his road to becoming the leader of the revolution.
The last decade of the 16th century was where the sparks of upheaval really began to fly. In 1789, Boukman, a voodoo high priest, hosted a secret ceremony in the Caiman woods, to which Toussaint was attending, a ceremony that riled up the Africans to take up arms against their “masters”. They “moved as one body and put to the torch everything that belonged to the white people, at the same time killing every white person they could find.” The French Revolution was just about culminating around that time, resulting in a new government in France. The Rights of Man became a major issue for this new government. With that in mind, a proposition was made to abolish slavery in all French-owned territories, a proposition that was denied in 1791. Outraged, Toussaint, now known as L’Ouverture (the opening), led a group of slaves at war against the French colonists: a successful campaign. The abolition proposal was reintroduced in 1793, under the Jacobins’ rule, this time being accepted. The slaves were finally freed. They rejoiced. Toussaint ended up becoming an ally to the new French Government, using his skills as a brilliant general to help them out in many situations. This was not meant to last though. Napoleon Bonaparte soon replaced the Jacobins in power. He reinstated slavery in the French colonies, causing a civil war to erupt in Saint Domingue. In 1803, with the intention of ceasing the bloodshed, Toussaint agreed to meet up with Napoleon in order to sign a peace treaty that would simultaneously declare Saint Domingue, now called Haiti, as independent. Toussaint was betrayed. Napoleon had him captured and locked away. Toussaint eventually died while in captivity but his forces were stronger than ever as they carried on the war back in Haiti. In 1804, having forced the French government to surrender the territory, the former slaves had won. Haiti and its people were now finally independent.
WORKS CITED:
http://www.historywiz.com/toussaint.htm
http://nhs.needham.k12.ma.us/cur/Baker_00/2002-p4/baker_p4_12-01_db/index.htmhttp://www.pages.drexel.edu/~sd65/carib_history/arawaks.htm
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Norway
As a result of the Napoleonic Wars, Norway, a part of the Danish Empire obtained in 1586, was lost to the Swedish empire, thus forming the Swedish-Norwegian union. This union lasted until 1905, when Norwegian sovereignty was recognized by the Swedes. There has always been some tension between Sweden and Norway, even in the post-colonial era of Europe. However, in recent years, the tension between the sovereign nation and it's former colonizer has basically ceased to be. According to an article from Afterposten.no, Sweden and Norway are combining forces as "Norwegian soldiers will... start serving under Swedish command." (Afterposten.no).
While it may seem like Norway might still be a colony of Sweden in the same sense that some see the United States attempting to make Iraq a colony, Norway has been able to establish their own form of government. Since their colonial days, Norway has taken a parliamentary form of democratic government, with a King as a respected figure head, much akin to England's democracy. In addition, their mark in world politics has been made, as Norway was one of the countries that signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 and helped found the United Nations. Despite heavy involvement on the part of their former colonizer, Norway's actions have helped them become an integral part in our world.
WORKS CITED:
http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/norway.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1054446.ece
While it may seem like Norway might still be a colony of Sweden in the same sense that some see the United States attempting to make Iraq a colony, Norway has been able to establish their own form of government. Since their colonial days, Norway has taken a parliamentary form of democratic government, with a King as a respected figure head, much akin to England's democracy. In addition, their mark in world politics has been made, as Norway was one of the countries that signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 and helped found the United Nations. Despite heavy involvement on the part of their former colonizer, Norway's actions have helped them become an integral part in our world.
WORKS CITED:
http://www.historyofnations.net/europe/norway.html
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1054446.ece
Colonization
The 13 original colonies were Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusettes, NH, NJ, NY, NC, SC, PA, RH and VA. The first colonies were along the Eastern coast. Many settlers from differnt areas claimed land and disputes over control had then started. The first English colony was Jamestown which is now known as Virginia. Massachusettes was setup shortly after the Pilgrims followed, which was called Plymouth then. The more people arrived, the more disputes occured. There were many wars and the countries that were mostly present were England and France. They fought in the French Indian War in which England won control over Canada and the English colonies. Many people had their own rituals and wanted to keep them. They wanted to keep practicing their religion and keep their families together. The Pilgrims and Quakers had left their territory to continue practicing what they believed in. Because of all of the differences that arose, much conflict occurred. Many colonies wanted to isolate other colonies and single them out totally. The Revolutionary War was the outcome and the Americans got what they wanted.
Pennsylvania was a disputed territory since the early 1600's. People from England, Holland and Sweden claimed this land. Pennsylvania didn't actually get its name until 1681 in which William Penn was given the right to settle there and in his honor
was names after him. He started to buy land from people who lived to the west. The french claimed the west and the English claimed the east which caused the two cultures to clash. This resulted in the French and Indian War.
Even though William Penn was able to claim this land, he still had to fight for it because of the clashing in the west. There will always be some type of dispute between religion, belief systems, power, and money.
Pennsylvania was a disputed territory since the early 1600's. People from England, Holland and Sweden claimed this land. Pennsylvania didn't actually get its name until 1681 in which William Penn was given the right to settle there and in his honor
was names after him. He started to buy land from people who lived to the west. The french claimed the west and the English claimed the east which caused the two cultures to clash. This resulted in the French and Indian War.
Even though William Penn was able to claim this land, he still had to fight for it because of the clashing in the west. There will always be some type of dispute between religion, belief systems, power, and money.
Hispanola and Colonization
Christopher Columbus came to Hispanola which at the time was calledAyiti during his first voyage to America in 1492. He returned a yearlater and made it a permanent European settlement in America.The island was inhabited by the Tainos indians.At first they were tolerant of Columbus and his crew, and helped him to construct FortNavidad which is now Saint-Nicolas, Haiti.. European colonizationof the island began in earnest the following year, when 1,300 menarrived from Spain under the watch of Bartolomeo Columbus. In 1496 thetown of Nueva Isabela was founded. It was destroyed by a hurricane then rebuilt on the opposite site of the Ozama River and named SantoDomingo. It is the oldest permanent European settlement in the Americas The Taino population was rapidly decimated, on most partbecause of a combination ofdisease and harsh treatment by Spanishoverlords. Around 1501, the colony began to import African slaves,believing them more capable of performing physical labor. AsSpain conquered new regions on the mainland of the Americas, its interest in Hispaniola declined and the colony's population grew slowly. By the early 17th century, the island and its neighbours became regular stopping points for Caribbean pirates. In 1606, the king of Spain ordered all inhabitants of Hispaniola to move close to Santo Domingo, to avoid interaction with pirates. Rather than secure
the island, however, this resulted in French, English and Dutch pirates establishing bases on the now-abandoned north and west coasts of the island.In 1665, French colonization of the island was officially recognized by Louis XIV. The French colony was given the name Saint-Domingue. In the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, Spain formally ceded the western third of the island to France.n 1791, there was a major in Saint-Domingue, led by Toussaint
Louverture. In 1801, Toussaint Louverture unified the island It becamethe Dominican Republic which was given to France in 1795. Then and abolishing slavery He then unified French and Spanish Haiti. In 1804, following a failed attempt by Napoleonic troops to reestablish slavery on the island, the Republic of Haiti was proclaimed, with Jean-Jacques Dessalines its first head of state. Haiti is the second oldest country in the Americas after the United States and the oldest independent nation in Latin America. By 1808, after various degrees of instability, Santo Domingo reverted to Spanish rule. Two years later in 1810 the French finally left Santo Domingo.Spanish lieutenant governor Jose Nuerez de Ceceres declared the colony's independence as the state of Spanish Haiti (Haiti Espanol) on November 30, 1821, requesting admission to the Republic of Gran Colombia, but Haitian forces, led by Jean-Pierre Boyer, unified the entire island.In 1838 secret society was founded called La Trinitaria to fight for the rights of the Spanish, eastern side of the island to be independent. Ramon Mantas Mella and Francisco del Rosario Sanchez( mestizo, people who were both Spanish and Armenian went on to be decisive in the fightfor independence and are now hailed as the Founding Fathers of the Dominican Republic.On February 27, 1844, the Trinitarios declared independence from Haiti,it was backed by Pedro Santana, a wealthy cattle-rancher from El Seibo. The Dominican Republic's first Constitution was adopted on November 6, 1844 which was modeled after the US constitution In 1861, for numerous reasons, the Dominican Republic reverted back ta colonial state of Spain, the only Latin American nation to do so President Pedro Santana decided to return the Dominican Republic to Spain. Haitian authorities, fearful of the reestablishment of Spain ascolonial power, gave refuge and logistics to revolutionaries to re-establish the independent nation of the Dominican Republic, which they felt was the lesser of two evils.The civil war, called the War of Restoration, was led by two men.Ulises Heureaux, who was also a three-time President of the Dominican Republic, and Gen. Gregorio Luperen. After two years of fighting, Spanish troops abandoned the island. About a decade later the president of the Dominican Republic sought to sell the island to the United States and become a state they were declined by congress.
(sorry about the format,had to work on it in word pad and it looks to have transfered weird)
Workscited
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8487519
the island, however, this resulted in French, English and Dutch pirates establishing bases on the now-abandoned north and west coasts of the island.In 1665, French colonization of the island was officially recognized by Louis XIV. The French colony was given the name Saint-Domingue. In the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, Spain formally ceded the western third of the island to France.n 1791, there was a major in Saint-Domingue, led by Toussaint
Louverture. In 1801, Toussaint Louverture unified the island It becamethe Dominican Republic which was given to France in 1795. Then and abolishing slavery He then unified French and Spanish Haiti. In 1804, following a failed attempt by Napoleonic troops to reestablish slavery on the island, the Republic of Haiti was proclaimed, with Jean-Jacques Dessalines its first head of state. Haiti is the second oldest country in the Americas after the United States and the oldest independent nation in Latin America. By 1808, after various degrees of instability, Santo Domingo reverted to Spanish rule. Two years later in 1810 the French finally left Santo Domingo.Spanish lieutenant governor Jose Nuerez de Ceceres declared the colony's independence as the state of Spanish Haiti (Haiti Espanol) on November 30, 1821, requesting admission to the Republic of Gran Colombia, but Haitian forces, led by Jean-Pierre Boyer, unified the entire island.In 1838 secret society was founded called La Trinitaria to fight for the rights of the Spanish, eastern side of the island to be independent. Ramon Mantas Mella and Francisco del Rosario Sanchez( mestizo, people who were both Spanish and Armenian went on to be decisive in the fightfor independence and are now hailed as the Founding Fathers of the Dominican Republic.On February 27, 1844, the Trinitarios declared independence from Haiti,it was backed by Pedro Santana, a wealthy cattle-rancher from El Seibo. The Dominican Republic's first Constitution was adopted on November 6, 1844 which was modeled after the US constitution In 1861, for numerous reasons, the Dominican Republic reverted back ta colonial state of Spain, the only Latin American nation to do so President Pedro Santana decided to return the Dominican Republic to Spain. Haitian authorities, fearful of the reestablishment of Spain ascolonial power, gave refuge and logistics to revolutionaries to re-establish the independent nation of the Dominican Republic, which they felt was the lesser of two evils.The civil war, called the War of Restoration, was led by two men.Ulises Heureaux, who was also a three-time President of the Dominican Republic, and Gen. Gregorio Luperen. After two years of fighting, Spanish troops abandoned the island. About a decade later the president of the Dominican Republic sought to sell the island to the United States and become a state they were declined by congress.
(sorry about the format,had to work on it in word pad and it looks to have transfered weird)
Workscited
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=8487519
North America Colonization ?
In May of 1607 colonist landed in Virginia creating the first English colony in Jamestown. Like most colonies trading was the number one producer of revenue mostly Indian fur and gold. Another one of the colonies chief source of wealth was tobacco.
The American colonies helped Europe understand the world better, made them realize that the world extended past their normal understanding of the globe, forcing them to reshape maps. The new world also invited new enterprises new regions to explored, new conquest, also evolving trade and navigation techniques. The colonies made sugar, cotton, and rice more affordable by making them more accessible. Getting these products from the Mediterranean marked the price up enormously; now that they can be grown in the U.S. it lowered the price making it more accessible to the masses.
English rule on it’s colonizers was overbearing dealing with the reform of a new world and the Imperial rule of it’s mother country caused great discontent within the colonies. Heavy taxation on normal every day products made life in the colonies very hard. Growing upheaval resulted in the American Revolution allowing the colonies to succeed from England.
European/English colonization also had a negative effect on the Native Americans. Native Americans suffered a severe lost in land, increase in disease due to the lack of immunity against foreign sickness, and new law that conflicted with there normal way of life. Guns and horses changed the way these native hunted for food, making it easier and severely exhausting wildlife populations. Fights over land caused bloody battles as Native Americans were displaced from their original occupancies; Indians mainly from the Eastern Woodland region were ravished so badly by colonization that their history was extinguished.
http://www.funsocialstudies.learninghaven.com/articles/natives2.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~neresour/OLLibrary/Montgomery/mahp035.htm
The American colonies helped Europe understand the world better, made them realize that the world extended past their normal understanding of the globe, forcing them to reshape maps. The new world also invited new enterprises new regions to explored, new conquest, also evolving trade and navigation techniques. The colonies made sugar, cotton, and rice more affordable by making them more accessible. Getting these products from the Mediterranean marked the price up enormously; now that they can be grown in the U.S. it lowered the price making it more accessible to the masses.
English rule on it’s colonizers was overbearing dealing with the reform of a new world and the Imperial rule of it’s mother country caused great discontent within the colonies. Heavy taxation on normal every day products made life in the colonies very hard. Growing upheaval resulted in the American Revolution allowing the colonies to succeed from England.
European/English colonization also had a negative effect on the Native Americans. Native Americans suffered a severe lost in land, increase in disease due to the lack of immunity against foreign sickness, and new law that conflicted with there normal way of life. Guns and horses changed the way these native hunted for food, making it easier and severely exhausting wildlife populations. Fights over land caused bloody battles as Native Americans were displaced from their original occupancies; Indians mainly from the Eastern Woodland region were ravished so badly by colonization that their history was extinguished.
http://www.funsocialstudies.learninghaven.com/articles/natives2.htm
http://www.rootsweb.com/~neresour/OLLibrary/Montgomery/mahp035.htm
The Colonization of South America
South America was populated by indigenous people until the seventeenth century when it was colonized by Spanish settlers. The Indians that already lived in South America were taken over by the Spanish settlers and forced into slavery and Chritianity. Many of the Indians suffered death as well from European disease.
"And Indians continued to die in appalling numbers, diseased from smallpox and brutalized by those who depended on their labor." (Colonial Latin America)
"And in these two sermons he insist on two additional slaveries, that of body and soul." (Colonial Latin America)
In this way the Spanish settlers enslaved the Indians with their body by forcing them into slave labor, and through their souls by forcing them into Christianity.
"And Indians continued to die in appalling numbers, diseased from smallpox and brutalized by those who depended on their labor." (Colonial Latin America)
"And in these two sermons he insist on two additional slaveries, that of body and soul." (Colonial Latin America)
In this way the Spanish settlers enslaved the Indians with their body by forcing them into slave labor, and through their souls by forcing them into Christianity.
South Africa
South Africa’s story of colonization starts with diamonds and metallurgy. Although it already existed as a British colony it was a diamond rush in 1870 that really, (sorry for the cliché), put them on the map. With interests now peaked we see the gathering of those seeking profits. People like Barnato and Cecil Rhodes, who founded DeBeers and Consolidated Gold Fields, established the mining companies that would dominate South Africa for the next hundred years or so.
Over the next century, and mostly in the last twenty years of that century, an interesting political shift took place. The largely subjugated African people began to revolt. The greatly oppressive system of Apartheid was exposed as unjust and crusaders against it emerged and were swiftly thrown in prison later to be released, elected president and given the Nobel Peace Prize using the very specific case of Nelson Mandela. But you gotta do your 30 years of unjust imprisonment first, presidencies and peace prizes aren’t given to just anyone you know.
One of the obvious consequences of colonialism is xenophobia. So consequently the residue of that fear, racism, is commonly a symptom of post-colonialism.
I’d imagine the social situation in South Africa is far from resolved, although I’d have to do more research to offer specific examples, but I wonder if there is a pattern in the societal upheaval of the nation that can be seen elsewhere. Is every situation of colonization and exploitation unique or does it follow some model. Being that the motives for colonization, no matter what the territory, are usually the same I wonder what other symptoms and residues can be similarly observed in the progression of subjugation to chaos to the always elusive sense of balance of power.
For my sources I used HUMAN RIGHTS Historical images of Apartheid in South Africa, from www.un.org and the introduction to Mining in Africa Today: Strategies and Prospects, a collection edited by Samir Amin.
Over the next century, and mostly in the last twenty years of that century, an interesting political shift took place. The largely subjugated African people began to revolt. The greatly oppressive system of Apartheid was exposed as unjust and crusaders against it emerged and were swiftly thrown in prison later to be released, elected president and given the Nobel Peace Prize using the very specific case of Nelson Mandela. But you gotta do your 30 years of unjust imprisonment first, presidencies and peace prizes aren’t given to just anyone you know.
One of the obvious consequences of colonialism is xenophobia. So consequently the residue of that fear, racism, is commonly a symptom of post-colonialism.
I’d imagine the social situation in South Africa is far from resolved, although I’d have to do more research to offer specific examples, but I wonder if there is a pattern in the societal upheaval of the nation that can be seen elsewhere. Is every situation of colonization and exploitation unique or does it follow some model. Being that the motives for colonization, no matter what the territory, are usually the same I wonder what other symptoms and residues can be similarly observed in the progression of subjugation to chaos to the always elusive sense of balance of power.
For my sources I used HUMAN RIGHTS Historical images of Apartheid in South Africa, from www.un.org and the introduction to Mining in Africa Today: Strategies and Prospects, a collection edited by Samir Amin.
The Philippines
The Philippines is the worlds 12th most populated country with a population close to 90 million people composed of 7,000 islands in the Pacific Ocean. The Philippines is known officially as the Republic of the Phillipines which is located in South Asia, and its capitial city is Manila. The Philippines was a Spanish colony in the 16th century, and later became a U.S. colony after the Spanish American war and the Philippine-American war. The Philippines is composed of many cultures from Spain, United States, and Latin America. They had many trade and cultural relations with many countries such as India and China. Two countries that are dominant throughout the world. The beginnings of colonization began when King Phiilip II ordered an expedition. Later an explorer from Mexico soon arrived in 1565 and began to form what was then the first Spanish settlements and established Manila as the capital of this new Spanish Colony. After the colonization of Philippines the country had seen great improvements throughout the country. There economy was developing at a fast pace there GDP was rising each year and was projected to continue to rise as each year passed. By 2004 the country experienced a 6% growth after the Asian Finacial Crisis. Although the economy was growing very rapidly there was still many problems the economy was suffering from. Income inequality was a factor in the country. Many people were living on $2 a day. The development was uneven through out the country, the only cities that were growing and producing econimically was the capital city and Luzon. So even though after their colonization from Spain the Philippines started off in a positive direction but continue to face economic problems. Hopefully the country will be able to improve their economic state and become a more stable country in the future.
Africa
In the late 19th century Europe began its act of colonization on Africa which lingered for about a 100 years. It intrusively controlled the political and social aspects of the country. Additionally, and most importantly, it invaded the cultural and economical aspects. When the era of colonization abated, Africa was left behind with major problems which prolong today.
During the era of colonization, the British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Belgian powers robbed Africa of its natural resources. They invaded the country, build roads, hospitals, schools, and other luxurious items. However, these massive improvements were only useful to the elite and colonial leaders. The African people were neglected and more or less forced to adapt to Western ideologies in order to survive. Once the colonial countries departed from the country, the African people were stripped of their identity, culture, and language. They had to, once again, strive to find their place in the world.
Some parts of Africa were severely more hurt by post colonization than others. The Belgian Congo, today known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was viciously wounded by King Leopold II. He made the people work intensively on the rubber resources of the country. The act of refusal was punished by amputation. The act of burning down villages and towns was also practiced quite often. These brutal acts decreased the population of Belgian Congo by 50%.
“Scramble for Africa” (Helium) began by the Europeans and continued once they departed from the country. Since the European countries divided Africa amongst themselves, later the African people were faced with boundary issues. They could never go back to the original formation of the country and how it was originally divided amongst the tribes that dwelled there. Some people were even forced to dwell in the land of their enemies.
Another major issue is the lack of superior economical infrastructure. Africa, even today, relies on outside aid and goods from Western countries. The people still suffer from hunger, poverty, and epidemic issues.
During the era of colonization, the British, French, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Belgian powers robbed Africa of its natural resources. They invaded the country, build roads, hospitals, schools, and other luxurious items. However, these massive improvements were only useful to the elite and colonial leaders. The African people were neglected and more or less forced to adapt to Western ideologies in order to survive. Once the colonial countries departed from the country, the African people were stripped of their identity, culture, and language. They had to, once again, strive to find their place in the world.
Some parts of Africa were severely more hurt by post colonization than others. The Belgian Congo, today known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, was viciously wounded by King Leopold II. He made the people work intensively on the rubber resources of the country. The act of refusal was punished by amputation. The act of burning down villages and towns was also practiced quite often. These brutal acts decreased the population of Belgian Congo by 50%.
“Scramble for Africa” (Helium) began by the Europeans and continued once they departed from the country. Since the European countries divided Africa amongst themselves, later the African people were faced with boundary issues. They could never go back to the original formation of the country and how it was originally divided amongst the tribes that dwelled there. Some people were even forced to dwell in the land of their enemies.
Another major issue is the lack of superior economical infrastructure. Africa, even today, relies on outside aid and goods from Western countries. The people still suffer from hunger, poverty, and epidemic issues.
Cuba
Cuba first became a colony in 1511 when Don Diego Velazquez founded the first city. The Spaniards had sacrificed all the native Indians without even realizing it so were left with no other choice but to bring over African slaves to work for them. In 1762, the English realized how crucial of an island Cuba was to the Americas and attempted to hold the island, but were only successful for a year and returned it to Spain.
Cuba attempted to revolt against Spain many many times beginning in 1819 but only began to be somewhat triumphant in 1868 in a revolt that lasted 10 years and achieved them several deals: "Spain made some concessions. Slavery was abolished and some reforms were promised, (reforms that remained - as always - promises)" (RIUS 29). Later in 1895, Jose Marti (an exiled poet) led the most successful revolt, in which the U.S. took part of, primarily because they realized what a great source of sugar the island was, with the help of Maine, the battleship which later blew up resulting in the U.S. declaring war against Spain. The U.S. won and therefore proposed the Platt Amendment, which basically allowed them to take over Cuba without making it their formal colony. The following years, the U.S. repeatedly intervened and did as they pleased; "It's object? To put down strikes against the sugar mills...(American owned of course)" (RIUS 47). Eventually, the U.S. controlled everything in Cuba from banks, to mines, trains, cattle, tobacco, sugar, and most importantly the government.
Of course the Cubans were not content; they had revolted against Spain but were now stuck as American property. It was now time to revolt against the U.S. and in charge of this task was none other than Fidel Castro himself, at the time, a student. He got his friends killed and himself thrown into jail for 15 years. It was only in 1959 that his real revolt was successful, overthrowing then President Batista, even though everything was still controlled by the Americans. He was eventually named in charge of the government, and we can look at present day Cuba for any addtional information.
So, basically, Cuba has never really been a nation of its own; first dominated by the Spaniards, later by the Americans. Although many revolted, such as Marti and Castro, everything has always been controlled by the U.S. in one way or another, whether the Cubans wanted to be or not. Present day Cuba has been left with poor resources for themselves and are not as technologically advanced as they could be: "The so called 'importance' of the second television set, the latest model car or the latest style has been replaced by the collective and individual satisfaction of meaningful work benefiting everyone" (RIUS 153), all because the U.S. has taken all that, and more, away from them throughout the years.
Source: "Cuba for Beginners" by RIUS
Cuba attempted to revolt against Spain many many times beginning in 1819 but only began to be somewhat triumphant in 1868 in a revolt that lasted 10 years and achieved them several deals: "Spain made some concessions. Slavery was abolished and some reforms were promised, (reforms that remained - as always - promises)" (RIUS 29). Later in 1895, Jose Marti (an exiled poet) led the most successful revolt, in which the U.S. took part of, primarily because they realized what a great source of sugar the island was, with the help of Maine, the battleship which later blew up resulting in the U.S. declaring war against Spain. The U.S. won and therefore proposed the Platt Amendment, which basically allowed them to take over Cuba without making it their formal colony. The following years, the U.S. repeatedly intervened and did as they pleased; "It's object? To put down strikes against the sugar mills...(American owned of course)" (RIUS 47). Eventually, the U.S. controlled everything in Cuba from banks, to mines, trains, cattle, tobacco, sugar, and most importantly the government.
Of course the Cubans were not content; they had revolted against Spain but were now stuck as American property. It was now time to revolt against the U.S. and in charge of this task was none other than Fidel Castro himself, at the time, a student. He got his friends killed and himself thrown into jail for 15 years. It was only in 1959 that his real revolt was successful, overthrowing then President Batista, even though everything was still controlled by the Americans. He was eventually named in charge of the government, and we can look at present day Cuba for any addtional information.
So, basically, Cuba has never really been a nation of its own; first dominated by the Spaniards, later by the Americans. Although many revolted, such as Marti and Castro, everything has always been controlled by the U.S. in one way or another, whether the Cubans wanted to be or not. Present day Cuba has been left with poor resources for themselves and are not as technologically advanced as they could be: "The so called 'importance' of the second television set, the latest model car or the latest style has been replaced by the collective and individual satisfaction of meaningful work benefiting everyone" (RIUS 153), all because the U.S. has taken all that, and more, away from them throughout the years.
Source: "Cuba for Beginners" by RIUS
Hong Kong returns to China Rule
For over 150 years, Hong Kong has been under British colonial rule. China regained its sovereignty over Hong Kong back in 1997.
"It was an event awaited with trepidation as well as excitement since 1984, when Britain and China agreed on terms for the transfer of power over this territory wrested from China in the 19th century wars over the opium trade. And it ushered in a time of uncertainty over whether China would honor its pledge to maintain Hong Kong's way of life largely unaltered for the next 50 years." (NY Times July 1, 1997, Edward A. Gargan)
The then Governor of Hong Kong , Patten, said in his ceremonial speech "Our own nation's contribution here," he said, "was to provide the scaffolding that enabled the people of Hong Kong to ascend: the rule of law, clean and light-handed government, the values of a free society. The beginnings of representative government and democratic accountability."( NY Times, July 1, 1997)
The epitome of the colonists' thinking is the attitude that "our way is right, and your way won't work". In "Modern Literary Theory", the introduction to Postcolonialism makes reference to a book by Edward Said, "Orientalism" (1978) and continues to state...The book drew on the Gramscian concept of hedgemony in order to demonstrate that Europe's construction of the Orient is a paradigm of all colonial and imperial structures. In each case, the mysterious and duplicitous 'other' which is the colonized culture functions as a means of stabilizing and affirming the identity of the imperialist power."
It was interesting to read some quotes from Hong Kong citizens..." It's a good thing we can finally get rid of the imperialists. We're all Chinese. I feel great. This land belongs to China." (NY Times, July 1, 1997). The man who said this was 72 years old and has lived his entire life under colonialist rule. He may be in for a surprise when he must now live under communist rule.
"China's red banner was raised, marking the transfer of this free-wheeling capitalist territory to communist control. A range of Hong Kong's civil liberties were rolled back as new constraints were placed on the right to protest and association, and any form of speech promoting the independence of Taiwan or Tibet was banned. "(NY Times, July 1, 1997)
Martin Lee, the leader of the pro-democracy forces stated ""If there is no democracy, there is no rule of law," he continued. "We want Hong Kong and China to advance together and not step back together. We are proud to be Chinese, more proud than ever before. But we ask: Why is it our leaders in China will not give us more democracy? Why must they take away the modest democracy we have fought so hard to win from the British government?"
After reading this article from the New York Times, It seemed to me that Hong Kong just traded one "master" for another, Imperialist to Communist. As Edward Said wrote " ...the main issue for contention was whether things in the third world hadn't declined after the colonies had been emancipated, but that their history of barbarities, tyrannies and degradations to their own native histories, histories that were pretty bad before colonialism and that reverted to that state after colonialism." (Culture and Imperialism (1993), pp.20-35).
"It was an event awaited with trepidation as well as excitement since 1984, when Britain and China agreed on terms for the transfer of power over this territory wrested from China in the 19th century wars over the opium trade. And it ushered in a time of uncertainty over whether China would honor its pledge to maintain Hong Kong's way of life largely unaltered for the next 50 years." (NY Times July 1, 1997, Edward A. Gargan)
The then Governor of Hong Kong , Patten, said in his ceremonial speech "Our own nation's contribution here," he said, "was to provide the scaffolding that enabled the people of Hong Kong to ascend: the rule of law, clean and light-handed government, the values of a free society. The beginnings of representative government and democratic accountability."( NY Times, July 1, 1997)
The epitome of the colonists' thinking is the attitude that "our way is right, and your way won't work". In "Modern Literary Theory", the introduction to Postcolonialism makes reference to a book by Edward Said, "Orientalism" (1978) and continues to state...The book drew on the Gramscian concept of hedgemony in order to demonstrate that Europe's construction of the Orient is a paradigm of all colonial and imperial structures. In each case, the mysterious and duplicitous 'other' which is the colonized culture functions as a means of stabilizing and affirming the identity of the imperialist power."
It was interesting to read some quotes from Hong Kong citizens..." It's a good thing we can finally get rid of the imperialists. We're all Chinese. I feel great. This land belongs to China." (NY Times, July 1, 1997). The man who said this was 72 years old and has lived his entire life under colonialist rule. He may be in for a surprise when he must now live under communist rule.
"China's red banner was raised, marking the transfer of this free-wheeling capitalist territory to communist control. A range of Hong Kong's civil liberties were rolled back as new constraints were placed on the right to protest and association, and any form of speech promoting the independence of Taiwan or Tibet was banned. "(NY Times, July 1, 1997)
Martin Lee, the leader of the pro-democracy forces stated ""If there is no democracy, there is no rule of law," he continued. "We want Hong Kong and China to advance together and not step back together. We are proud to be Chinese, more proud than ever before. But we ask: Why is it our leaders in China will not give us more democracy? Why must they take away the modest democracy we have fought so hard to win from the British government?"
After reading this article from the New York Times, It seemed to me that Hong Kong just traded one "master" for another, Imperialist to Communist. As Edward Said wrote " ...the main issue for contention was whether things in the third world hadn't declined after the colonies had been emancipated, but that their history of barbarities, tyrannies and degradations to their own native histories, histories that were pretty bad before colonialism and that reverted to that state after colonialism." (Culture and Imperialism (1993), pp.20-35).
Colonial Peru
Before spain conquered Peru, it was last recorded that they were 12 million indians inhabiting the land. In 45 years the census recorded figures of only 1,100,000 Indians living there, that is nine tenths of the population, killed. The reasons or causes for these deaths are the outcome of high taxes “impoverishing” the Indians, cruel punishment, hard slave labor and european diseases.
Peru had many of their values taken away from them. Peru used to be inhabited by Inca cultures where they worshiped gods such as the Sun and the Moon, then with violence they were forced to change their beliefs “This entire set of beliefs was attacked with blood and iron, and replaced by an invisible foreign god”(Colonial Peru). Spain robbed Peru of all their wealth, everything from food to minerals, such as in a 50 year period they stole 185,000 kilo’s of gold, and 16 million kilo’s of silver.
From the beginning Peruvian natives fought against the europeans to prevent colonialism. In the 18th century there were 14 uprisings led by Juan Santos Atahualpa and Tupac Amaru against the europeans. These uprisings led the Spaniards to get rid of “all traditions and manifestations of Inca identity”. But today in Peru you call see that some traditions survived in Peru.
Peru had many of their values taken away from them. Peru used to be inhabited by Inca cultures where they worshiped gods such as the Sun and the Moon, then with violence they were forced to change their beliefs “This entire set of beliefs was attacked with blood and iron, and replaced by an invisible foreign god”(Colonial Peru). Spain robbed Peru of all their wealth, everything from food to minerals, such as in a 50 year period they stole 185,000 kilo’s of gold, and 16 million kilo’s of silver.
From the beginning Peruvian natives fought against the europeans to prevent colonialism. In the 18th century there were 14 uprisings led by Juan Santos Atahualpa and Tupac Amaru against the europeans. These uprisings led the Spaniards to get rid of “all traditions and manifestations of Inca identity”. But today in Peru you call see that some traditions survived in Peru.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
11/1
NOTE (ADDED SUN NOV 4): If you are having trouble getting Waiting for the Barbarians, email me for a pdf version of the first chapter. The file is very very large, which is causing trouble posting it here. I'll keep trying, but in the meantime you can email me to send it directly IF you have an attachment limit of large size--gmail is big enough, if you have an account there.
Thanks Jennifer. You remind us all what's good about Halloween when we're sitting here watching our house be torn to shreds by a candy crazed, chocolate covered Batman and an Elmo with half-eaten lollipops glued into his fur.
Having read the Said and hooks, let's begin the Coetzee novel Waiting for the Barbarians. For Monday read the first section, which in my rather aged edition is pages 1-25. A word on the reading: You'll need to read an average of 40 pages (again, in my edition, which runs only 160 pages) before each session in order for us to get through the book in two weeks, which is our plan. This means that for some sessions more reading will be required. I'm also going to be assigning supplementary readings during that period to help illuminate the book. It would behoove you, then, to read as much as you can, whenever you can, particularly over the weekend. Ideally, you'd read about half the book this weekend, about half next, and be in good shape for the class work over the week. In any case, the first 25 pages for Monday, the next 30+ for Wednesday--you can see the issue.
Finally, for the response, let's try something a bit different: we spoke of real world examples of the 'vestiges of colonialism.' Do a little bit of research on a colony (almost every country has been a colony at some point--including the U.S. for both the early Americans and arguably the Native Americans) and try to understand how those vestiges might manifest themselves. That is, what problems does that ex-colony have to deal with which are the direct or indirect result of the past colonization? I don't expect you to be able to come up with this on your own: I expect a summarization of some minor research into the topic. Don't use wikkipedia or any other encyclopedia-style source, however. Try for more relevant sources--if not scholarly at least contemporary (newspapers, etc.) Summarize what you find in 250-400 words (keep it short and to the point). Quote and cite as needed, to avoid plagiarism.
Thanks Jennifer. You remind us all what's good about Halloween when we're sitting here watching our house be torn to shreds by a candy crazed, chocolate covered Batman and an Elmo with half-eaten lollipops glued into his fur.
Having read the Said and hooks, let's begin the Coetzee novel Waiting for the Barbarians. For Monday read the first section, which in my rather aged edition is pages 1-25. A word on the reading: You'll need to read an average of 40 pages (again, in my edition, which runs only 160 pages) before each session in order for us to get through the book in two weeks, which is our plan. This means that for some sessions more reading will be required. I'm also going to be assigning supplementary readings during that period to help illuminate the book. It would behoove you, then, to read as much as you can, whenever you can, particularly over the weekend. Ideally, you'd read about half the book this weekend, about half next, and be in good shape for the class work over the week. In any case, the first 25 pages for Monday, the next 30+ for Wednesday--you can see the issue.
Finally, for the response, let's try something a bit different: we spoke of real world examples of the 'vestiges of colonialism.' Do a little bit of research on a colony (almost every country has been a colony at some point--including the U.S. for both the early Americans and arguably the Native Americans) and try to understand how those vestiges might manifest themselves. That is, what problems does that ex-colony have to deal with which are the direct or indirect result of the past colonization? I don't expect you to be able to come up with this on your own: I expect a summarization of some minor research into the topic. Don't use wikkipedia or any other encyclopedia-style source, however. Try for more relevant sources--if not scholarly at least contemporary (newspapers, etc.) Summarize what you find in 250-400 words (keep it short and to the point). Quote and cite as needed, to avoid plagiarism.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Happy Halloween
I did the readings. They take a little bit to read so everyone give yourself some time, but i just wanted to say
hApPy HaLLoWeEn!!
hApPy HaLLoWeEn!!
Monday, October 29, 2007
10/29
Much more to talk about regarding our discussion today--an interesting start I thought. For Wednesday, read the excerpt from Edward Said's Culture and Imperialism found on page 369 in your book, and think about it in relationship to our discussion on Heart of Darkness thus far. Also read bell hooks 'Postmodern Blackness' which begins a few pages earlier. In celebration of All Hallows Eve, no blog is due. Be sure to show me you've done the reading through your class participation.
Why Conrad is or is not a 'Bloody Racist'
After reading Conrad's, 'Heart of Darkness', the excerpt, and the Achebe;s essay/lecture, I am left with the opinion of whether Achebe refers to Joseph Conrad, as a 'bloody racist', or if it was misinterpreted. Therefore, it was crucial to come up with the answer to determine the truth, by reading and trying to understand what Achebe, was trying to prove.
In the essay by Achebe, some examples that can prove that Conrad is a 'bloody racist', is first in how he describes Africa as 'the other world', " the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality." (7) in this qoute he gives a comparison of Africa to Europe, how in Europe there is more civilization than in Africa. From the educated people, to the description of people educated in Africa. Another way that might be racist is how Achebe described that Conrad described the people, in a moment of the story he described them in when,"Now and then a boat from the shore gave one a momentary contact with reality. It was paddled by black fellows. You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks." This is how Conrad would describe working people, probably fisherman, but overall this was a way of discriminating their appearance, and their personal value. Conrad, was suppose in my opinion help his people where he was born, I think that he was a racist because he grew up with these ideas, he was born in the year 1857, where accarding to Achebe was , "It was certainly not his fault that he lived his lifetime when reputation of the black man was at a particularly low level." (41) Therefore, I think he was influenced by what he heard in his surroundings, and he grew up with this mentallity. Consequently, a way in which people can view Conrad, as not being a racist is how Achebe, described the the beliefs where not coming from Conrad, but from the fictional narrator, Mrlow. Achebe wrote, "It might be contended, of course, that the African in Heart of Darkness is not Conrad's but that of his fictional narrator, Marlow, and that far from endorsing it Conrad might indeed be holding it up to irony and criticism." (29) In other words, is that the beliefs where not from Conrad, but came from Marlow, where Conrad just criticized what was said, and though of when describing African people.
In the essay by Achebe, some examples that can prove that Conrad is a 'bloody racist', is first in how he describes Africa as 'the other world', " the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by triumphant beastiality." (7) in this qoute he gives a comparison of Africa to Europe, how in Europe there is more civilization than in Africa. From the educated people, to the description of people educated in Africa. Another way that might be racist is how Achebe described that Conrad described the people, in a moment of the story he described them in when,"Now and then a boat from the shore gave one a momentary contact with reality. It was paddled by black fellows. You could see from afar the white of their eyeballs glistening. They shouted, sang; their bodies streamed with perspiration; they had faces like grotesque masks." This is how Conrad would describe working people, probably fisherman, but overall this was a way of discriminating their appearance, and their personal value. Conrad, was suppose in my opinion help his people where he was born, I think that he was a racist because he grew up with these ideas, he was born in the year 1857, where accarding to Achebe was , "It was certainly not his fault that he lived his lifetime when reputation of the black man was at a particularly low level." (41) Therefore, I think he was influenced by what he heard in his surroundings, and he grew up with this mentallity. Consequently, a way in which people can view Conrad, as not being a racist is how Achebe, described the the beliefs where not coming from Conrad, but from the fictional narrator, Mrlow. Achebe wrote, "It might be contended, of course, that the African in Heart of Darkness is not Conrad's but that of his fictional narrator, Marlow, and that far from endorsing it Conrad might indeed be holding it up to irony and criticism." (29) In other words, is that the beliefs where not from Conrad, but came from Marlow, where Conrad just criticized what was said, and though of when describing African people.
10/29
How he thinks of black slaves in the text is merely a reflection of how the rest of the world thinks of them. He obviously hates them, calling them "savages" and how he hates these savages "to the death." Since he hates black people in general, not a particular black individual, one may think that he is a racist. But how can he be a racist if the whole world has the same standing on the issue? Then can we say all men were masculinists back in those days? It wouldn't be fair to judge a value or custom of different time through the glasses of our time, because I believe what right or wrong is told by the time and space. At first, when he gives a biscuit to a black slave ( I still don't know why he did it), it kind of confused me and made me almost think that he's not a racist. But as I read on I could find over and over words or expressions that showed how much he hates them, though I couldn't find any of his actions that reflects his hatred on them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)