the debate that won't ever end

     as i attempt to write this blog posting, i would first like to admit that the debate that was taking place in this article was extremely hard to follow. and i would like to briefly rant about my distain for those who feel like when they write that they have to use a full array of ridiculous vocabulary that is not necessary. i am simple, and in my simple opinion i feel that these two were arguing over something that will not ever be resolved and they use this sort of diction for the pure fact that they are trying to convey their superiority over the other through their speech or word choice. i view it as a form of intellectual immaturity, call me ignorant for my thoughts on this subject of using nonsense vocabulary to try and prove a simple point.
      but i must move on to the prompt at hand, i will try and do the best i can to fulfill all of the requirements. ok, so george will was basically saying that having opinions about the literature at hand is how we make it understandable to our own intellect. He states an excerpt from a reference used, "...the transmission of the culture that unite, even defines america." i think he was trying to explain how we in our culture pass down examples to make sense of different elements of life, including understanding literature and how teachers are trying to help us along their path of thinking. now, stephen greenblatt on the other hand pushed the ideals of having every student make their own judgment and decisions based on their personal ideals. he relates us to poets who apparently are some of the elect few who have broken the mold of common or popular belief when he says, "poets cannot soar when their feet are stuck in social cement." meaning that we cannot create our own ideas or opinions when we are influenced by all the things that surround us. he wants us to break the mold and be completely individual thinkers. which i like the sound of, so i am going to attempt siding with him. i say this because i like the sound of not being tied down or influenced by things which i might not even think are influencing me. but wait!! if i side with him on this matter of thinking for myself...does that mean i just allowed him to think for me and therefore lose my opportunity to be an independent thinker trying to break my feet loose of this hardened social cement?!?! independent and individual is what i want to be. the entire argument will tear me in two if i think any harder about the deeper meaning that never ends. it becomes impossible to think.      

Those Outsiders are Funky Lookin'

In acts 2 and 3, Caliban is portrayed as an inferior native to the island. he is ruled by one master and then by the next, only hoping that doing so will lead him to the freedom which he desires. In the Post Colonial article, natives are referred to as "subhuman, and inferior." which is clearly shown by Shakespears writing in the extreme by Stephano and Trinculo calling him a "monster." They (Stephano and Trinculo) treat him as lower, and less educated. Just like in the article where it states that "Western Europeans, and, in particular, the British people, were biologically superior to any other race".....or so they thought. Now that all of these men are now on this island, many of them have the thoughts of fulfilling their own desires by taking over what they believe they have the right to control. The island is now up for grabs so to speak. But in the way of representation of a native people such as the video with the indians. Representation is a huge part of staying in control or to refuse the changes that others see fit to put into play because they believe that they are more refined because of a title that they pride themselves in having from wherever they came from. which in my opinion has no meaning once in a new land, or place. unless they had the proper representation in this new place. You don't see a CEO of one company go into a company in another part of the world and say, "Monster sweetie, be a good monster and just speak once." like Stephano and Trinculo  did to Caliban. It's a hard cycle to change because those with power often believe that they deserve things which is an instinct of the natural man. It's been cultivated in the past and has twisted history. It's intense stuff.     

Act 1 Son!!

            Prospero is a professional manipulator! yes it is true that the most prominent example given from what we have read so far that most completely shows his complete lack of mercy he gives to get what he wants is obviously what he did to that boat through one of his spirit slaves...i think Ariel is some sort of a a spirit anyways. But the reason that Ariel is his slave is because Prospero holds the story about saving him over his head and often reiterates the traumatic story of his previous' masters abuse. He continues stringing him along by promising him freedom, he says that  "I’ll set you free in two days." for some reason i have a feeling that he's been promising him that for a while to keep him around to do all of his dirty work. But he doesn't only do that to one of his servants, he also does that almost exact same thing to Ferdinand. He is the designer of a mass of webs designed to keep all of those who are a part of his intricate chess game looking to him for the next move. He's so good at this game that he even brings his own enemies to the island...i don't think its for a tea party either. So as he carries out his plans of which he only knows, he even uses some of his own servants against others under his influence to manipulate the events which will ensue, to his liking. An example of that is when he tells Ariel to, "Go disguise yourself as a sea nymph. Be invisible to everyone except yourself and me. Take this garment, put it on, and then come back here. Hurry, go!" The web in which we see being spun in act 1 is already ridiculous, i'm excited to continue reading to see whether he can stay one step ahead of everybody and come out victorious and sit on his throne once more; or will he just get tangled in his own web and loose everything once more?     

Socratic Circle

         My thoughts surrounding this weeks socratic circle make me wonder, did the history we learned sway us as a youth and as a culture now-a-days to be more liberal. I am conservative myself and am quite astonished at how many comments were geared towards preserving liberalistic values. But those who say those things don't see them as liberal ideas, but rather as "protecting" the growing generation of any ideas being possibly embedded into them while in their youth.

        Which leads me into my thoughts of the subject matter, textbooks are changed and updated all of the time. But i think the argument in texas comes from the point that it's not what their putting in the new history books, it's why. My personal opinion is that our liberalistic ideas of how things should be run is something that we inherited just as the new generation would if the read the new history books. They would see nothing wrong with any of it.

       My guess is that you would say thats because they don't know the other side. But did we know know the other side? Or are we all in the same situation that the growing generation is possibly facing, only seeing one side? Or is it all the same but from a different perspective? It also makes me question regarding the single story. If the growing generation learns from this new perspective, will it help us as a nation to have them grow up and communicate, make decisions, and new laws together with those that received the same schooling that we did because then we would have two stories, two foundations to go off of. 

      My personal opinion of what their trying to do in texas is that they are trying to rebuild patriotism by cultivating the young minds of children to think in a different way. A more pro-American way. A right way? A wrong way? I don't know who is qualified to make that decision, but to understand the situation before we judge against the actions that they are trying to take to change a few things in their history books, maybe we should ask ourselves...are we being hypocrites by relying on our own single story? Do we care enough about the subject matter enough to take a step back and see it from a different view? Who's to say?    
   

Blogging for school?? Tight!!