Video Response for Brave New World

    Let me start off by saying that I loved this video. This video strongly reflected our society and educational system, every word that was said in it I agreed with. Especially when the narrator explains that children seemed to always be separated into two groups (those who are smart academically and those who arent...) What's left for the others? It is an unfair system, and an especially unfair system when school districts strictly follow these outdated guidlines. Anyways I just really like the video but now i'll start off with the actual assignment:
   I see many parallels between Brave New World and the video. One of them being the way the society in Brave New World medicate their people to have them pay more attention and have more of a capacity to learn. And honestly in my opinion it is so pathetic and sad that we our using this "ficticous epidemic of ADHD" as an excuse to medicate our own children in America, just so that they will focus more in class. It is just like the drug soma because our society of ADHD children are being forever changed in the way they would natrually think or learn, just like the people who use soma in Brave New World pop some pills to focus and feel better. One character in the book, john who is known as a "savage" suddenly realizes the harmful ways of soma and how it is restriciting peoples mind capacities. This quote explains this situation, "John  realized this damage of the soma and in his grief began to throw it was screaming "free, free!" (213).
   Another simmilarity that occured to me is how there is an veiw of the "ideal student" and how this type of student is the only useful one. I, personally, hate being labeled as the "average" or not as smart as the others in class just because they answered a multiple choice question right on a standardized test which is basically only geared to the academically and book smart children. Just as in the book, it seems as if people in our own world are being maufactured just as they are in Brave New World, and the humans are bred to be a certain way. Our own world does this by alienated children whom are more interested in arts etc. and steer them towards math and sciences..and if they fail on that, they give up on that child. Obviously they just arent smart enough (?!?) An example of how they manufacture their children in the book is shown in this quote directors of hatcheries (where the eggs are progressed and maufactured) “predestine and condition. [They] decant [their] babies as socialized human beings, as Alphas or Epsilons… (13).” <---see separating into two groups, Alphas and Epsilons.

THINGS SHOULD CHANGE in our system thats all I have to say............................

brave new world

    The main portrayl of chapter 3 in Brave New World is about control over the cities people. It explains in this chapter how much control there is, for example, people do not have their or "minds or thoughts" technically because since they were only a fetus technology has installed their control of knowledge into them.
   When it comes to family, the book seems to hold to the fact that the meaning of family is superficial and non-existent. To show this, the character Mustapha Mond was explaining to the alphas that they should “Try to imagine what ‘living with one’s family’ meant” and “They tried; but obviously without the smallest success.” (meaning they tried family). It is clear that the alphas are consumed by the idea that a family is not necessary or even condoned to be with the same few people throughout their entire lives.
   

Temptest Preview

    I have to admit that The Temptest was really confusing to me at first but I did begin to understand it as I continued on. I think that Shakespeare's main topics are dealing with the issues of colonialism and numerous occurences in our history. For myself and many others I believe, The Temptest dealt with the exact same conflicts that our own history dealt with during postcolonialism times, the Native American conflicts. On the other hand, I also believe that the relationship between the arguments of Stephen Greenblatt and George Will strongly relate to two main points Shakespeare was attempting to make. Thiis makes since to me because it reveals the different sides of how we should view or how we should not view a piece of literature. My own view of Shakespeare's narrative The Temptest is that Shakespeare coincides his own beliefs of colonialism by portraying it in with his two main characters, Prospero and Caliban, and also by using our own history into a narrative to make his point a little more clear.

Article

   In the article, "Literary Study, Politics, and Shakespeare: A Debate", two different people, George Will and Stephen Greenblatt strongly disagree and both make good arguments. They both have completely different ideas of how Shakespeare represents imperialism and colonialism in The Temptest. Greenblatt argues that Shakespeare's readers were not that involved in the political aspect, while Will argues that Shakespeare's writting is "unrecognizable" and works around the topic of politics.
    To sum up George Will believes that Shaekspeare's readers are too politicaly light. . Will states that "ideology radically devalues authors and elevates ideologists" He also believes that the topics of colonialism and feminism are things that are not important for Shaekspeare'sreaders to understand. Overall Will is saying that the literary critics are the ones who should be anaylzing and identifying the author's work of his or her peice.
   But Stephen Greenblatt believes the complete opposite of Will, saying that the themes such as imperialism is too deepining for the reader. He believes that The Temptest is full of "conspicuous allusions to contemporary debates over colonization".
   I personally can not decide what side to take, although i did seem to side with Stephen Greenblatt rather than George Will. I agree with his view more because he believes that readers need to think more deeply so that the readers better understand the authors point of view. I also believe that Greenblatt's evidence was more compelling than Will's.  
  

Colinization and Temptest Act II & III

    I believe that Shakespeare is definitley attempting to have his readers portray Caliban as an "other" or as a representation of native peoples. He is described as a "savage" and looked down on throughout Act II and Act III of the Temptest. I believe that Shakespeare is trying to shed light onto colinization for Europeans. I see the character, Caliban, as a representative to show the unfair hatred of colonization.
  I am not exactly sure why, but I believe (from what I've read so far...) that Shakespeare is sympathetic toward Caliban. I think that he is showing this horrible side of colonization as an example of what tends to happen to the world and its "foriegners". I believe that Shakespeare is trying to show the world the use of "hegemony- that is, its dominant values, sense of right and wrong, and sense of personal wealth." (Cultural Studies 2). When I read the Temptest I get the strong idea that Shakespeare was portraying the concept of hegemony. Caliban is a man of no personal wealth whatsoever, but has extreme dominant values. But this is overlooked because of the wrong doings of colonizaion and streotyopes.
   This video on Native Americans was pretty sad, and dissapointing to watch because it could have been prevented. Why did we have to represent the native Americans as monsters and murderers? While watching this video I was continuously reminded of the "Danger of a Single Story" video. It just showed that yet another "single story" influenced people's perception on certain things, in this case Native Americans. Even though this was in the 50s and 60s I believe that Shakepeare was trying to show that exact same concept of how colinization, but only in his narrative it is about Prospero taking the land from Caliban and giving him the short end of the straw (unfair...).

I know this wasn't all that great so im sorry...but I tried ;)

    In first act of The Temptest  it is quite apparent what kind of man Prospero is. Prospero is a controlling and manipulating man. For example when he is speaking to Miranda he manipulates the situation so that she is giving him sympathy while not even knowing the entire truth about the past. This is shown in lines 63-65 when Miranda explains to her father of how it "makes her heart bleed to think o'th'teen that I have turned to you, which is [her] remembrance!" (Act 1, Scene 2 lines 63-65). When hearing this story of the past it is natural for anyone to feel sorry for Prospero, but when you look more deeply this is what the character Prospero wants you to feel, he wants Miranda, and the others, to take pity on him. Prospero blames his brother for bad happenings, when truly it seems as if it was his own fault for letting things take a turn for the worse. Miranda not only fallen into his lies but she actually believes all of what he says about the past, asking her if he can forgive him.
  I believe that the way Prospero can manipulate people by using historic narratives is because who can argue with the past? Especially when it is so believably worded. Everyone seems to believe Prospero because he is the one who is constructing these stories and putting the blame on others. I can definitley see how this is relating to what we have been discussing in class, and especially in 1984. In 1984 the government wanted to control its past and make in only seem as if everyone else was to blame for mistakes. Prospero is doing the exact same thing, he is manipulating reality. These narratives help in making Prospero in control of everyone and their mindset of reality.

"The Danger of One Story" Post

    When I watched this video I, like many others most likely, instantly related to what Adichie was talking about. I was really interested in what she was saying about American's perspective of Africans. It is true that so many are suffering and many wars are continuously happening, but they are people. And American people seem to instantly feel bad for those living in Africa. And I admit that I also sometimes only see one veiw of Africa and many other places, people and things, but after seeing this I can now really start trying to realize that there is just more than one story. It occured to me that Americans seem to have an instant bias towards foreigners. Like Adichie said even she veiwed Mexicans as only being suffering immigrants, but when you truly look at their country they are people just like the people in America. In my opinion these thoughts of foriegners has a lot to do with medias output on the subject. For alot of us, media is our only source to see our outside world. And unfortunatley it truly only gives us one story.
     I believe that the danger of only hearing one single story is everywhere. It is important to hear more than just one story on a subject. This relates back to our discussion we had in class about Texas textbooks. I kept referring back to this in my mind while watching this video clip because like Adichie said it is so important for us to hear more than just one story, and that is what we did in class. I really enjoy discussions like that and I think that it is not only beinifiting us as students but also as humans. At some point we have all fallen short to the danger of only hearing one story, but if we all attempt to broaden our horizens and read more litterature and listen to more than one news channel, hopefully I along with others can start to escape from the danger of only hearing one story.