Fitting into Society (Tom the most unfortunate soul)

       At the end of Pudd'nhead Wilson the real Tom Discroll faces an extremely difficult problem. He has to try and fit back into a Anglo man’s society, having been raised as a slave. Even though Tom is actually white and is of white blood. Having been raised as a slave his speech and mannerisms are completely different from the Anglo society. This also completely annihilates his relationships with his fellow slaves. Since he is no longer one of them and instead owns them now. Tom not only made the transformation from slave to white man. He became a wealthy affluent white man. Tom is a man with a prominent last name that is well known throughout the south and an heir of a big inheritance. These are extremely difficult shoes for anyone to fill let alone a man that’s never had to deal with that much stress before. Tom is a man that stands in the middle of two cultures and societies with his special circumstance. This to a much lesser degree has become a normal problem for many young people in America today. Especially those with parents that are immigrants or are from diverse ethnic backgrounds themselves. 

In today’s American society we have all different types of people living here. Many are 1st generation immigrants and some have been here for many generations. A familiar problem that kids with mixed raced parents face is the same as Tom’s which is trying to fit in into both cultures. Thankfully in today’s we don’t face the type of problems Tom faced (slavery and discrimination). Still however there is the problem of trying to fit in society and finding your own identity. When you’re filling out applications to almost anything they’ll always ask for race/ethnicity and almost always they make you only pick one. There are those that find these questions simple and identify with one or the other however there are those that try to get the best of both worlds. This is where the real problem begins. Those who embrace both their cultures are seen as outcasts by many. There’s a common saying in Spanish that describes this problem which is “Ni de aqui, ni de alla” which translates to “neither from here nor from there”. As these kids grow older they begin to accept the culture they are currently living in and start to slowly let go of their original roots. There’s nothing wrong with this change but their community can see this as the child not wanting them anymore and can lead them to shunning them once they leave. Also if the child is of a different color (skin wise) then they will have a hard time solidifying their place and the Anglo society. What do you guys think? Is this problem we see today? Or is something minor that our society will soon get over?

The Man Who Would Be King: What does it take to be King?

The Man Who Would Be King: What does it take to be King?

In “The Man Who Would Be King” we have two men, Daniel and Peachy, who aspire to become kings. Having become bored with their adventure in India, they decided to travel to the province of Kafiristan to become kings and rule the land. They successfully get the natives to belief that Daniel Dravot is a direct descendant of Alexander the Great and make him king. Now at this point everyone believes that Dravot deserves to be king and has a fake legitimacy. But what actually constitutes kingship?  If we look back to the 15^th Century we see that it’s almost always by birthright. Well Daniel is not of noble blood so we can forget about that. Later we have those who took power and legitimacy by force. Does military power legitimize a ruler? When we look at more modern examples like Joseph Stalin and Otto Van Bismarck they had the power of hundreds of thousands of soldiers. This made the people follow what they said. Now while Daniel never had that type of military power he did have his twenty or so Henry Rifles which helped impress the locals. This further solidified the locals believe that he was fit to rule.

To be a king your followers have to believe that you are fit to rule. Whether it’s because they believe God put you in charge, they were conquered and/or their last ruler was defeated. All this ended for them once Dravot got bit and bled. This completely ruined his legitimacy. The Kafirs believed him to be almost a deity and when they saw blood they knew that it was an act. After he was captured and killed. However he died with his crown on.  From the moment Dravot became king and to the day he died, he himself believed that he was a king. Therefore was he actually a King? He sure went out like a king, but the fact that his people didn’t follow him after finding about his true is identity I what doesn’t make him a king. A king is someone who can rule his people through his proven legitimacy and fear. That’s something Daniel lost when they saw him bleed. The fear that he had was no longer there so they fought back and won. What do you guys think? Was Daniel a king? Yes or no explain your reasoning.

Thanks!

-          Frankenstein’s Monsters  

Chinese Immigration in 19th- early 20th century

The first wave of Chinese immigrants arrived to California in about early/mid 1800s. It wasn’t a very popular movement and the Chinese were seen as people that couldn’t assimilate to American society. This made many republicans angry wanted to rid of them by mass deportation. Here we see one of the beginning trends that wave after wave of immigrants face. A new people arrive to this country and are seen with mistrust. Humans don’t like what they don’t know. This wasn’t any different in America. Wave after wave of immigrants saw this mistreatment from America. One the biggest reasons why the Americans believed the Chinese couldn’t assimilate was due to their attire. Most of them still wore traditional clothing and traditional haircuts. Since they looked and dressed differently they were seen as outcasts. Also when the economy began to drop in the late 1800s the Chinese immigrants were used as a scapegoat

.

Which brought upon the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882; which prohibited all immigration of Chinese laborers. The Chinese immigrants had it rough especially since a lot of them didn’t speak English and had a hard time navigating through the cities. Also they were treated as second class citizens. After seeing a couple cartoons from the Harpers Weekly website it can be inferred that the media supported those who wanted the immigrants gone. With many of the cartoons being racist and depicts Chinese immigrants in a very demeaning manner.

Also articles such as “Mining Life in California” makes Chinese culture sound unlikeable. Also it talks about how their way of working is old and inefficient for using traditional methods. It makes them sound their just a nuisance for American society. I found this really interesting because we’ve seen this happen with the Irish, Italian and Latino immigrants too. Once a different wave of immigrants shows up, the blame, prejudice and negative social stigma goes on them. Even now we can still see some of this today. Not only in America but also many European countries there is now a negative view on Muslim immigrants. The reasons are also the way they dress and different cultural norms. Most of these is because most societies don’t like what they don’t understand. If they can’t understand someone else’s culture it’s easier to just say that its wrong they should just assimilate and forget their heritage.

All my information came from this website

http://immigrants.harpweek.com/   (Click on “Anti-Chinese Movement)

Human Nature

Human Nature

In The Luck of Roaring camp we see the ideas of humanity and human nature discussed. The idea of how people change and change for the better is a major theme in this piece. We see the rough and tumble camp life of the old west juxtaposed with motherhood and nurturing.

 When a baby comes into the Roaring camp things change. This is a camp made up of rough men, hard men, and men who are not refined. This is a camp chalked full of criminals and gamblers. These men are not exactly the people you would picture raising a child. The camp is  also full of the stereotypes we hear about the Wild West. When a baby is born to a woman named Cherokee Sal, things change. Cherokee Sal soon dies and the men of this camp must now be in charge of this baby. At first the men don’t know what to do. Kentuck calls the baby a “damned little cuss” at first. When it wrestles with his finger, he is amazed and starts to care about the baby like all the other men. The men take the christening very seriously and bring gifts to this child.

When this baby comes into the Roaring Camp the men are originally very rough and tough. The baby and the way they care for it softens the men. The men turn into mothering figures to this motherless child. These men are the godfathers to this child for all intents and purposes. This short story does a really cool thing with the rough and hard men of Roaring camp. This child comes in and changes things around roaring camp. The men start changing their lives. They clean up the camp, change their habits and really just change their lives. Men who are disgusting start bathing on a regular basis. Men act better, it is all for this baby. This baby came in and, like a Christ figure, changed these men’s lives. The men prove that one can change their human nature if they really want to. It shows that human nature can make someone change themselves for the better for another person. These men changed themselves for the child.

The author does a nice job of juxtaposing these rough and tumble men who live a hard life with motherhood. He wanted to take two things that are very different and make them comparable. These men changed is as major of a way as one could, and the author did this on purpose. He wanted to show how powerful human nature is. 

Sissy Jupe the Most Important Character of Hard Times

While reading Hard Times it’s easy to become frustrated at a lot of the characters in the story. Louisa is a bit of a pushover, Thomas Gradgrind only cares about facts and Bounderby is a lying jerk. When we look at Sissy Jupe we an innocent caring person; while she can be a bit of a klutz she’s the realest person in the whole novel; keeping her emotions and feeling instead of trading it away for stagnant knowledge. Sissy doesn’t have an easy start on this novel. She’s often thought of as “dumb” or “slow” by her teachers. Her father leaves her to fend for herself early in the book. I feel like this is the one experience that really solidifies her character. After this she can empathize with others that go through hard times. Like on page 99 where Sissy and Loo make eye contact after Loo agrees to marry Mr. Bounderby. Sissy knows that Louisa really doesn’t want to marry him. Also when she confronts Harthouse and makes him leave Coketown without Louisa. She didn’t care that Harthouse was from an upper class, that he had more money than anyone else in Coketown. All she knew was that Loo’s relationship with Harthouse wasn’t a healthy one and told him straight up. One my favorite quote from the book is when Mr. Gradgrind asks her what the basic principle of a science is and she replies with “To do unto others as I would that they should do unto me” (Dickens 57). This was shortly after her father left. Even then she kept her humanity. She couldn’t comprehend Utilitarianism because she cared for those that would be left behind to starve. Her soul is innocent and pure. I feel like this is what Dickens was to trying to get at. Those of pure of heart and maintain it through tough and trying times are usually rewarded with a happy life. Even when times were tough for Sissy she helped others out of her own heart. She never wanted something in return or a reward. She took care of those she loved. Once we get to the end of the novels its Sissy who gets the happy ending and of course Louisa tags along too but it’s not the same experience. Sissy is happily married with children. While Louisa never remarries or has children but loves Sissy’s children; she lives through Sissy in a way. Sissy has no problem with this because Louisa is her friend and cares for her like a sister. This is why Sissy is the most important character she’s the one who give’s emotion and feeling to the novel; the one that never lost her true self.

- Gama  

Thoughts About "The Fall of the House of Usher"

Thoughts About "The Fall of the House of Usher"

While reading "The Fall of the House of Usher", we noticed that a gothic feeling was the most important theme throughout this short story. But why and what is the purpose for this style of writing? In gothic writing and stories, the reader needs to feel as though there is a sense of terror on every page. The house makes the narrator feel as though he has no where to go and makes him feel like there is an evil presence. There are hidden doors, the feeling of ghosts, and mysterious sickness that makes this reading pretty vague. Something is going on in this house, but nobody really knows. In all gothic stories, you can't find the answer. Relating to the class discussion, a gothic story has three elements that make it a gothic story; what's inside, what's outside, and what separates them. The narrator is mysteriously trapped by the lure of Roderick's attraction and he cannot escape until the house of Usher completely collapses.

From the beginning of the reading, you can tell that this house is something that really affects ones mind. Its dark, dull, and soundless. The narrator wants the reader to feel as though he is right there with him and to feel how horrifying this house is something out of a horror film. All alone coming up to the house, you can tell that this reading is somewhat of a depressing reading. He sets the tone by using such depressing words such as dull, dreary, decayed trees, sinking, a sickening of the heart and really explaining the overall appearance of the house.

A passage from the reading that I found interesting and quite wonderful in describing this house was when the narrator says "I felt that I breathed an atmosphere of sorrow. An air of stern, deep, and irredeemable gloom hung over and pervaded all." This passage comes when the narrator is all by himself in a room showing how isolation is something that nobody enjoys. It messes with people's minds and frightens people. I think that the reason why Roderick never went and checked out what the sound was (when Madeline was making noises), is because he was terrified of what he would actually see. He waited 8 days in fear that his sister was alive. In an isolated, terrifying house, noises start putting fear into ones self.

Death, isolation, and horror are definitely the biggest themes to look at when reading this great night time story.

Nature and Science in Frankenstein

Nature vs Science in Frankenstein

In the book Frankenstein we see the juxtaposition of nature and science. Does science trump nature or does nature take the crown? We argue that nature wins out in the end.

Dr. Victor Frankenstein is a man of science. He creates his monster through his knowledge of science and how to recreate dead body parts. In the creation of the monster science wins out. Science is what created the monster and gave him life, but it does not win out in the end.

The monster runs away and continually watches a family live their lives. Throughout this time the monster is living in nature and living off nature. This is where the monster learns. He learns to speak, he learns how geography and he learns about emotions. It is no coincidence that Frankenstein’s monster learns all of this outside of the lab and in nature. This is also the place that the monster has some self-awareness and figures out who he is. He develops emotions and learns what love and caring is. He is attacked by the family when he tries to talk to them, but he doesn’t fight back, even knowing he could tear them apart, because he cares for them. The monster learns about himself and becomes more human outside, in nature.

On the flip side, Frankenstein himself becomes less happy, less human and more miserable without nature. He is consumed in his science and turns into a somewhat bad person. When he is at home he is depressed and the only time he can gain some semblance of happiness is when he is out in nature.

While we see the creation happen in a lab (science), we see a lot of the interaction between the two men, Frankenstein and his monster, happening outside, on an ice patch or mountain. (nature).

There is no doubt a juxtaposition between good and bad, happy and sad, and nature and science. Science is looked at as trying to harness nature and create it, and while this is true, nature is where the monster grew, it is where he became self-aware. The monster was created in a lab, but he eventually went back to nature and assimilated into nature once again. While science tries toplay god, no matter what happens nature will run its course. The natural order of nature will prevail, no matter what. Nature is, according to Frankenstein, a more powerful force than science.