Waiting for the Barbarians Analysis

The Magistrate uses the girl to attempt to learn about his mind-state.—“All this erotic behavior of mine is indirect: I prowl about her, touching her face, caressing her body, without entering her or finding the urge to do so……But with this woman there is no interior, only surface across which I hunt back and forth seeking entry. Is this how her torturers felt hunting their secret, whatever they thought it was?”-pg 43. Both the Magistrate and Joll see her as a key to something and try to unlock it. They both use the girl for their own purposes without any regard to her as a person, although Joll’s actions can be seen as much worse. The Magistrate never tries to get to know her beyond the surface or try to understand her (which is why he cannot understand the pain Joll has put her through). It is only on the trip to take her home that he sees that there is much more to her than he thought and regrets not getting to know her as a person and learning her language.

*Recall Heart of Darkness—The power of Marlow’s story was altered by experiencing it second- or third-hand rather than seeing it for oneself.

                The Magistrate learns about the fallibility and false notions behind the concept of Empire. His experiences with the brutal torture and inhumane treatment allow him to realize that the barbarians are not the true enemy (they will forfeit their innocence and dignity in the face of the oppressor) but Col. Joll and the corrupt Empire regime (he even points and calls Joll the true enemy to his face). The Empire does not uphold the sanctity of their own law and use any tactic they please to get what they want. (“They will use the law as far as it serves them, then they will turn to other methods. That is the Bureau’s way. To people who do not operate under the statute, legal process is simply one instrument among many. “ (82)

In Heart of Darkness, Marlow gains an understanding of the duality of man—he uses Kurtz as a mirror into his own understanding of humanity and is thus able to save his humanity from the psychological degredation that has ruined Kurtz. The Magistrate, on the other hand, has a harder time understanding this (“There is something staring at me in the face, and still I do not see it”). He, having been prisoner and scapegoat to his empire, struggles to assign meaning to all of his pain and suffering. His recognition of the humanity of the barbarians represents the first step in overcoming the prison of identity assigned by the state.

South African Laws- 1960 to 1970

The implementation of apartheid, often called “separate development” since the 1960s, was made possible through the Population Registration Act of 1950, which classified all South Africans as either Bantu (all black Africans), Coloured (those of mixed race), or white. A fourth category—Asian (Indian and Pakistani)—was later added.


Apartheid legislation authorized the "reservation" of many skilled jobs and managerial positions for whites; qualified blacks were legally excluded from most senior-level jobs, but black education standards were so inferior to those for whites that few blacks were qualified for well-paid jobs. Even in equivalent job categories, blacks received lower wages than whites. Although white workers were divided in their racial attitudes throughout the apartheid era, they often opposed benefits for black workers that could threaten their own economic standing.

The industrial development of South Africa relied on a great deal of low-wage labor to ensure profits. But during the 1960s and 1970s, many industries increased their capital stock by investing in high tech machinery--the result is lower labor cost and increasing productivity. Unemployment increased and poverty soared. Consequently, black workers' organizations became politicized, expressing their grievances publicly. Other organizations used militance and strikes on the government, which actually proved to be more effective in changing government policies. Parliament later enacted the Industrial Conciliation Amendment Act of 1979, recognizing black unions and including them under the labor law protection for the first time. Black workers were now able to bargain w their employers and even go on strike.



Source:
http://books.google.com/books?id=rOcmamq2fikC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=south+african+law+1960s+and+1970s&source=bl&ots=EnTJ9LRIaY&sig=ni61XtAvawrpRjLqkuxG_wYtfCY&hl=en&ei=NPV0TYD3BIK78gb3ofzhDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=south%20african%20law%201960s%20and%201970s&f=false

http://countrystudies.us/south-africa/65.htm

http://www.history.com/topics/apartheid

Spring Essay; Pride and Prejudice

-Spring argues that Austen breaks down the characters of Pride and Prejudice into three categories: psuedo-gentry (also known as bougeouis, but the scholar finds this word inappropriate due to its urban connotations), gentry, and aristocracy.
-The aristocracy represented the wealthiest of landowners; the gentry also own land, but not as wealthy; the pseudogentry do not possess the same monetary assests as the gentry, but desperately seek them or to appear to have them (manners, schooling, etc)
-Spring believes that although Austen belonged to the third and bottom group of the three, she had a distinct preference for the gentry; she portrays the gentry as modest and prudent, whereas the aristocrats come off as ostentatious and unnecessarily extravagant. On the other hand, the lowest class appears ridiculous with their attempts to emulate the rich. He describes them to have virtues of "aggressiveness, an eye for money and chance, and courtship for monetary aspects."

-I agree with this point: people like Lady Catherine represent the aristocracy, who are steadfast in their snobbishness and extravagance. On the other hand, people on the other end of the spectrum--namely Mrs. Bennet-- desperately seek to marry into a higher class.

-The final point he makes in his essay is that Austen's novel celebrates the rise of both the pseudo-gentry and the gentry. In a way, he is correct because the book demonstrates how marriages began to be more commonly accepted for love and happiness as opposed to solely based on material advantages, but this monetary perspective still persists in people like Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine. On this point, Spring would have been more convincing if he used textual support for his claims.

Blog 8

Shakespeare describes that love is often the cause of suffering. All of the main characters—Orsino, Viola, Olivia—are shown to be in pain because of their unrequited love. In the beginning, Orsino depicts love as an “appetite” he cannot satisfy, so he hopes to drown himself in it in order to move on. He calls his desires “fell and cruel hounds.” Olivia directly describes love as a “plague” from which she suffers terribly. Viola expresses her melancholy: “my state is desperate for my master’s love.” Love had placed each of these three characters in misery throughout most of the play. Shakespeare also explains that love is exclusive: whereas some people achieve romantic happiness, others (like Malvolio or Antonio) are ultimately denied their object of desire. Another aspect of love that Shakespeare explores is the uncertainty of gender and how it affects love. Olivia claims to be in love with Caesario, and even though she thinks that Viola is a boy, she is attracted to the sensitive and feminine aspects that make up Caesario’s personality. Also, Orsino had subtly remarked several times upon Caesario’s beauty even before he knew that Caesario was a woman. Perhaps sometimes one gender may prefer certain characteristics or qualities of that same gender even though he/she is attracted to the opposite gender. Shakespeare appears to make fun of the traditions of romance, like the concept of writing secret love letters (mocked by Maria’s forged letter that caused Malvolio to foolishly chase after Olivia). Shakespeare deliberately presents Sir Andrew, who is supposed to be an honorable and romantic knight, as a pure idiot, as Olivia falls in love with a woman instead.

                In my opinion, love should not cause one suffering if one does not let it. Each person has the power to accept the reality of things, however painful, and move on. Throughout the entire play, Orsino was miserable because he was fawning over Olivia, who was simply not interested in him. The second he decided to stop chasing after her and settle for Viola, he became perfectly content. There is one point that Shakespeare makes that I tend to disagree with. Both Olivia and Orsino seem to change their minds almost instantly and “fall in love” with someone else in a heartbeat. In reality, love takes time to develop—time to get to know a person, etc—and although Orsino’s change of mind is somewhat believable (since he has gotten to know Viola and was attracted to the kind of person she was before he even knew she was not a man), Olivia’s is completely unfathomable. Sebastian merely shows up, and Olivia’s love for Viola has channeled itself to him. Maybe both of these characters needed a “rebound,” someone to fill the void, so they each took the first possible option. If that is the case, both of those relationships would probably not end well, but Shakespeare ended the play so we will never know. J

Canterbury Tales (Post 1)

The Friar

The friar is a particularly interesting character who adds a bit of flavor to the motley bunch. On the one hand, he is a jovial, fun-seeking man who lives off of begging. On the other, he seems to use his religious post to his advantage, giving out easy penance to those who are able to donate money while ignoring beggars and lepers because they can offer him nothing. Overall, he was described as a very jolly and social man, popular with all the innkeepers and flirting as wantonly “as if he were a small puppy.” He seemed to enjoy a very lavish lifestyle, obtaining more money through his job than what his proper income should allow. During the Middle Ages, priests and friars were known for taking advantage of pious individuals by charging them in excess to “free their souls from perdition.” Penance was one of the the fund-raising schemes of the Catholic Church—the clerics preyed on pilgrims’ fears of hell to benefit financially.

The friar falls in line with the Prioress and the Monk, both of which are deceptive and indulge in flamboyant lifestyles. The Prioress’s manners try to emulate those of the royal court, as she attempts to redefine her own role and present herself as one of royalty. The Monk, on the other hand, abandons his monastic duties and lives like a lord. These three ironic characters serve as a foil to the Knight, the Squire, and the Yemen, who embody the values of loyalty and honor.

Canterbury Tales Post

Here is blog 6:

Look eek that to the king Demetrius

The King of Parthes, as the book saith us,

Sente him a paire of dees of gold in scorn

For he hadde used hasard therbiform

For which he heeld his glorye or his renown

                At this point, the Pardoner describes the folly of gambling (“hasard”). Throughout the passage, he attacks the concept as “the mother of lies, deceit, and perjury” and categorizes it as a waste of time, money, and morals. He describes royalty figures who have transcended this vice in order to make his point. First, he explains that if a prince is caught gambling, his reputation and credibility go down the drain, and his “governance and policye” is debased to common opinion. The Pardoner’s first example is the wise ambassador Stilbon, who refused to join in on Sparta’s gambling, saying he would rather die than lose his name to such shame. He thus abdicates his position as ambassador in order to uphold his reputation. The Pardoner’s next example is that of King Demetrius, leader of the Parthians. My question about the lines above has to do with the gold dice. First of all, I am unsure as to whether Demetrius is the one receiving them for his gambling or whether he is giving them to someone as a scolding. Also, I am curious as to why the object is a pair of gold dice. The dice is clearly a symbol of the gambling, but I do not know why the author makes them gold—seemingly the opposite from punishment. My idea on the topic is that since gold typically symbolizes royalty and power, the giving of the gold dice serves as a way to mock the receiver, to remind him of the respect he has lost because of his actions.

Overall, the Pardoner’s attack on these vices seems very ironic, considering that he himself admits to having them. Although he accuses himself of fraud, avarice, and gluttony, he seems to take pride in his amorality and boosts about his exploitation of the fears of others. In my opinion, he is trying to cover up his fears and worries about taking on such a life. He wants to project this confidence in his own vices, but I feel that he is worried about the consequences of his spiritual degradation.

beowulf blog

He gazed upon the fuming flames, burning bright into the infinite night. The son of Weohstan bowed his head, attempting to salvage any last memories of his great lord. Two men, having bloomed from feuding bloodlines, were brought together by the valor and might of this great man. How ironic, how easily the soul flees the body—had his hands held the power of a thousand men, his fate would have been the same, his entity reduced to mere dust. The moment kept replaying in Wiglaf’s mind: the mighty serpent had snuck up on our hero, securing the blow that would evoke tears out of nations. The young warrior, a surge of adrenaline and fear flowing through his veins, ran forward, knowing there was little he could do. The final struggle, although lasting only five minutes, seemed to stretch on forever. Their fast-beating hearts marked a period of uncertainty. Finally, the lingering moment dropped to a halt as Beowulf ended the dragon’s existence with a mere blow. Just as a feeling of victory began to fill the air, the triumphant hero fell to his knees, dark red blood oozing down his back, wrapping the man in a rosy cape. The next few moments would be the most excruciatingly long and painful in young Wiglaf’s life; Beowulf lay next to the dragon, the spark of life dwindling in his flickering eyes. Tears rushed down the young Scylfing’s face, hopelessness and sorrow overwhelming him. The sound of footsteps awakened Wiglaf from his trance and the cackling of flames resumed in front of him. Beowulf’s armed guard, the shameful cowards who fled during their lord’s moment of need, had scurried forward abashedly to enter the funeral procession. All of the sudden, sorrow and mourning was replaced by seething anger and rebuke; the warrior spat in the cackling flames as he stood up furiously.

Useless men! Useless cowards! Every one of you will be dispossessed, once princes from beyond get tidings of how you turned and fled, disgracing yourselves. A warrior will sooner die than live in shame. Look at the man that lies there. He put every fiber of his being into fighting alongside such undeserving men. His trusted guard!! His finest men, put him out to die while they resided in comfort of their own safety. (He spat once more into the flames).

His words were like arrows, cutting deep into their sense of guilt. He sat back down. They were worth no more of his time. Looking deep into the fire, lost in memories, young Wiglaf drifted into a deep slumber.