Tuesday, November 27, 2007

JUNGLE FEVER

Denby's JUNGLE FEVER attack at "The Heart of Darkness", is pure ingenious. He discusses the novel on a collegiate level, which allows a lot student to discuss different view points about the British imperialism in Africa. The two students who have different viewpoint on the book are apparently from different ethnic backgrounds. This sort of makes the discussion very interesting. JUNGLE FEVER clearly distinguishes how "The Heart Of Darkness" and its author is racist. It does this by allowing the reader to envision the quotes from the book. Carefully selected quotes allow the reader to aknowledge the fact that Conrad describes the africans as primates.

JUNGLE FEVER

Denby's JUNGLE FEVER attack at "The Heart of Darkness", is pure ingenious. He discusses the novel on a collegiate level, which allows a lot student to discuss different view points about the British imperialism in Africa. The two students who have different viewpoint on the book are apparently from different ethnic backgrounds. This sort of makes the discussion very interesting. JUNGLE FEVER clearly distinguishes how "The Heart Of Darkness" and its author is racist. It does this by allowing the reader to envision the quotes from the book. Carefully selected quotes allow the reader to aknowledge the fact that Conrad describes the africans as primates.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Orientalism

The reading made obvious the negative depictions of the "orient" from a European, or even American standpoint. It made me think back to the history lessons where you'd learn of imperialistic nations attempting to "civilize" a new territory. As though people of the orient were barbaric animals that needed guidance from superior peoples. Said even goes as far to say that there's a "systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage - and even produce - the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period." What it all comes down to essentially is exploitation of an "inferior" peoples for money, land, and resources. Orientalism simply represents the perspective of the bully.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Orientalism and Jungle Fever

In Said's Orientalism and Denby's Jungle Fever they both talk about how European culture has influence on Orientalism and on Conrads heart of Darkness. The European Missionaried left there mark in that book. And European cultures had major influence in the Orient because it had its original, oldest and richest colonies.

Jungle Fever

I liked Denby's approach at the "Heart of Darkness" he led us into a classroom that gave their opinions about the book. He shows us the different approaches to talking about the book and opinions of people with different backgrounds. This book is a good example of what humans are capable when given certain privileges and authorities. Even though this story is based on true historical facts this story can be of any country that practices imperialism on other countries. I don't think that Conrad was helping the natives gain freedom from imperialism by writing this book. I don't think that the "Heart of Darkness" is a racist book.

Orientalism and Jungle Fever

The article Jungle Fever by david Denby really caught my attention. I especially like the way the article was written with constant quotes from "heart of Darkness" to emphasis his points. I found the debate menitoned in the article to be really interesting. I felt this way because it is interesting to note that the students were from 2 different backgrounds which makes a huge difference in their perspectives of life. i also liked the refrences to Seid because the articles clicked a little more. there were 2 views taht were brought up in this article. these were of Chinua Achebe and of the author. i found both arguments to be valid, but im not sure which onei would side with more. In the second article, Said defines his arguemtn and what he is trying to convey to be "Orientalism". he tries to distinguish between the east and the west.

Said's Orientalism

"Orientalism" that Said raises as a novel idea is nothing new to a student of Queens College. I can name at least a half a dozen classes, from anthropology to psychology, and everything in between, that have raised this similar issue about how everything is socially constructed. I'm sure everybody in the class has heard similar themes about how its always "The West" that has caused injustices all over the world and how the world would probably be a better place if "The West" did not exert their influence all over the planet. Despite not being too original, Said does add in a somewhat novel idea, though a perspective I have not heard of, namely the idea of how the authors normally focuses on the external view of the Orient. Said contends that the Orientalist is always situated outside the text and does not truthfully know what is going on inside of the Orient, just as an observer and passerby. This is an interesting little tidbit of information, and solidifies his argument as well.

Orientalism

In Said’s text we get an introduction to a huge concept in which we take the “Orient” as an ideological perspective. Said argues that Orientalisim is an idea that goes along with historical events, but at the same time constructs a set of thinking that has been presentment through a constant relationship between the Europe and the Orient, (now basically instituted by great powers such as Japan and China). Said makes obvious enfaces in the significant importance that the eighteen century oriental colonies came to symbolize in the development of European’s culture langue and writings. He also uses these ideas of “Hegemony” and politics, where Western ideas had always an upper hand from those in the Orient; a factor, which he details through out his introduction, contributed to the post- renascence European ascendancy.

Jungle Fever

I like the way the article was taken place in a classroom and the students were analyzing Conrad's Heart of Darkness.
You realize the arguement between the two students, Alex and Henry wasn't indepthly about race but it seems that way because the thought was always in the back of our mind.
Shapiro on the other hand was not very happy that his discussion had turned into something so deep and controversial. As for any teacher he didnt want sparks to fly about his own students. But when teachers ask rhetorical questions and students find the need to speak their mind and answer it, it may not have been the answer he was looking for.
I found it interesting that the women in the class were silent throughout this entire debate but afterwards claimed it to be a "guy-thing". Couldn't the women put an input of their own ideas to make a debate with their own views of the Heart of Darkness.

Jungle Fever

In Jungle Fever, Dunby discusses what takes an ongoing debate, which takes place in a lit humanism class. The class discusses Conrad's Heart of Darkness as a novel which takes you on a journey through evil vs good. The debate gets very heated b/c the students have different views on the point of the book. I would have to agree with the student Henry because he doesn't neccessarily confine the novel strictly to race and western imperialism, but he suggests that the struggle of good vs. evil is present in all men. This subject is not a race issue entirely, but a humanity issue. People are capable of anything when thrown into certain situations. In The Heart of Darkness Conrad portrays the Africans as the savages when in reality it can be true of all humanity. The teacher Shapiro makes the point that although this may be true we are capable of changing the way we think and society.

Orientalism

It seems that Orientalism, according to Said's perspective, bares a close resemblance to Freud's "lacking" and the concept of "othering" that has been prevalent in many of the texts studied in this course. Just like Freud's "other" or "lacking" is defined by the subject, the male, the possessor of the phallus, Orientalism is defined by and for the subject, the omnipotent West. The Western conception of the Orient seems to justify imperialism, as well as perpetuate the power structure in which the West dominates the East. Therefore, cruel acts of imperialism are not merely accepted, but viewed as the means of "civilizing" an inferior culture. Additionally, because these definitions are provided by the West, the object, the Orient serves a subject, a bystander, in the conception of its own reality. It seems, as Said explains, "the Orientalist is outside the Orient" (21), those who explain and define the culture of the Orient are Westerners, the Orient does not play any role in defining itself. Likewise, Teresa de Lauretis discusses this same idea, Freud's question, "What is femininity?" is asked by a man, Freud himself, answered again by Freud and his answer, revolves around the man, the phallus. In both cases, it appears, the dominate group is defining its object of domination as an "other," inherently inferior in order to perpetuate its dominance.

Edward Said sounds like he has a valid political concern in his Introduction to Orientalism. The stereotype of Orientalism does exist to certain degrees (though the fact, which he admits, that the backbone of Said’s argument is a set of historical generalizations, does not provide a very strong basis for his arguments, I sounds like Freud saying that his whole argument is based on the concept of penis envy and if that is abolished his argument would not stand). Said’s argument in III, that it is practically impossible to remove the study of humanities from politics entirely is also a valid argument; writers, painters, even musicians are all affected by politics in some way. However, that is not an excuse to over-politicize everything one comes into contact with, which what Said seems to do. I agree with David Denby that many “critics” try to inflate texts with their own political agendas, using them to prove certain ideological points that they have an interest in proving. Approaching a text already knowing what one wants to get out of it is close-minded and intellectually dishonest, and it does seem that often times “open-minded intellectuals” are just the opposite, close-minded and intellectually dishonest.

There are also a few points that Said makes in a very nonchalant way that I think are debatable, for example, that America is an imperial power. There are very clear distinctions between that way America has gotten involved in other countries and how other imperial powers (Macedonia, Rome, the Chinese, the Mongols, the Muslims, the Ottomans, England etc) dealt with lands that they conquered and were under their sovereignty.

The main gist of his argument also is that there is a way to study the perspective of one general mindset or culture’s towards a radically different one. Not such an amazing new discovery. But of course he does insert some personal politics in the end.