Tuesday, November 27, 2007
JUNGLE FEVER
JUNGLE FEVER
Monday, November 26, 2007
Orientalism
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Orientalism and Jungle Fever
Jungle Fever
Orientalism and Jungle Fever
Said's Orientalism
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
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
Orientalism
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
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.