Raisin in the Sun

So in the end who does Bennie end up with? Her love or the guy her family wants to marry?
Bennie seemed to go out with George just to get the pleasure of being out of the house away from the family. She seems more intimate with Asagai. Mama seems to be okay with the fact that Bennie thinks George is a fool and soon tells her not to waste time on any fool.
When Walter lashed out on his mother about crushing his dreams and felt the stab in the heart that Mama was probably feeling. Having your child say those words to you must be really hurtful and I understand why she stayed where she was and didn't say anything afterwards because she was at a lose of words.
Walter proves what a typical man would do when they don't get their way. Due to the fact that men always "get their way" they are not used to what it feels like so they throw a fit and do something crazy. In this case, Walter ditched work completely forgetting about his family and was constantly going to the bar and wasting his money on liquor. Not much sense for a guy who wants to save up money to open a liquor store. But due to the fact that he feels his family isnt supporting him he doesnt want to support his family

What strikes me about the characters in A Raisin in the Sun is how uttely alone each and every one of them seems. While they share each share the unifying element of having unfulfilled dreams, every one of them seems absolutely blind to the dreams of the others. It is as if each character can see only his own unrealized hopes, and is completely ignorant that the other members of their family might themselves have dreams too. No character receives encouragement or understanding from any of his or her family members. Walter is desperate to open his liquor store and become his own master, but everyone thinks his schemes are worthless. No one seems to understand Beneatha at all... her dreams of being a doctor and her sense of African identity are absolutely foreign and beyond comprehension to them. Ruth seems to struggle with her pregnancy by herself... and appears to disagree with her husband on how to best create a good life for their son. It is this loneliness perhaps, that imbibes the reader with a sense of claustrophobia when reading the play. Not only is there no outlet for expression for these characters, no opportunity for the fulfillment of their dreams, but they also seem so hopelessly alone, they have no one but themselves in which to confide their dreams.

A Raisin In The Sun

Lorraine Hansberry's A Raisin In the Sun is an all time classic. This play shows how an African American family deals with financial issues while living in not the best of neighborhoods of Chicago in the 1950s. Various situations that occur in this play all revolve around money. With a family that lives in poverty, I guess the everyday worry is money. This play shows how Walter and his family deal with their financial status and later on in the play racism in order to live within a better lifestyle.

Raisin in the Sun

Although this novel takes place in the 1950's there are many families who still struggle with poverty as well as being pregnant at the same time. I feel for Ruth because if I was in her sitution of turmoil i wouldn't want to have a child either. I honestly dont think its right to have an abortion, only under certain circumstances such as rape etc. In Ruth's case, they knew there was a possibility that she could get pregnant and knew what kind of life style they were living in from before.
Beneatha is a typical teenager/ young adult- freeminded and spirited. She is in an arranged relationship in which she doesnt want to be do to the fact that she doesnt have mutual feelings for this guy. Her sister in law and mother want her to keep this relationship going being that the guy has money. There is hardly any way when a girls family forces her to be with someone she truly doesnt want to be with in todays American society
Mama is a very simple calming old woman who has the power in the household. Although she is a woman and the oldest she keeps everyone in check in the house.
Walter is a ambitious man of many dreams of owning a liquor store.
As Act 1 goes on, I, as a reader, wants to know what happens next because it relates to an everyday family of todays day and age.

A Raisin in the Sun

Women in this play are portrayed as full round characters; moreover they are more responsible than the men. The men, as typified by Walter, suffer from a shattered ego form the circumstances of their lives, and are in a sense reduced to a poignant caricature by their unrealistic dreams. It is also interesting to see how women, though living under worse circumstances than men, they deal more effectively with life. This shows that “effective” male patriarchy is an illusion. However, from simple observation, American lifestyle is very much influenced by male patriarchy. Yet, in this play matriarchy represents the strongest subversion of the structure, actually showing that it is more stable than the illusory male patriarchy.

A Raisin In the Sun Act 1

A Raisin in the Sun is one story I can honestly say interests me. Act I sets up the story of this family like many who occur different problems throughout their lives. Beneatha, one of the characters, who is very interested in learning about her African culture and Ruth who receives the news of her pregnancy in act I scene II. The first act is setting up the story which I found when I previously read it, opened my eyes to the way in which some families, unfortunately, are forced to live.

"A Raisin in the Sun" is a very intense play that captures the frustration between people when their problem is money and poverty day after day. The author does capture the reality of the situation. The characters are so real that the stubbornness of the son makes me even mad. The issue of Africa and colonialism is put very well in the play.

Frantz Fanon

Reading Fanon's point of view on colonialism and the problems with the colonized intellect really brought up some interesting points that many of us may not realize today. Fanon is basically saying that the reason some races are not "nationalized" is because of their failiure to reconnect to their past on a global level. Fanon seems to be saying that part of the reason some africans are not unified is becuase of their differences of location, wehreas they can unify and connect if they support and discover more of their past before they were colonized. They need to revive their pasts to help combat the fact that the colonists have told them they are barbaric. Part of what makes this so hard to the colonized intelllect to realize is that the colonist country"turns its attention to the past of the colonized people and distorts it, disfugures it, and destroy it" (149). the colonizing country makes the colonized intellect feel like they come from no where and make them ashamed of their past, when in reality it is this key factor that needs to be reached in order to combat the colonizing country.

Fanon seems to be advocating violence, if necessary for the establishment of nationhood for a heretofore persecuted and discriminated people. The African peoples, their cultures grouped into one overarching “Negro” culture need to break out of that, combatively. But, what if they do not want to? Mama, in A Raisin in the Sun, on page 1470, expresses her direct disinterest in Africa. Also, it seems that sometimes people may not hold this true. Nationalism is important! That is something that many say has caused wars and violence. Wait, Fanon, seems to like being militant. But what if two different peoples, both looking to establish a nation for themselves with national identity, clash?

"M. Butterfly" is an interesting play in that it covers many different topics such as imperialism, racism and sexism. Through Gallimard we see what westerners though of the Orient that they are inferior and they "will always submit to greater force". His ideas backfire when the Vietnamese resist greatly to the Americans and when he finds out the Song is a man. I like that there is humor in this play because it covers many serious topics so it lightens the story.

I would have to disagree by that which is proposed by Neal in his response to Ioannis' comments...
I don't think that Hwang's intention here is to make generalized statements about the 2 cultures represented in the play. Having been born and raised in the US, I doubt that Hwang was blind enough to make a sweeping statement such as suggested by Neal, that all Americans are inferior to the intelligence and cunning of the Chinese...
I do think however, that Hwang's play certainly acts to diametrically confront the traditional views touted by sexism and racism, and the way these two forces can act in unison. It does seem that Hwang seeks to confront certain stereotypes that he perceives to exist in the Western world. It is interesting to note that the original M. Butterfly opera figures very significantly in Hwang's play, even though it is set in Japan, while Hwang's action occurs in China. It is evident then, that Hwang is seeking to address the stereotype ascribed by the West to Asian cultures as a whole. That much then, I will agree to- Hwang tries to make clear the falsity of these American stereotypes. However, to say that he presents the Westerners in the play in such a way as to make them seem inferior to Asian cultures, does not resonate with my understanding of the play.

Hwang's Butterfly

In M. Butterfly Hwang shows how racist and sexist Western imperialist can be. It also shows how they feel to be inferior to the weaker nations, and their people. For example; on pg 1274 in our BIL text, describes Chinese woman as hungry Oriental girls who want to be treated bad. The Western men say that that "Oriental girls" are not like the American girls. Not only do these men not have respect for Chinese women, but they also do not respect for their own women by calling them girls. They are grown women. Throughout this play we can to the realization of how stereotypes of different cultures can help an individual view another individual by their nationality.

Hwang's Work

M. Butterfly is a play that involves different aspects of cultural and race related topics, which if analyzed in depth, carry a set of similar points as Said’s ideological thinking of “Orientalisim”. Hwang controls his play through Gallimard , an important character that revives the shocking true that engages the play. Furthermore is of greater interest to analyze this piece as racist, it restates Said’s set of ideas; in which stereotypical assumption are taken to demean a certain race. In M. Butterfly we are encounter with stereotypical ideas that portray Asian females as submissive, and essentially of lower cast in relation to the male society. We can even relate this work with “Heart Of Darkness”, a piece of literature that demonstrated a similar perspective and correlated in the use of racist and demeaning ideas shown by the African’s slavery movement in the Congo.

M Butterfly

M Butterfly had several conflicts within individual characters and characters within a general society. Women we always seen as inferior to men in many different societys. Despite the fact that they have different cultures around the world this is one thing every nation may have in common with each other.
Said stated orientalism as a western style for dominating, reconstructuring and having authority over the Orient. (Said 3)
In this case Song was the Orient and inferior to Gallimard and it made Gallimard look superior to her. There was a strong emphasis on whether the Westernized civilization was above the Chinese.
On page 1285 Gallimard and Song are alone and Song is rushing frantically to get tea for Gallimard even though he does not want. It gives the impression that Song must serve him even though he is not in need.
What i didnt understand was how someone can fall in love with someone else for 20 years and not know the sex of the person. The trial in Act 3 was interesting the way Song was answering the Judge's questions in that he was not straight forward but at the same time made sense in what he was saying.

M. Butterfly

Of the many things Ioannis said about the play, the one thing I agree the most on is that Hwang tries way too hard to bring his point across. Westerners are stupid, & the Orients know everything. Yea, we get the idea. Hwang's continuous points about how the Orient's fooled Gallimard is clearly stated. However, in context of we have been discussing in class, this text clearly hits the needle on the head as to what Orientalism is all about. The text discusses the dichotomous relationship between the two opposing sides of the world.

M Butterfly

In first reading this play i was completely confused with who was who and what was going on. But in reading through i realized what was going on. I was really shocked at some of the topics that were discussed in this play. The clear distinction made in this play between the "orient" and the "other" or the "west" really helped to solidify Seids definition of "orientalism". Especially when Seid defines the orient as "real" and not just imaginitatvie. this seems to parallel the play directly as if Hwang was writting this as he was reading Seids book. I was shocked at alot of things that went on in the play...inclding all the espionage, deceit and lies, including the multi partner relationships that Rene had. This was actually an enlightning and informative play to the real world out there that mnay of us may not know about!

Hwang’s self-consciousness may be self-defeating

M. Butterfly amply evinces David Henry Hwang’s command of theatrical history, his agility with dramatic architecture and staging, a rapier wit sharpened on an anvil of ironic intelligence, and a feeling for dialogue as fluent as birdsong. Plus, he’s queer-forward, compassionate and inclusive of spirit, and, one surmises, the kind of guy everyone’s mom would just adore. So what’s not to like? Without gainsaying any of these shining qualities, I’d only venture that the didactic, corrective impulse informing such passages as this early one from scene six, which permits little room for doubt or disagreement in the audience’s mind

Song: Consider it this way: what would you say if a blonde homecoming queen fell in love with a short Japanese businessman? He treats her cruelly, then goes home for three years, during which time she prays to his picture and turns down marriage from a young Kennedy. Then, when she learns he has remarried, she kills herself. Now, I believe you would consider this girl to be a deranged idiot, correct? But because it’s an Oriental who kills herself for a Westerner—ah!—you find it beautiful.

Gallimard: Yes . . . well . . . I see your point . . .
(p. 1280)

finally subsumes the dramatic experience, bending it toward preachment. Gallimard sees the point, but so could a blind man on a galloping horse. Ultimately Hwang tries too hard.

M. Butterfly

On page 1282, Song discusses European men's fascination with "Orientalized" women. When Gallimard mentions that Song herself would consider their infatuation imperialistic, Song replies, "sometimes... sometimes, it is also mutual." This line is particularly interesting as it seems to suggest that the "other," whether referring to the Orient, women, or any other group that has been socialized as inferior, actively participates in the creation of its position as inferior. However, Hwang seems ignore the idea that while at times oppressed parties participate in their own oppression, it is generally instigated by the "superior" group. Furthermore, the implication that the oppressed group has created its own reality thoroughly belittles the imperialist's or oppressor's role.

Orientalism and Westernism

The play was ok, but quite obviously on a mission; it was very passively didactic on two issues, the issue of feminism and of Orientalism, both of which were obviously critiqued in the play. There is much to say, if one wants to speak about either of these politico/social issues, but I do not. There was one line, however, that struck me, and I am not sure what it is doing. On page 1282 Song says “No, you wouldn’t. You’re a Westerner. How can you objectively judge your own values?” On the surface this seems like a critique of “Westerners” in that they try to justify their own actions and values in the face of others. However, looking at the statement a little deeper, there seems to be a bit of a warning here as well. David Hwang seems to be saying that the general grouping of peoples needs to be avoided. If a people cannot objectively understand their own values, another people, outside, are the only ones that can come close to understanding that people. Here Song claims that she can understand the “Western” values because she is not a “Westerner.” But does that imply then that a “Westerner” can understand an “Oriental.” I put “Westerner” in quotes, because that word does as much the same thing to “whites,” another word that generally groups together all British, French, Spanish, Swiss, German, Americans, Canadians, etc and can create a “Westernism.” Is Hwang saying that we need to be fair and not try to understand each other through arrogance because and outsider cannot understand someone else’s values? Is he saying that no people should be group under such a generalizing appellation? Or is there a double standard in terms of the message that Hwang is trying to teach?