Hope Always Sprouts Up

In today's world with all of the atrocities happening all around from war to mass shootings, we could all use a little hope. Fortunately for mama in A raisin in the Sun, she has symbolically held onto the prospect of a better future through the tentative care of her plant. Despite the social and economic hardships they've faced, she's religiously refused to give up. I believe that this can help explain one of the last moments of the book. As mama "grabs her plant, and goes out for the last time," she carries on her dream for an improved life with her into her new home. This is to represent how even though they are physically integrated into the white neighborhood, they will not be accepted socially due to racial segregation as indicated by Mr. Lindner's constant attempt to persuade the Youngers to defer their plan to move into the neighborhood. Her worry that when there is a black weed placed within the garden, it will drive all of the surrounding vegetation to be driven out. The constant battle for racial equality will be the new dream of mama and of minorities as a whole. This can also be seen in Hansberry's first page where the location and time is set from sometime after World War 2 to the present. The reason there is no set end time is to say that the problems of racism presented in this book is everlasting and will never have a resolution. When future generations are to read this book, the can see this as well and reflect on their own society the same way that people today can. Because of all of this, Hansberry claims that no matter how many reforms and facades are posed, we will never truly be equal.

Abusive Relationships

When I read the psychoanalytic lens for The Great Gatsby, one of the most intriguing parts was when it said "the psychological wounds responsible for that fear usually demand a stage on which to reenact, in disguised form, the original wounding experience." I immediately related this to a topic that always puzzled me: why do people stay in abusive relationships?
Upon further research, it turns out that the main reasons that people would stay in these relationships is because they are imprisoned within their own hope and belief that their partner is capable of change and that it will be better in the near future. However, a more profound and subconscious reason for this is that the victims themselves don't believe that they deserve anything better nor do they believe that anything is severely wrong. In addition to this, it is likely that they came from a background of abuse in their households. This supports the claim in the psychoanalytic essay in that the past wound of being abused has re situated itself in the lives of these victims in relationships. Even though they are unaware of it, it's nonetheless real. And this makes sense. If you were taught something your entire life from the only people you looked up to (your parents), there would be no reason for you to question it or deny its truth. This also made me wonder about the relationship between Cholly and Mrs. Breedlove. Their relationship is described as one where even though each have an apparent hatred to each other, they have a mutual understanding that none of this is to be taken to the point where one leaves or kills the other. This shows that even though there is abuse in the relationship, it is not genuine. This can also be explained by the psychoanalytic lens. In a world where racism and discrimination thrives, poor minorities are hit the most. As a child Mrs. Breedlove would have experienced prejudice just as sever as Pecola and the other girls. As a result, she feels as if she deserves no less in her marriage.
This lens was surprisingly fun to read as well as insightful. Finally, I can put to rest the long lasting question I've had over this seemingly puzzling topic.

White Privelage

"With fenders spread like wings we scattered light through

half Astoria—only half, for as we twisted among the pillars

of the elevated I heard the familiar ‘jug—jug—SPAT!’ of a

motor cycle, and a frantic policeman rode alongside.

‘All right, old sport,’ called Gatsby. We slowed down.

Taking a white card from his wallet he waved it before the

man’s eyes.

‘Right you are,’ agreed the policeman, tipping his cap.

‘Know you next time, Mr. Gatsby. Excuse ME!’"

I especially liked this passage as I read it since it was a clear indication that Fitzgerald was trying to express the inequalities between classes in this time. The ability for Gatsby to excuse himself from an offense such as speeding shows how he gets special treatment based on his status. This is exemplified to the point where the police officer even puts blame on himself for even disturbing Mr. Gatsby in the first place.  However, this didn't only exist during this time period. Something that had caught my attention in the past was how the persecution of the use of drugs is discriminatory to economic status. If you think about it, drug use is not something that's too severe in places such as Troy. Whether you believe it or not, recreational drug use is pretty common in suburban areas among teenagers and young adults. Unlike lower income areas, wealthier areas face little to no inspection or penalty to the use of these. On the other hand, places such as Compton are victims of relentless police sweeps where the single goal would be to find trouble.
In addition to this, as we talked about in class, the analogy of the quest for speed is apparent in this passage. Gatsby's literal want of more speed as he's speeding is being impeded by the policeman. This is used to represent the desire of the upper class for more wealth that even those who are under them, in this case the policeman, can't stop them from the blinded lust for more. This is also representative of how the gap between the rich and poor is forever widening. Gatsby speeds far past the policeman, which represents the common man. During this time, this was a serious problem in which monopolies were uncontrolled and working conditions for workers were still in-humane. Social injustice between the rich who had more money than they knew what to do with to spend on things such as parties versus the poor who were struggling to get by are apparent. The speeding can also be interpreted as to represent the obsession with technological and lifestyle advances. Things such as washing machines, refrigerators, and several other gadgets were being improved on and invented in order to allow for more comfort, which was a staple of the booming 20's.
In conclusion, Fitzgerald uses this anecdote in order to accentuate the faults of the 1920's through the symbol of speeding and Gatsby's privilege of social class.

The Valley of Ashes

In The Great Gatsby, Fitzgerald uses the valley of ashes as a symbol to remind us that even though our story takes place within the rich East and West Eggs, that there is without a doubt a lower class that suffers at the expense of 1920's commerce and modernism. With descriptions such as "grotesque gardens" and "crumbling" men, it is without a doubt that this is a bleak and melancholy environment ignored and left to rot. With consumerism and greed leaving a trail of poverty, the citizens of the valley of ashes are the products of this world. Outcasts who do not fit into the societal norm of lavish living are left in a ditch with no way to get out- perpetually sinking further down.
This can be applied to our current lives as well. Having lived in wealthy suburbs of large cities such as Plano and Troy, it was hard to see past the blinds of prosperity created by the infrastructure, safety, and community. However, it was frequently brought to my attention that even in such places, there are those who are struggling to get by. For example, many kids still need free lunch since they don't have the finances to afford it themselves. Unfortunately, this gap and inequality will never be resolved, as the gap between rich and poor will continue to increase as more generations are conceived. I believe that it is important to keep these things in mind. After all, Thanksgiving has just passed and is a perfect time to reflect on all of the blessings we have in life to be able to be born into such social and financial statuses. I believe that Fitzgerald did this to not simply build onto the character of the world in which Gatsby lives in, but to also allow the reader to reflect on his or her own life and world.

Pecola and Pecola

I can't tell you how surprised and happy I was when I turned to the last chapter of The Bluest Eye and realized that it was dialogue. While I was reading it, I thought that it actually was one of her friends. For example, it would totally be plausible that two friends would say "You’re just jealous." and "I am not." It wasn't until we were in the seminar and someone pointed out that she was talking to an imaginary friend that it was imaginary.
This spurred me to wonder why people would have imaginary friends in the first place or how people could have the cognitive and imaginative power to create entities that have their own thoughts and wills. After some research, it became that imaginary friends aren't something to be scoffed at. Statistically, 37% of children have imaginary friends, and, unsurprisingly, is largely due to trying to cope with traumatic experiences and fear. This can explain why Morrison would create such a friend for Pecola in the last chapter. Having given up everything in her life to achieve blue eyes, Pecola has found herself in a lonesome and unfulfilled life where her end goal of getting blue eyes has left her with nothing but more concern and obsession. To cope with this, she strives for confirmation with an imaginary friend to make sure that she has made the right choice in her life, but in reality, it's to comfort her. The use of an imaginary friend has allowed Morrison to translate these same connotations and meanings to the reader without having to full out say it.

Are prostitutes bad?

Similar to how our views on beauty are subjective to society, our views on prostitution have been one of negative connotation due to social norms, but have you ever wondered why?

While reading The Bluest Eye, I noticed many references to the prostitutes China, Poland, and Maginot Line. Specifically, there was a remark made by the narrator in that they "had no word for innocence" yet had no "hearts of gold." Morrison means to suggest that they are not to be pitied on as products of a bad society yet they aren't complete disgraces to society. 

I agree with Morrison since I believe that prostitutes are nothing more than ordinary people trying their best to make a living and provide for themselves or even a family. It just so happens that they are taking part in an "unorthodox" profession. And what's the harm of having them? Are they really harming society in the fact that they simply exist? I feel as if one of the main reasons people dislike prostitutes is that they encourage the degrading and objectification of women. However, I don't agree with this since it is not done without consent. It's not as if this is sexual assault done against the woman's will. Another argument is that the prostitutes themselves are being mistreated and are being exploited for their bodies. Although there are some instances where they are being forced by a pimp to continue their work, it is either because they have no other option to sustain themselves or in Morrison's words "looked back on their own youth as a period of ignorance, and regretted that they had not made more of it." In life, there are many paths and choices to make. Prostitutes have simply made poor life choices and should not be a subject of sympathy. This being said, I am not saying that they should be discriminated against, but merely left to their own spiritual demise.

What's appropriate?

An even bigger controversy than whether race is socially constructed or not, schools across the world debate on the appropriateness of explicit and higher level text.

There lies two sides to this debate. The first is that children should not be exposed and would be harmed given that they are introduced to sketchy and controversial topics. On the contrary, the other opinion is that with the exposure to these subjects, kids are empowered with education to have a more realistic outlook on the world. In addition to this, the ability to deeply analyze carry on to all facets of life far beyond the classroom.

Personally, I believe that the cause of this problem in a nutshell is over sensitivity and fear. These two go hand in hand and cannon exist without the other. Over sensitivity stems from the fear that the reaction to such things would result in negative and damaging effects and vice versa. However, if the world was to realize that this was essential to the development of intellectual independence, things would change. I strive for the change of biased thought and societal influence on the way we perceive things. I realize that this is literally an impossible task given the fact that everything, even history, has sprinkles of bias since to recount something such as history must come with bias. However, the less filter that the government has on our lives, the better.

On a less serious way of looking at it, I enjoy it when we read these kinds of books since they aren't the conventional story books that we would read in middle school. In fact, I look forward to these kinds of classes in that I know that they will push the boundaries of what's socially right and wrong. I respect Valentino in that she challenges the status quo and would give us a book such as The Bluest Eye. Nobel prize winning authors shouldn't be judged based on against lines such as "young girls in whores' clothing," but rather their themes and messages.

I'm a Barbie Girl, in a Barbie World

Once upon a time, as soon as humans were around, the patriarchy was what ruled the land; unfortunately, traces of that society still linger and affect everyone today. Faster than ever, feminism is on a roll to seeking gender equality between men and women. From the already achieved voting rights to the aspired equal pay, women are uniting in a movement comparable to the Civil Rights Movement.

 Emily Prager, through the use of argumentative rhetorical questions, questions the integrity of the iconic Barbie Doll in its use of promoting a man-dominated world. Remarking on a man's design of an unrealistic depiction of an ideal woman, she draws a contrast between her obvious sexual features and the lack of such on Ken. While Barbie has "something indescribably masculine about her-dare I say it, phallic," Ken is missing something: his Jesus given pink elephant.

She suggests that there's a prejudice against women in that they can be viewed as sexual objects but men cannot. This can be seen everywhere. Female models that surround male artists on music videos and frequent sexual assault are just a few examples.

Going back to the topic of the features of an "ideal woman," she says that it wasn't surprising that the designer of Barbie was a man. I believe that she says this because if it were in the eyes of a woman, the characteristics would have humility and realism. However, since it was designed by a man, the features were only created in the mind of a primitive man. This creates a window into today's world in that men are stereo typically shallowness in that they only appreciate women for their looks.

Prager takes the specific example of Barbie in order to let people realize the realities of the patriarchal world they live in because no one should have to live unequally due to the way they were born.

Is Race Biological or Conceptual?

As Ms.Valentino assigned us the prompt "Is race a socially constructed concept?", little did she know that it would spark out class debates about the topic. *cough cough Elise* The main argument was over whether race was social or biological.
It is globally recognized that race itself, as a strictly scientific and anatomical concept, is irrefutably biological. "Most anthropologists recognize that there are four major classifications in the world, which include caucasian, mongoloid or asian, negroid or black and australoid. The race classification was created by Carleston S. Coon in 1962. The four major races can then be further subdivided into 30 subgroups." Like gender, race is not something that you can just change or simply not identify to. For the example of gender, no matter what gender you "feel" you identify with, you cannot argue that you were born a certain way and can never change that fact. Race is something that you are categorized into no matter what nationality or country you live in. You fall under one of the main race groups or a mix of several.  Another example is how we differentiate animals that come from a common ancestor as separate species after evolution has taken them to different paths. Although humans aren't as extreme, it's comparable. There was a rebuttal for the fact that there is no gene or physical characteristics such as skin pigmentation that can determine what you are. That is false. In an article published by TIME , "A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis" is simply wrong due to the "decoding of the human genome." Because of this, "a growing wealth of data has made clear that" this conception is "simply incorrect" and that there is "indeed a biological basis for race." Due to the fact that you can look into the genome and find particular proteins that correlate to different races, one cannot argue that race is subjective.
And this makes sense right?  Tens of Thousands of years ago after the great migrations from Africa such as the Indo-European migrations, the Bantu migrations, the Polynesian migrations, and even the ones that brought people to the Americas from Alaska, you'd expect evolution over thousands of years from their surroundings that would result in physical diversification such as skin pigmentation and average height. You cannot tell me that these two people are the same physically and genetically and that they cannot be distinguished from these characteristics let alone if a genome test was done on them.



I am not denying, however, that the racism and discrimination that happens in society is socially constructed. As you'd expect if you were separated for tens of thousands of years, the people that you were with would likely create its own culture and customs. These, I believe, are the roots of the reason that racial groups are viewed as different than others. The social stigmas and stereotypes that come with each race are a direct result of their culture and behavior are the reasons why different ethnic and racial groups distance themselves from others. The rapid globalization of our planet and intermixing of cultures would have the expected effects of fear, racism, and discrimination. This aspect of the argument, I believe, is indeed socially constructed. There is a choice, whether or not we oppress or segregate people based off of their race, but it is not a choice whether or not we are a certain race.
In conclusion, race is not socially constructed, but racism is. I think the main problem with this debate is over the meaning of the term socially constructed. Whether it means that it was first identified by humans (which would actually make everything socially constructed) such as the difference between a tree and a potato or that the concept itself was manufactured by humans such as the difference between normal people and gangsters shapes our opinions. Is color socially constructed if we categorized them? Is math socially constructed because we labeled the different kinds and its laws?  There was nothing to predate human language to be able to classify these things. If you say that something is socially conceptual, such as how race is since we had to give names to these races, because humans had to give a name to them, then everything is socially conceptual. There was nothing before these terms and language such that humans could telepathically send chemical messages to one another. I've concluded that the root of these debates is either the difference in the interpretation of the term socially constructed, or the inaccuracy of the question itself. If your opinion still falls opposite to mine, I'll leave you with a question. What's not socially constructed?

Human Nature Explained Through Maus

   In order for Maus to portray the gruesome realities the Holocaust, he not only employs the illustrations but also the content in order to quake the hearts of the readers. One key ingredient in his recipe for complete awe is to show the effects and transformations the Holocaust has on its victims such as grief, guilt, and survival.
   It is no surprise that when humans are brought to their absolute survival limits, their characters will drastically change to their primitive instinct - to survive. This is evident throughout Maus and is hinted at early in the prologue when Art's father tells him “Friends? Your friends? If you lock them together in a room with no food for a week…Then you could see what it is, friends! …” He says this due to the fact that familial and friendship bonds were constantly being tested and broken throughout Maus. One recurring moment is when fellow Jews would join the side of the Germans in tormenting and exterminating their own kind in exchange for the chance to make it through the war. There is no reason to blame them, however, because wouldn't we all do the same in the end? If you were to choose your and your family's lives over some strangers you haven't even met, isn't the choice obvious? This hardwired selfishness as mentioned in This is Water is ever prevalent. This is a trait that even becomes embedded into Vladek during and long after the war. His inherent instinct to be stingy can be seen when he only offers snow to the dying train riders in exchange for goods and when he exchanges partially eaten food at the grocery store. This is to represent that these qualities can infect even the best of people, even the protagonists. This eventually leads to another trait of human nature that is seen - grief and guilt. Grief and guilt are very common side effects of trauma such as the Holocaust or the suicide of Art's mother. In both cases, it has left people in tatters over the past. Art's constant struggle with the guilt of not being able to experience the Holocaust with his parents nags at him and his even the cause of his obsession with the Holocaust in the first place. Along with that, the grief and guilt he feels as represented in "Hell on Planet Earth" shows his blaming of self due to his mother's suicide. Art Spiegelman is trying to demonstrate these traits to a large audience to let them have a better understanding of the feelings that surround the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Was Foot Binding Oppression?

   Sparked by the second chapter "White Tigers" from "The Woman Warrior," a foot binding controversy arose between William and the rest of the class about the patriarchal oppression of foot binding in China. Having a great-grandma who was actually foot-bound, previous curiosity on this topic, and sticking to the theme of expanding upon small topics in class, I'm writing this today.

   From the line "Even now China wraps double binds around my feet," Kingston suggests that even though times have progressed in terms of feminism, she still feels the patriarchal effects of society relative to the ages of foot binding in China. I'm going to have to agree with the majority of the class and say that even though William's point of foot binding being a sign of prosperity through the signification of economical stability from the male, it comes with many other reasons of being.

Sign of Prosperity

   Going back to where we left off in the previous paragraph, the status of well-being was initially stimulated by the desire of males to somewhat "show off" to others, it's still without a doubt a forced action by mothers and families upon their daughters. The ability to show other people that you could feed "useless mouths" was a sign that you had more money and food than needed. 

Sex

   One of the most overlooked reasons of foot binding was the desire of men for women who were foot bound. Although that cultural reasons was the main cause of foot binding, it was explicitly sexual. This comes down to the reason that mutilated feet resulted in tighter thigh and pelvic muscles which men I assume desired more than anything. It was because of this patriarchal standard that mothers would force the practice onto their children despite the pain given the chance that their daughters could be taken away by a wealthy man. Unfortunately, this lasted for centuries and was even continued after its ban in 1911 because of the innate desires of men. Just because it was banned, it didn't mean that the desirable effects of foot binding went away. This is solid proof that it wasn't a cultural but societal problem.

   In conclusion, foot binding is purely a result of patriarchal oppression because of the values that men put onto the practice. There was in no way a choice for the person who was being foot bound. I couldn't imagine someone saying "Yes, please break the bones in my feet and bandage them together so that they're permanently disfigured and crippled for life." So although William made the correct point that it was a positive sign, it was invalid in its attempt to validate the moral and ethical values of the practice. Due to the fact that I don't want everyone to be completely grossed out, I won't post a picture on the blog. You're Welcome.