Greenblatt & Will.

After reading both of the arguments made in each essay, I can see truths to both sides of the story. The argument being made by George Will is that all works of literature (i.e. The Tempest by William Shakespeare) have a political interpretation of some kind. On the other side of the argument, Stephen Greenblatt says that writing includes a message other than it's literal interpretation, such as religion or . He believes that the world is saturated with the beliefs that all works of writing have unnecessary political ties. Will states, "The MLA, composed mostly of professors of literature and languages, is shocked-- shocked! -- that people suspect it of political motives." Greenblatt argues, "these preoccupation with political power were not at all unfamiliar to Shakespeare and his audience, and that recognizing the presence of issues of colonialism and slavery in Shakespeare should deepen the ordinary reader's pleasure rather than undermine it."
I really don't think I could pick a side with either of the arguments because honestly, they both have their truths. However, with that being said, I think works of writing are often over-analyzed and are read too far out of context. I really don't think EVERY writer sits down and decides they want their writing to have some out of the blue meaning that isn't expected in the text. I can see their arguments in their own way, because I do think most writings can have a deeper interpretation, but not all writing has either political or religious ties.
I also don't believe with the claim that all writing should be interpreted one way. I believe writing was meant to have multiple interpretations, and that a reader should decide what they take away from a work of writing.

Colonialism & The Tempest

In the video you had us watch, "How Hollywood Shaped the Native Americans", we are shown how Hollywood manipulated and twisted the roles of Native Americans to have a negative connotation in the movie industry. It was portrayed that white were the minority in comparison to the Indians, and that they were "out for blood". White people were also shown as being super, and always won the fight against the Indians. Over 4,000 movies used this example of Native Americans, twisting our view of them. At the end of the video, the speaker's final note is that "A Nation who does not know its history has no future." This is a powerful ending statement, showing that if we are ignorant of the things that happened in the past, it will be impossible for us to move on to the future. I think this creates a parallel with Caliban, because Prospero took over the island right when he arrived. He then made Caliban believe that he saved his life, and manipulated him into thinking what he wanted him to. Caliban thinks that the island is rightfully his, and while he is a slave, he still talks back to Prospero. 

In the midst of the article "Cultural Studies: Postcolonialism, African-American Criticism, and Queer Theory", they define the philosophical concept called "alternity as "the others" are excluded from positions of power and viewed as different and inferior". Prospero does this to Caliban in several instances. Prospero manipulates Caliban into being a slave, and treats him as though he is nothing. Although Caliban knows Prospero is not the rightful owner of the island, he had to obey his commands. Prospero treats the people of the island like they are not worthy, and uses them as his slaves. I do think Shakespeare is sympathetic of Caliban, because he presents him in a somewhat positive light. He is bitter towards Prospero, but for good reason.

The Tempest Act I

Prompt: How is Prospero able to control other characters through his use of rhetoric? In other words, how does Prospero manipulate those around him by constructing historical narratives? Think about the way he composes particular versions of the past when speaking to Caliban, Miranda, and Ariel. How do these narratives allow him to maintain power over these individuals?

In Shakespeare's The Tempest,  Prospero is able to control the other characters in the story. He comes up with a completely different and false view of the past. He tells Miranda: "Your mother was extremely virtuous, and she said you were my daughter. And your father was Duke of Milan, and you were his heir, a Princess." Miranda did not know about her past, so Prospero filled her head with lies. Since she knows no better, Prospero is able to manipulate her into thinking anything he pleases. Prospero says "To make his political performance absolutely perfect, he [Antonio] simply had to become the Duke of Milan himself...He's so power-hungry that he allies himself with the King of Naples..." None of this information was correct, but he was able to manipulate Miranda into thinking what he wanted regardless.

Prospero also manipulates the minds of his slave, Ariel. She asks Prospero for freedom, and he responds by acting like her request was impossible and unfair. He manipulates her by saying, "Have you forgotten the torture I freed you from?.... You have forgotten, and you think it's a burden when I ask you to walk through the ocean, or run on the north wind..." He guilt trips her into thinking what she asks is preposterous.

Prospero manipulates the past into lies to make himself look better, altering the history of what happened. This connects to 1984 and the article we read in a sense because he is changing the past to "better" the future, even if it does no one benefit but himself.

He maintains power over the characters in the play by treating them like his puppets. Because he made up the past they all now believe, he can make them do whatever he pleases. Again this connects to 1984 in a huge sense. Big Brother was able to control and manipulate the people of Oceania into thinking whatever "he" so pleased.

Word count: 319

Socratic Circle Reflection

Option #2: Reflect on the conversations that took place in this week's socratic circle.

There really may be no true way to solve the "textbook issue" being debated. However, the way Texas is going about their proposed curriculum change is unfair and unethical. You cannot take important political figures out of history to fit the kind of curriculum you would like to see fit. Trying to take out Thomas Jefferson from history is absolutely ridiculous, as he played a vital role in the history of America. A standardized curriculum needs to be set for all of the United States.

To create an objective textbook would be a challenge in itself, but it is not just about that. The delivery of the history from the teacher is also another problem. It does matter what you include in the book, because students will form their opinions based off of the information they've been given. It needs to be delivered objectively so the students are free to form their own views, instead of having a teacher's insight pressed upon them.

Minority voices should be included in history. While they may not be as important as important figures in history, they still played a role in the forming of our current day America. It makes a statement that we as Americans make sure to highlight not only the vital figures in history, but the minorities that affected it as well.

It may be possible to construct a more efficient method of studying history. However, the roles the teachers play impact the students more than the curriculum itself. The way they deliver the curriculum is biased towards their opinions, which could be changed by presenting points of view in history that look at different sides. History is meant to be discussed and debated, not read to you in a black and white manner.