What about this painting indicates Communism?
I think the artist was trying to use the red as one indicator, as red is associated with communism. Most of the colors in this painting are black, white or gray, the neutral colors, and there are patches of red within the painting. It is also very drab and drear, which I think is one way many people see what life under communism is like.
What if the artist's view of communism?
Not favorable at all. The artist sees communism as a drab world, where the only thing you have to do it to be watched. The scenery is depressing, while the only to colorful things are red and blue: the red (a symbol of communism_ is on the cracking wall that is falling apart, while there is blue in the iris of the floating eyes which are watching the single person walking down the street.
Explain the title.
The artist feels like this is the perfect world for sommunists: a dreary world where everyone is watched, constantly, and everything is non-colorful. This is, in effect, the idea that this is the world that communists would want.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
"Don't You Want Me?" by The Human League
What is the subject matter?
It's about a breakup after a very long relationship, as can be told when the woman says "[she] think[s] it's time [she] lived on her own." The man believes she owes him a bunch, while the woman feels like she does not owe him anything.
What is the difference in the two sides of the story?
The man feels as though he helped the woman out, and that he is the only reason why she is no longer just a waitress at a cocktail bar. The woman says that the only thing he said that was true was that she was working as a cocktail waitress, but she managed o get where she is on her own, and how it is time for her to move on, even though she still loves him.
With who do you side with and why?
I side with the woman, because the man sounds like he is controlled and she just wants to get away from him for a while. I feel like he is too controlling, or that he sounds like he is taking credit for what the woman has managed to accomplish over time.
It's about a breakup after a very long relationship, as can be told when the woman says "[she] think[s] it's time [she] lived on her own." The man believes she owes him a bunch, while the woman feels like she does not owe him anything.
What is the difference in the two sides of the story?
The man feels as though he helped the woman out, and that he is the only reason why she is no longer just a waitress at a cocktail bar. The woman says that the only thing he said that was true was that she was working as a cocktail waitress, but she managed o get where she is on her own, and how it is time for her to move on, even though she still loves him.
With who do you side with and why?
I side with the woman, because the man sounds like he is controlled and she just wants to get away from him for a while. I feel like he is too controlling, or that he sounds like he is taking credit for what the woman has managed to accomplish over time.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Why does this society appear to be more lenient with those who question its rule?
Through the use of hypnopaedia and conditioning, the people in this society are less likely to become affected by the radical thoughts of one person. When Bernard writes to Mustapha Mond about John, including a part in which he states that he "agree[s] with the Savage in finding civilized infantility too easy", Mond, World Controller for Western Europe and therefore a very powerful person in that part of the world, merely thinks that he should "give him a lesson" (165). Rather than take him away and completely reeducate him, Mond feels as though he should respond in this way because Bernard was lecturing him about the way the world he controlled worked. Another authority figure, the Arch-Community-Songster of Canterbury, merely warns him to change his ways.
Why is it that the protagonist in this story, who does not see eye to eye with this social system, is portrayed mostly as a grumpy and rude individual?
The very reason why Bernard does not agree with the system is because he has been an outsider since birth because of the birth defect which caused him to be the size of a Gamma. Bernard doesn't agree with the system mostly because he knows, as an outsider who cannot find happiness as such an outsider, and therefore cannot fit in with the pleasure seeking nature of this society. Because of these differences, he has grown to be grumpy, yelling at Deltas in the "sharp, rather arrogant and even offensive tone of one who does not feel too secure in his superiority." (76) Bernard has grown up having to fight for his position, which none of the others are shown to have any difficulties with.
Why does Helmholtz laugh at the idea of a girl having so many issues over what man she should have when he is shown to be much brighter than those around him?
While Helmholtz is shown to be much smarter than those around him, and more likely to question the rules of the society, the fact is that he is still trapped in by his conditioning. Bernard manages to get away with it in that he is very aware of his conditioning, since his job is that of the psychologist at the Hatchery. Conditioning of this society has taught those who live in it that "everyone belongs to everyone" no matter who it is. Therefore, the very concept of Romeo and Juliet, that a woman would have issues with what man to have, seems very very silly to him. Actually, Helmholtz believes that Shakespeare is a "marvelous propaganda technician" and doesn't even realize that the situation is to be taken seriously. He takes the entire idea to be a joke, as his conditioning does not allow him to realize the drama of the situation.
Through the use of hypnopaedia and conditioning, the people in this society are less likely to become affected by the radical thoughts of one person. When Bernard writes to Mustapha Mond about John, including a part in which he states that he "agree[s] with the Savage in finding civilized infantility too easy", Mond, World Controller for Western Europe and therefore a very powerful person in that part of the world, merely thinks that he should "give him a lesson" (165). Rather than take him away and completely reeducate him, Mond feels as though he should respond in this way because Bernard was lecturing him about the way the world he controlled worked. Another authority figure, the Arch-Community-Songster of Canterbury, merely warns him to change his ways.
Why is it that the protagonist in this story, who does not see eye to eye with this social system, is portrayed mostly as a grumpy and rude individual?
The very reason why Bernard does not agree with the system is because he has been an outsider since birth because of the birth defect which caused him to be the size of a Gamma. Bernard doesn't agree with the system mostly because he knows, as an outsider who cannot find happiness as such an outsider, and therefore cannot fit in with the pleasure seeking nature of this society. Because of these differences, he has grown to be grumpy, yelling at Deltas in the "sharp, rather arrogant and even offensive tone of one who does not feel too secure in his superiority." (76) Bernard has grown up having to fight for his position, which none of the others are shown to have any difficulties with.
Why does Helmholtz laugh at the idea of a girl having so many issues over what man she should have when he is shown to be much brighter than those around him?
While Helmholtz is shown to be much smarter than those around him, and more likely to question the rules of the society, the fact is that he is still trapped in by his conditioning. Bernard manages to get away with it in that he is very aware of his conditioning, since his job is that of the psychologist at the Hatchery. Conditioning of this society has taught those who live in it that "everyone belongs to everyone" no matter who it is. Therefore, the very concept of Romeo and Juliet, that a woman would have issues with what man to have, seems very very silly to him. Actually, Helmholtz believes that Shakespeare is a "marvelous propaganda technician" and doesn't even realize that the situation is to be taken seriously. He takes the entire idea to be a joke, as his conditioning does not allow him to realize the drama of the situation.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Brave New World: First Reading Response
The world of Brave New World is based around a strict conformity system with the Alphas, Betas, Gammas, etc, and each person is not only born into their caste, but conditioned to want to be whatever caste they are. They are made to want to be their caste, and to not want to talk to those of other castes. The system is color coded, as well, so that everyone of the same level wears the same color all the time, which is one way to make sure everyone is conforming. While the entire system is inherently not equal, it is evened out by the fact that none of them appear to want to be a different caste system.
There are essentially no individuals in this society, pretty much the perfect collectivist society in itself. While in words, there is no such thing as religion, there definitely is, even though they may not want to refer to it as a religion. They worship Ford as a god, and even have meetings reminiscent of going to church in which they "become one" in waiting for the great coming. This, however, helps them become more united, as this "church" is state enforced, and anyone who shows difference would likely get into more trouble than they'd want. The entire act of becoming one helps to reinforce that idea. Another way in which this society rids itself of conflict is by making "everyone belong to everyone else." This means that, essentially, everyone is polygamous and will have relations with pretty much anything of the opposite gender, and are looked down upon as dirty if they do not "date" or "belong" to multiple people at once. Feelings are looked upon as dirty as well ("When the individual feels, the community reels" (103)) as that could cause conflict, and instead commitment and feelings for another are discouraged.
Personally, I feel like this is a dystopia, though I can see how the majority within the book can be happy (hypnopaeda tells them they are, at least.) The fact that everyone is made, at birth, to fit a certain job, and conditioning people so that they fit into a certain role all their life in not looked upon as bad. Babies are electrocuted in a conditioning system to make sure that they will not like books or flowers. And, important for me at least, is the fact that feelings are discouraged, and signs of distress equals someone pushing soma into your face. This makes me feel as though this is a dystopia, a place where one cannot feel for someone or be in a loving relationship with someone else. When things get tough in this society, the tough take soma and have fun in happy rainbow land.
There are essentially no individuals in this society, pretty much the perfect collectivist society in itself. While in words, there is no such thing as religion, there definitely is, even though they may not want to refer to it as a religion. They worship Ford as a god, and even have meetings reminiscent of going to church in which they "become one" in waiting for the great coming. This, however, helps them become more united, as this "church" is state enforced, and anyone who shows difference would likely get into more trouble than they'd want. The entire act of becoming one helps to reinforce that idea. Another way in which this society rids itself of conflict is by making "everyone belong to everyone else." This means that, essentially, everyone is polygamous and will have relations with pretty much anything of the opposite gender, and are looked down upon as dirty if they do not "date" or "belong" to multiple people at once. Feelings are looked upon as dirty as well ("When the individual feels, the community reels" (103)) as that could cause conflict, and instead commitment and feelings for another are discouraged.
Personally, I feel like this is a dystopia, though I can see how the majority within the book can be happy (hypnopaeda tells them they are, at least.) The fact that everyone is made, at birth, to fit a certain job, and conditioning people so that they fit into a certain role all their life in not looked upon as bad. Babies are electrocuted in a conditioning system to make sure that they will not like books or flowers. And, important for me at least, is the fact that feelings are discouraged, and signs of distress equals someone pushing soma into your face. This makes me feel as though this is a dystopia, a place where one cannot feel for someone or be in a loving relationship with someone else. When things get tough in this society, the tough take soma and have fun in happy rainbow land.
Emic and Etic Perspectives
What are the benefits of each perspective? Is one perspective better than the other? Explain.
The best way is to look at it through both perspectives. That way you see it through multiple points of view. If you look at it specifically from one point of view, then you won't be able to have the learning of both points of view. If you look at it from their point of view, you learn what their culture is like, while if you look at it from the outside you can figure out why it is like that.
Write a brief explanation for why each of these rules exist.
1. There is no way to be completely objective, and the best way is to acknowledge your bias. That was, someone will know when you are being biased and will be able to analyze why you are biased in that way.
2. If you attempt to study them from the point of view you would be coming from, then you will never be able to figure out why the people act the way they do from their perspective.
3. That way they will know what you are expecting and looking for, and they will help you out rather than not knowing.
The best way is to look at it through both perspectives. That way you see it through multiple points of view. If you look at it specifically from one point of view, then you won't be able to have the learning of both points of view. If you look at it from their point of view, you learn what their culture is like, while if you look at it from the outside you can figure out why it is like that.
Write a brief explanation for why each of these rules exist.
1. There is no way to be completely objective, and the best way is to acknowledge your bias. That was, someone will know when you are being biased and will be able to analyze why you are biased in that way.
2. If you attempt to study them from the point of view you would be coming from, then you will never be able to figure out why the people act the way they do from their perspective.
3. That way they will know what you are expecting and looking for, and they will help you out rather than not knowing.
"Rain on the Scarecrow" by John Mellencamp
What is the song about? Summarize.
The singer's character is talking about how his family lost his farm because they didn't grow enough crops to pay the loans.
What are some conflicts this song might address?
Farmer vs Society- The singer's family cannot pay the loan, which is something society asks of him.
Make a claim about Mellencamp's use of imagery/symbolism.
Mellencamp's imagery about his grandmother represents his cultural background.
Make a claim about Mellencamp's word choice.
Mellencamp uses words with negative connotations to convey his sense of loss at losing the farm.
If this represents Mellencamp's opinion, who does he seem to favor?
Mellencamp favors the farmer, because it's from his point of view and portrays the society as bad for taking his farm away.
The singer's character is talking about how his family lost his farm because they didn't grow enough crops to pay the loans.
What are some conflicts this song might address?
Farmer vs Society- The singer's family cannot pay the loan, which is something society asks of him.
Make a claim about Mellencamp's use of imagery/symbolism.
Mellencamp's imagery about his grandmother represents his cultural background.
Make a claim about Mellencamp's word choice.
Mellencamp uses words with negative connotations to convey his sense of loss at losing the farm.
If this represents Mellencamp's opinion, who does he seem to favor?
Mellencamp favors the farmer, because it's from his point of view and portrays the society as bad for taking his farm away.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Reading Response
1. The west views the east as a center of the bad traits they wish to not acknowledge for themselves, like cruelty, sensuality, decadence, etc. At the same time, the east is also seen as exotic, mystical and seductive.
2. The west sees the east as one stereotype, as a whole, instead of as individuals. This is how individuals can be viewed homogeneously.
3. Their emotions and reactions are always determined by racial stereotypes and by instinctive emotions (lust, terror, fury, etc) which in effect almost turns them into an interesting breed of monkey.
4. This view of the east means that the west had no problem taking their lang and ruling them. If they are animals, then why should one worry about taking their rights away? Creating a common enemy gives them something to agree about in the case that nobody can agree with something else. In other words, it unites them.
5. This view may not be common in the popular culture when thinking about modern day, but if people think about what went of back in time, at the time this view persisted, then, even now,
we might think of them as backwards.
-Juxtaposition shows the differences between things, or similarities, by showing them near or around each other.
2. The west sees the east as one stereotype, as a whole, instead of as individuals. This is how individuals can be viewed homogeneously.
3. Their emotions and reactions are always determined by racial stereotypes and by instinctive emotions (lust, terror, fury, etc) which in effect almost turns them into an interesting breed of monkey.
4. This view of the east means that the west had no problem taking their lang and ruling them. If they are animals, then why should one worry about taking their rights away? Creating a common enemy gives them something to agree about in the case that nobody can agree with something else. In other words, it unites them.
5. This view may not be common in the popular culture when thinking about modern day, but if people think about what went of back in time, at the time this view persisted, then, even now,
we might think of them as backwards.
-Juxtaposition shows the differences between things, or similarities, by showing them near or around each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)