Paris Hilton and Carl's Jr.

Originally it's that's hot. But in reality.....

Competing Narratives!

http://www.debatingtheholocaust.com/introduction

This cite speaks of and shows the two sides of The Holocaust. Differing from the dead Jews, and historical evidence, to the small group who refuse that it had happened and provide their side. The traditionalists believe that the Holocaust occurred, but the revisionists present counter-evidence against the claim. The Iranian President called a Holocaust conference in 2006 to research its scientific and technical backing, and more people now than ever think that the traditional story is false. It says that the traditional view is held mainly by Jews who suffered and who wrote about it with a self-interest. While the revisionists are mainly Germans or anti-Jews, so neither side is unbiased. This leaves the public with no un-slanted view of the story in which to infer truth from. The author finds it important to have an unbiased view on history, and to find out the truth, for it is a part of our history and we cannot repeat it, so we must know the truth of the matter. And school children across the nation learn about the Holocaust and read books like The Diary of Anne Frank or watch movies like Schindler's List, and are so tainted with the traditional view, without knowing either side to be true or false, and just assuming that the revisionist's opinion is incorrect, or not even knowing there is a group denying such claims as the Holocaust. This disaster is being used for money, by writing books and creating movies, and it is also causing strife in the Middle East; Israel, in which we donate billions of dollars to, is made up of Jews, and if we are to have a conflict with Iran it can easily stem from our view as a nation of the Holocaust. There is also the thought that if we can be misled by something as large as the Holocaust, what else could have misled us? Wars, deaths, anything.

Oh You Cats and You Cradle.

Well, if we look at Postmodernism we notice that, aside from it being a rejection of modernism, it is also a sort of progression, towards efficiency and a form of perfected imperfection. Cat's Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut, can be viewed as a postmodernist novel. When we look at religion, and truth, as a whole, it becomes clear that "Nothing in this book is true". Vonnegut creates a religion within his novel, it is called Bokononism and it is centered around how the perspective of the Earth as we know it is the truth that is lies. An idea presented in the Books of Bokonon is "Live by the foma (lies) that make you brave and kind and healthy and happy". In our society, lets assume for a second that it is based around Christianity, then we as a people base our lives on the truth that Jesus is the Son of Gos, and that He gave His life for our salvation. We believe that as a truth. But as for Bokonon, he emphasizes that life itself is our truth and nothing else can be considered one truly. So if we consider a modern view to be one like most Europeans see when they centered their whole societies around Christianity and all of their morals as well. But if Bokononism is postmodernist, then it would be the opposite, in which there is almost no center, and that which there is emphasizes opposite morals, like boko-maru, where there is promiscuity with others, like Mona and the pilot while she was engaged to Frank. Or the fact that the religion is supposed to be looked at as a lie, while Christianity is nothing but truth. So, since the novel is greatly built around Bokononism,  we can easily see the novel as pertaining to a postmodernist view.

Oh Oh! Brave New...

In this next essay on Brave New World I want to argue how the government's control of the people was not as idealistic as the people were conditioned to believe. Find a way to prove that life would be better without the soma holidays, the ability to get everything you want, and the distracting activities like Feelies and Obstacle Golf. One thing i could do is bring in Neil Postman's "Technopoly" to help characterize the way the government conditions their 'subjects' produce as efficiently as machines, as if they were machines! As well as consume goods left and write. They were even trained to think that you should buy new clothes before you stitch or hem up old ones. This piece of writing might be an effective way to describe the unbelievable efficiency of the society.
Another way to analyze the novel would be to bring in The Tempest which has a major connection to this book. In doing this you could connect parallel, or corresponding, characters from both writings, and analyze why Aldous made the ties so strong. Like the one between Jon and Miranda maybe... What would be the point of that? It could be to emphasize the characterization of Jon as pure and innocent and very close-minded and hidden from outside experiences. Or to make Bernard seem like Prospero? And watch all of his maniacal happenings, theories, and plans. Like getting Jon to go to London so the DHC can meet his son! Because the DHC wanted to remove Bernard to Iceland, an island! Just like Antonio did with Prospero, in tricking him out of the land. But the strange part is the anti-parallelism between Ferdinand and Lenina. But could that be to highlight the differences in the times, because in a way, they both represent the people of their time. Lenina being the promiscuous woman of After Ford. and Ferdinand being the healthily religious man of marriage. But how do these tie into the analysis of the novel. That iw what we need to find out...???

I Take A Gramme!

In this video the creator's ideas of education were quite similar to ideas expressed in A Brave New World. He noticed that our educational system resembles manufacturing plants. Where the students are grouped, determined by ages, instead of skills. So we are supplied to the economy in spurts, all similar ages, and then we do what we will to earn money and find happiness. This is much like the novel we are reading now. All of the 'children' are literally created, and their lives are planned before they even speak. The thoughts in their heads are also pre-determined for the most part. They are classically conditioned to believe certain things, and it is to such a large degree that they repeat them and use them as conversation. All of the repeated phrases while they were sleeping were ingrained into the brains of all the people, and would leak out when they were supposed to. For example; they were 'raised' not to think of the future or past. " 'Was and will make me ill,' she quoted, 'I take a gramme and only am' " (Page 104). Which is almost the opposite of our society today. We are supposed to look at our past and learn by our mistakes, obviously focus on the present and be concerned with out own happenings and those of others, as well as focused on our current wok. And then, almost most importantly in most situations is our grasp of the future, and our hopes and goals. We always work hoping that it benefits us later. Leading to success. But in the novel the people are not given that opportunity because they are born into classes without fluidity between them. But I guess you are content with what you have, which makes it so change isnt desired. But deep down it is, they are just conditioned to feel lucky to be in their conditions. Hm.

All Men are Created....Ford Knows What

If we place this quote first, we can refer back to it as it is analyzed. "Wheels must turn steadily, but can not turn untended. There must be men to tend them, men as sturdy as the wheels upon their axles, sane men, obedient men, stable in contentment."

So, although machinery can be very efficient and reliable, it can never be, in the end, self-sufficient. There must always be man; those who create said robotics, and those who care for and work them. But for the mechanics (yes, I am trying my best to think of alternate words for machinery) to work to their full capacity, mustn't the man working it be as reliable and efficient? I do believe so. And for this to be true they must be created, formed, constructed to do so. Sane, obedient, and stable.

This not only 'encapsulates' the system that guides the society, it is nothing but. The society relies on levels of competence, but all are content, and all must be effective at their jobs for the society to continue running. All men are created, but not equally in the sense of opportunity, maybe in happiness, although I guess they have no choice or liberty as to how they feel. So they are not free or equal. Just created.
Monogamy: " A little boy of about seven and a little girl who might have been a year older, were playing,..., a rudimentary sexual game" (31). The children are raised in Centres, not by parents. And in this way, the society was able to shape every psychological thing about them and have them do and learn whatever was the norm. And to thwart the children's idea of one-person relationships they are promoted to exercise promiscuity from a young age, which will deter their singular attractions and commitments.
Family: "What suffocating intimacies, what dangerous, insane, obscene relationships between the members of the family group!" (37). They are again brainwashed from birth to believe that families are nothing but nuisances and unhealthy additions to a daily life. What is a mother? An annoyance. Nothing more. So they do not need parents, and with that, what use is a sibling? Someone can be related to up tp, ninety-five other people, and not have a 'sibling'. They have no emotional connections to others, this furthers the promiscuity, by depleting the peoples' need for love and meaningful relationships.
And as for impulses, desires, and feelings; Impulses are acted upon! That also goes back to promiscuity, they can act on their attractions for anyone. It is encouraged to do so! But other impulses, like loving one person, they cannot. Feelings are quite real, in comparison to 1984. There is anger, sadness, embarrassment, the whole works, but they are pre-conditioned to act a certain way, so these arent really emotions anymore, more so than social standars. How to act and when to act. It is a process of control. Control of everything so that society can run. The usual..

Looking Both Ways Before Crossing Your Opinions!

In discussions of The Tempest there has been a major controversy over whether or not imperialism and colonialism are condemned or exalted. And whether Shakespeare meant for that to be so. On one hand Aime Cesaire argues in his rewrite of The Tempest as A Tempest that Shakespeare was trying to make a jab at imperialism. In his rewriting of the play Cesaire adds a comedic touch to the whole situation and emphasizes the captivity of both Ariel and Caliban. In his version the dialogue between Caliban and Prospero is much less serious as Caliban feels comfortable enough to provide come backs and insults towards Prospero after almost every comment and order. Without the influence of magic. And Ariel seems much more reluctant to work for Prospero and even conspires with Caliban to get their freedom. Both Caliban and Ariel are much more passionate about their freedom, and it shows how actual slaves may act instead of 'people' or spirits under a magical spell, for the magic is less noticeable in this version of the play. Cesaire plays up the desire for freedom, the reluctance to follow orders, and the plotting against Prospero to highlight all of the faults of imperialism. He also gives the enslaved characters much stronger personalities, helping the audience side with them easily and root for freedom instead of colonialism. On the other hand, in "The Figuration of Caliban In The Constellation of Postcolonial Theory", a thesis submitted by the graduate faculty of the Louisiana State University, all sides are argued, but very persuasively was one in particular. A quote from Baker and Hulme who contend "Caliban’s clownish conspiracy and repentance cannot help but reinforce a colonial discourse. Besides, there is no evidence in the play indicating that Prospero deliberately incites Caliban’s rebellion. Caliban’s sensibility, appearance and actions inevitably work within the limits of a European ethnocentric paradigm of the Other" (Page 17). Ethnocentrism is the tendency to believe that one's ethnic or cultural group is centrally important, and that all other groups are measured in relation to one's own. And paradigm means concept. So this simply states that colonialism is praised in this text mainly because all of Caliban's actions, thoughts, and dialogue are almost meaningless in comparison to European actions, thoughts, and dialogues. His race, whatever it may be, is looked down upon simply because it is not European, and in Baker and Hulme's opinions, Shakespeare was advocating imperialism.
From reading and understanding both positions we can come to understand, that although we will never know which one for sure Shakespeare was going for, because he is not here to tell us, there is one that makes more sense in its context. Although it is very nice to assume that he was arguing against colonialism, in his day and age imperialism was the rage. Elizabeth I was just starting to search for new worlds and the majority view was that "The Others" were below Europeans, in every way. So from Baker and Hulme's interpretation of The Tempest and from social context from that era, we can only assume that Shakespeare was promoting imperialism.