Journal Assignment #2

June 30, 1998

"Moses Ascending" by Sam Selvon

RESPONSE

This novel was hysterical. I loved how Selvon used the English language-

his use of misquoted stock phrases, puns and accents were truly enjoyable.

Lines like "Well come and welcome" are heavily sprinkled throughout the

novel. I often found myself cringing at the vulgar language in the novel,

but can see its purpose at the same time (tone, characterization). Selvon

also contrasts Trindad English (Galahad's character) and standard English

by mixing it together in Moses' language. Moses mixes and switches

dialects readily throughout the book.

In connection with Selvon's language, Moses is writing his memoires

throughout the novel. It is not clear if the novel is supposed to be his

memoires. Moses writes about life all of the time, instead of living it,

which his black power friend tells him will be the biggest pitfall of his

book(criticism that he takes less than well). For example, when Moses has

the opportunity to witness a ceremonial sheep slaughtering, he choses to

interview the two participants and record the events instead of living the

moment. This reminds me of a proverb "The Western world spends their

whole lives getting ready to live." This is so true at times.

Selvon does tackle serious issues by parodying them- the Black Power

movement and social status. I found the reversal of Defoe's Crusoe and

man friday interesting. Moses, a black writer, has an illiterate white

servant named Bob. Moses divides his life so seperately from Bob's- he

even hides the good toilet paper from Bob, forcing him to use the cheap

uncomfortable kind. Moses goes from renting a basement suite to owning a

boarding house and living on the top floor (which he lovingly calls the

penthouse) in the first chapter of the novel. By the end of the book, he

has surrendered his penthouse to Bob and his wife, but vows to get it

back. This represents the cyclic nature of life I think- always trying to

get ahead in out world, but encoutnering obstacles. I also think it

symbolizes that the struggle will always exist for Moses.

This is also what makes the title of the novel ironic...Moses does not

ascend at the end of the novel- he literally, moves downstairs...descends.

Selvon also makes fun of London (where the story takes place) throughout

the novel. An example of this is when he learns that the sheep sacrafice

is to begin just before sunrise, he says it is impossible to have a

sunrise in London with all the smog.

Self Critique

I like the satire and humor and I think that was my main atrraction to the

novel. I think this stems from our Western need to be entertained. This

also relates to our class discussion of the Titanic- the block buster

movie is much more popular than a documentary- because it is more

entertaining- there is less fact and more imbellishments on what sells in

North America- love, betrayal, sex, famous actors and special effects.

Although I watched Titanic in the theater(and became emotionally involved

with the characters and tragedy), I was equally moved by seeing pictures

of the real ship and its passengers in the documentary. However, I also

realize that this is not the norm in our society. I can not watch the

news on tv or read the newspaper because it upsets me too much. Some

people say that I am too sensitive, and perhaps I am, but I think that it

is because I have not been de-sensitized to real tragedy and violence. I

really think that it is sad that many people can see real dead bodies on

tv or little baby coffins and not even have a twinge of emotion run

through their bodies. Similarly, I can become equally involved in a

non-fiction book because as soon as a topic becomes beyond my comfort

zone, I can't distance myself from it by telling myelf that it is only a

story...

What do I consider to be "Standard English"? After a lot of thought(as my

group is doing our assignment on language), my definition of standard

English would be the semantics and syntax found in North American and

British newspapers. I think that Selvon playing with the English language

illuminates the diversity of it. Because it is widely used, English

encompasses a variety of dialects that add to English as a whole.

I also think that Moses distances himself from his life prior to the time

of the novel by writing his memoires. Moses does not want anything to do

with his friends he had before he bought the boarding house as he sees

them as trouble makers. Also, he constantly refuses to support the Black

Power movement as he wants no part of it. By focussing on writing his

memoires in English, he reinforces that he no longer connects to his

heritage. Moses' actions also reinforces the individual perspective of

the Western world versus the collaboration of groups in other societies.

He wants to be known for his personal memoires, not for his articles

written in the Black Power movement's newsletter. This deeply concerns

his friends as they see it as betrayal.

The name Moses instantly made me relate him to the Christian bible. Which

is evidence that I live in the Western World- since I am not Christian

and have very limited knowledge of the bible, but I still connect him to

the biblical name. I have never encountered anyone else named Moses- so

maybe that is why. Selvon's Moses is far from the Christian ideal of love

and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Moses wants to

be ahead (AND above- literally) everyone else- he outright rejects his

friends by not letting them board in his house.

I can not relate to the notion of a man Friday. I can not even imagine

having a weekly housekeeper. I think it is sad that one of the signs of

wealth in our society is that someone else looks after your belongings and

welfare. (Bob runs the boarding house).

I notice that I am using the word sad alot. Is this because I find the

world depressing? This is even more ironic becuase I laughed throughout

this entire novel. Maybe the novel was a release for me- to be shown how

to see some quite tragic events in a comic light.

Cultural Critique

Where does the desire to record everything in writing come from? Is the

written word given too much importance in our society? The Western World

has diverted away from the oral traditions of the past (Greek and Native

mythologies instantly coem to mind). In a North American court, a witness

have to swear on the written word of the bible that he/she will speak the

truth. Many poets have written about becoming immortal through their

words. I feel more responsible for a message I post on the listserv than

when I speak in a regular classroom environment. There is a sense that a

piece of writing has more meaning, relevance. Perhaps this is why so many

people post gibberish on the world wide web- to expose their own written

word in hopes of being remembered for it.

Literature and the written word are important mediums for self

expression- but so are our vocal chords.

"Getting ahead in the world" is an interesting concept- the global race

for technology is immense. And the Western ideal that a person is only as

succesful as his/her assets is also powerful(again, this success is

individual based in Canada). How many people learn for the sake of

getting a high paying job and don't become life long learners? The media

contributes to the materialistic view of life as well. I wonder how

"Western" this infatutation with money is.

Journal #3

June 30, 1998

Response to Timothy Mo's "Sour Sweet"

Just as the title suggests, this novel is about balance. the balance of

yin and yang, self and family, money and happiness, and old and new

worlds. I will focus on balancing two worlds as this seems the most

relevant to the course. The characters all react to their new home in

Britain differently. Mui accepts the new surroundings quite rapidly.

Chen is bound to traditional Chinese ways through his connection to the

tradtional Chinese triad. Mo shows how both of these approaches are

dangerous as Chen is murdered and Mui ends up having an illegitimate child

with an unknown white man.

Lily, the protaganist of the story, constantly tries to incorporate the

two worlds together. Some examples of Lily's attempts are- substituting

carrot for rhinoceros horn in a Chinese herbal draught, Westernizing the

Chinese restaraunt's menu to include sweet and sour pork balls (which are

not traditional Chinese food), putting her son in Chinese school on

Saturdays to make up for the five days of English school he attends, and

attempting to cook a turkey (however unsuccessful). Over and over,Lily

tries to adapt to new situations with enthusiasm for the sake of her son,

Man Kee.

Man Kee rejects Chinese tradition increasingly as he learns about the

English ways around him. Mo never lets us into Man Kee's mind so we are

left with Lily's recollection of his actions and intent. Man Kee speaks

English more than Lily would like and outright rejects her Chinese cooking

by spitting it out and asking for "mince, jam tart and custard" like he

receives at English school.

The mango tree in the story symbolizes Lily and Man Kee's experience.

Lily gives Man Kee the mango seed (although she is skeptical about how

well it will grow- if at all- in Britain's climate). Metaphorically, I

see this as Lily giving Man Kee the opportunity to grow and become

successful in Britain even though he is foreign to the surroundings. Man

Kee's tree does grow, but Chen says, "To make a tree which produces fruit

you must cut piece from the mature fruit itself and graft it. Its seed

will not produce fruit." (p.173). To continue my analogy, Lily must graft

her family to Britain so that the next generation (i.e. Man Kee) will

produce great things in his lifetime. The family has come to Britain for

more financial freedom, as Chen has every intention of returning to China.

All of Lily's hope rests in Man Kee. Parents always want the best for

their children- but how magnified is Man Kee's situation?

Lily admittedly has a hard time telling her non-Chinese customers apart as

she thinks that they all look the same. She later notices, after looking

for her husband in a room full of Chinese men, that she can not

distinguish her husband from other Chinese men from behind. This somewhat

shockingly similar experience offers Lily a connection between her two

worlds.

The end of the novel was hard for me to comprehend/accept. Chen

disappears and Lily is heart broken... but then money starts to come at

the end of every month and she believes that it is Chen being loyal to her

family. So she is comforted by this arrangement. Although, Chen has

really been murdered by mistake and the money is coming from his

murderers. But Lily will never discover this because she sees loyalty.

This is hard for me to understand as I would have a totally different

reaction. I would hunt him down and demand explanations. And I

definately wouldn't see the situation as him being loyal.

Self Critique

My view of loyalty seems to be different from Lily's. I think loyalty is

being responsible for your actions and being honest. Lily's view of

loyalty seems to be monetary (She gives her father in law money every

month out of loyalty because he is elderly and it is a Chinese child's

responsibility to help his/her aging parents- and inlaws). This is a

cultural difference. But shouldn't I understand that cultural differences

will effect the way I read? I was heated when I finished the book- it

hadn't ended as far as I could understand. But if Lily was contented

shouldn't I be? Am I trying to "push" my views onto Lily? If she was my

real life friend I probably would express my concerns to her, even though

I can see that it is none of my business, logically. But emotionally, I

see marriage as more than a financial obligation and I am not sure that I

would be able to keep my opinions to myself. I was once told, by a girl

from Singapore, that my culture was "louder" than hers. Is this an

example? Are voiced personal opinions intrusive?

I also have to admit that I did not know that sweet and sour pork was not

authentic Chinese food (it is my favorite thing to order,by the way).

Where did this notion come from? Who influenced the Westerners' idea of

what Chinese food is? Why my definition of "Chinese food" not really

Chinese food? Who created the "Chinese food sold to Westerners? This is

quite disturbing. I don't think that the same thing would happen in

reverse. For example, could I recognize that the food at a McDonald's in

China as hamburgers and fries- or would it be a product that Chinese

customers thought was North American food, but was totally foreign and

detestable to me? I doubt it. So why should Chinese people compromise

their culture for the sake of marketting? Would I enjoy authentic Chinese

food?

Cultural Critique

The main focus of this novel was adjusting into a new world without losing

what one values from the old world. Mo clearly suggests that an

incorporation of both is essential for the family and the self. It is

unfortunate that the new world rejects so much of the old world out of

fear of the unknown. Essentially, everyone is the same no matter what our

origins. Each indivdual person processes his or her world in a unique

way- accepting or rejecting new ideas and experiences and incorporating

these ideas into everyday life.

Cultural schools are interesting to look at. At Man Kee's age, the world

is still forming and belonging somewhere is vitally important. Perhaps Mo

did not allow the reader into Man Kee's head as it would have made the

novel two times longer. How would the story have changed if seen through

the eyes of this child? Children tend to be more honest and blunt than

adults, so different feelings may have been conveyed. Perhaps more anger

and frustration. Man Kee gets scolded by his parents for not focussing on

his studies as he is constantly reminded that he needs to be successful in

life. How universal is this experience for children who move to a

different country?

Journal #4

June 30, 1998

Response to Anita Desai's "Fire on the Mountain"

Desai has a beautiful style of writing. Her nature imagery is

incredible. Raka is constantly being compared to an insect or twig in

quite descriptive and insightful passages. Raka seems to be part of the

land- the wild surroundings that Nanda Kaul avoids. Nanda Kaul is

quite centered around her solitary house, as is the book's 3 parts

entitled "Nanda Kaul at Carignano", "Raka comes to Carignano" and "Ila Das

leaves Carignano." The reader learns why Nanda Kaul is so solitary

and focussed on the house at the end of the book. It is because the

outside is full of the past- a noisy, painful past. A reversal of this

can be seen in Ila Das' character as she lives in the past because the

present is too full of pain and misery.

All three female characters are described with detail, while the two male

characters are more static. Ram Lal adds superstition to the tale. His

ghost stories give the reader a peek at the cultural beliefs of the area.

Ghost stories are a form of local legend and mythology that reflect the

surrounding people's values. The reader does not know much about the

other male character- except that he tried to marry his seven year old

daughter to a widowed man in exchange for livestock. My reaction to this

is "how horrible"... which is also how Ila Das reacts as a social

worker and a human being.

Another structural aspect of the three parts of the book is that there is

always a phone call at the end of the section. The first two times from

Ila and the third from the police about Ila. Nanda Kaul always refers to

the phone as a screeching interruption and is very uncomfortable with it.

The telephone seems to reperesent civilization (and therefore her highly

public past, being the Vice Chancellor's wife)- or the connection to it

anyways. Nanda Kaul wants nothing to do with the world because it has not

treated her well.

There seems to be a feeling of unfairness towards these three women.

They've all had to deal with immense hardships. Raka has been sick with

typhoid and her mother is so sick that she can not look after her. Nanda

Kaul's husband had an affair their whole marriage, but she faked being the

happy, loving wife to save face with people. Ila received no inheritance

when her father died (all of it went to her greedy drunken brothers who

frivolously devoured it). She was a teacher and currently is a social

worker, but remains incredibly poor. And her unfortunate fate is

indescribably disgusting and awful.

Ila blames her upbringing as a female for her misfortune. She says "Isn't

it absurd...how helpless our upbringing made us, Nanda. We thought we

were being equipped with the very best- French lessons, piano lessons,

English governesses- my, all that only to find it left us helpless,

postively handicapped." She is referring to both her gender and class

here. Ila, Nanda and Ram Lal all belonged to a higher class in their

past. Ila finds herself referring to a kind shopkeeper as "hairy" and

"half-dressed" and scolds herself for being so pompous- still holding onto

prejudices taught to her long ago.

With Ila's visit,comes the introduction of the outside world. She

gives the reader insights to the hardships of the poor people in

the town(who were voiceless before Ila's visit): dying from tetanus, being

blinded by conjunctivitis and trachoma and marrying off very young

children in exchange for land and livestock.

Self Critique

I am looking at my choice of words "Her unfortunate fate". Why can I not

say that she was murdered and then raped. I am uncomfortable with it as a

female and also as a human. But by saying the words, I am not making

Ila's situation any more horrible. Where does this urge to euphemize come

from? Uneasiness for sure, disassociation probably.

I can see from reading my response that the story had more to it than what

I thought when I originally read the text. I also see that I am

grappling onto the femaleness of the text. Something I have not done in

this class before.

I said that Nanda Kaul was faking happiness to "save

face" in her past. But she hides her true feelings and true self until the

end of the story.

I also ignored the ending of the novel in my response. Why did Raka set

the forest on fire? I am still searching for answers on that.

Cultural Critique

I have been trained as a reader to relate to the text...to try and walk

in the character's shoes.... And in this class, with texts in settings or

situations that I cannot relate to out of personal experience, I am

picking out different things than I normally would. I am focussing on

structure of this novel- would Anita Desai cringe at that? How would

someone of this story's background approach this text?

Nanda Kaul hides her true feelings under her skin. The more international

literature I read, the more the idea that we are all the same is enforced.

The setting and values may change, but the deeper humanity remains the

same.

*************************************************

Subject: Journal assignment # 2 (_July's People_)

When I read a novel I usually read it purely for enjoyment, and I

don't make an effort to critically analyze it, even if it is for a class.

After I'm done reading the novel I will think back to any passages or

ideas that struck me as particularly wierd or thought provoking. Two

things about Nadine Gordimer's _July's People_ made me stop and think:

firstly, the Smales, the white liberal family, have a paternalistic

attitude towards July; secondly, the Smales, at least the parents, think

of the black people in terms of otherness. When Maureen kills the kittens

Bam is disgusted: "His lips turned out in disgust, distaste, on her

behalf" and he asks her "Why didn't you get one of them to do it?" (90).

The implication is that they (the blacks who are used to the hardships and

necessities of poverty) are quite distinct from the Smales, less

sensitive-- it is more appropriate as far as Bam is concerned for the

black people to kill cute, cuddly, little kittens. He does not have a

problem with the death of the kittens, but he does have a problem with his

wife doing the killing. Maureen's paternalistic (maternalistic) attitude

towards July is evident when she thinks about living in the suburbs. When

July was sick she would make him something to eat and bring it to him, and

she also goes over the things she has given him, and the things she has

thought he could use but that she cannot be expected to provide, such as

extra guest chairs. She seems to want to be a parent to him, but to avoid

being an overindulgent one so that he will not become spoiled. Also she

does not like to see the "cast-off trappings" she has given him because

they not only separate him from her, but they also separate him from his

own people.

Basically, _July's People_ shows the Smales to hypocritical. They

have wonderful ideas about equality, actively desiring a restructuring of

society. Yet at the same time when Bam sees similarites between his

family and the black people he is disgusted, and Maureen does not want to

be reminded of the reality of the difference between the way she lives and

the way the black people live; she wants to have a pleasant life and talk

about equality from her living room.

A critique of myself and my society based on insights gained from

reading _July's People_ leads me to consider my social ideals. Most

Canadians, much like the Smales, can argue that social reform is both

desirable and necessary. For example, we can see that the Native people

in Canada have been unfairly treated in the past, and that while they now

have the same constitutional rights as all other Canadians, they still

fee l the repercussions of past injustices, and obvioulsy they believe

Canada can do more than it is currently doing to right these wrongs, as

one can see from the disputes over land in Quebec and British Columbia.

My point is, that while I believe, or I like to believe, that most

Canadians see the need for trying to right the wrongs of the past or make

Canada a more politically tolerable place for Natives, most Canadians do

not envision the changes the Natives may desire as something that will

or should directly effect them. And we do still think of minority groups

in Canada in terms of otherness. In writing about the Natives I group

them all into one group, partly because I don't know much about different

bands or groups within the overall Native culture. But I would not group

all white political parties together. I will talk about conservatives,

liberals, etc. Also in writing about Natives I refer to them as "them,"

which distinguishes them from "us." But who is "us."

I have one more comment on _July's People_. When I was analyzing

the Smales attitudes and beliefs I could see that they were hypocritical,

somewhat racist. I came to the conclusion that Gordimer was trying to

open people's eyes to their own racism, even if they think they are very,

well . . . liberal. I did not think the novel _July's People_ was a

racist text. But on our listserve Yaw Asante quotes Ngugi, and agrees

with her (him? I apologize if I confuse people's genders but I generally

can only tell the difference between male and female names if the names

are European) that "everywriter is a writer in politics." Asante's

conclusion about Gordimer is that she writes a white liberal racist text.

I'm not sure if I agree with this conclusion, but it has given me

something to think about: are our differing interpretations due to

different reading strategies, different cultural backgrounds, or something

else. I see Gordimer's political aim as one of exposing racism, but

Asante sees Gordimer's aim as reinforcing it.

________________________

I enjoyed reading Patricia Grace's _Mutuwhenua The Moon Sleeps_,

but for me it raises many more questions than it provides insights,

although these questions can themselves contiain insights upon closer

analysis.

In the glossary it says Mutuwhenua is the phase of the moon at

which it is invisible, which means the night would be very dark. From my

cultural viewpoint darkness is often associated with evil. But in this

novel the darkness seems to have a clear rather than a sinister quality,

somewhat translucent, definitely not evil. Perhaps the darkness is even

comforting. This is one of the impressions the novel left me with, but I

have no idea what it means.

Also I don't fully understand Linda's problem, her psychology.

What is it about the house that she cannot bear? In the passage on page

126/7 Linda talks abut walking aimlessly around town. She is restless,

and the smells and sights remind her "that people lived" (127). This

passage reminds me of Morag is _The Diviners_. Morag is married to

Brooke, living in Toronto, and living a very comforatable life as a middle

class housewife. However, this kind of life is not enough for Morage:

she feels disconnected from her past (she is disconnected from her past),

and the lack of significance in her present life, and her lack of a

future to look forward to-- no kids, no career, her connection to Brooke

slipping away-- makes her restless. She feels confined and she feels the

need to get away, to do something. So . . . this is what Linda's

wandering around the city reminds me of. But why? I don't think Linda

wants a career, ie. a writer, a lawyer etc. And Linda is

going to have children. I am going to unpack this question and this

instance of intertext rather than the first question I asked about the

title of _Mutuwhenua The Moon Sleeps_ because with this question I have a

starting point.

The intertexuality between _Mutuwhenua The Moon Sleeps_ and _The

Diviners_ is a good place to look at my own values and cultural influenes

upon reading the novel. When I read _The Diviners_ I felt that I

understood Morag--why she initially wants to get away from her past, why

her present in unsatisfactory, and why she wants to be a writer and a

mother. She wants some kind of significance. And through her search for

this significance she discovers that her past is an important part of

her, and some of her significance will come from past influences, how she

deals with them, and what they mean to her now.

I do not understand Linda's need to get away and to distance

herself from her own culture. Unlike Morag, Linda has a very happy

childhood, and a strong family life. Although the incident with her white

friend playing the violin seems to have made quite an impression on her

(is this incident symbolic of larger societal influences, one that

emphasizes the difference between two cultures and the supposed

superiority of one of these cultures?). Thus Linda's need to distance

herself from her past, like Morag's, despite superficial differences in

circumstances stems from her desire for significance, a significance she

feels she cannot find in her own culture. Possibly?

The difference between these two texts, or my understanding of

them, is that I understand where Morag's frustration comes from, but with

Linda the problem is not with Graeme or with being a housewife; the

problem is one of keeping the past alive and with accepting the importance

of her culture, a culture she wanted to suppress. The problem may be that

Linda rejects her culture for a time and falls in love with Graeme.

Graeme has come to know the Linda who has rejected the importance of her

culture and her past. Maybe she feels she does not know Graeme as well as

she thought she did because she got to know him while she was suppressing

an importance part of herself. Or maybe she feels that he does not know

the real her and fears he will not love her.

I think I needed to draw an analogy between _The Diviners_ and

_Mutuwhenua The Moon Sleeps_ in order to better understand _Mutuwhenua The

Moon Sleeps_ because I have never felt divided between two cultures. My

ancestors are English, Scottish, German, etc. And both sets of my

grandparents and my parents have ignored the traditional aspects of these

cultures. So I have always lived very much in the present Canadian

culture. I'm not quite sure what I mean by "the present Canadian

culture." But the culture I live in just seems very normal and I feel no

pull between a dominant culture and another culture. I have, however,

felt as other in relation to men. Everything in our society in

constructed around masculine images. Women are now allowed to

participate in these masculine areas but these public areas have not

really changed to accomidate femininity. Essentially, I understand

Linda's problem only by analogy, which is not necessarily bad. I think

there would be a lot less racism in Canada if people tried to understand

how others felt by comparing similar, though not the same experiences.

_________________

Journal # 4: _Guerillas_ by V.S. Naipaul

I have two strong responses to V.S Naipaul's _Guerillas_:

firstly, I was very disturbed to say the least by Jimmy's pyschology, the

misogynist sex, and the portrayal of Jane, who I felt represented woman,

not only because her name is Jane, a kind of everywoman name, but also

because she is really quite object-like and quite characterless-- her role

in the novel is to be acted upon and she fills many stereotypes about

women; secondly, I was (am) somewhat baffled by several aspects of the

text: where precisely is the story set? What is Roche doing on the

island? The novel only lets us know he is there to work, to do meaningful

work. What is Jane's specific role? Is she only there as Roche's

mistress? What are Jimmy's goals? He presumably is a guerilla, but what

does he want to accomplish? And finally, why is Jane so object like, and

why is she portrayed in such a misogynistic way? These questions must

have been deliberately left unanswered for a reason. One possible reason

is that the confusion the text creates is a mirror of the confusion of

the reality of the postcolonial situation.

In my reading I mostly focused on Jane. She is portrayed

according to western stereotypes about women. On page forty-eight Jane

denies sex to her lover (some reporter in London) because she is dry. He

slaps her twice and she retreats to the bathroom to wait for him to

apologize. But he leaves, and "she discovred to her dismay and disgust

that she was moist" (Naipaul 48). What does this passage indicate about

Jane's (everywoman's) sexuality and pyschology? I think it indicates jane

is sexually aroused by violence and humiliation, or subjection. It plays

on the patriarchal assumption that women secretly like rape. Taken in

conjunction with Roche's opinion that Jane likes to play the victim and

gets some sort of gratification out of being abused by men, and with

Jane's response to Jimmy when he rapes her anally, "she said, like a

child, 'You made me cry! You made me cry!' Her face was red and wet with

tears; but she was oddly calm" (Naipaul 238), this passage, and the novel

as a whole, even more strongly suggests that women like rape, and that

mabye Jimmy, who is quite pyschotic, has the right idea about women.

There are several other disturbing passages in the novel: on page

forty-eight Harry says that women's destinies depend on whatever man they

are attached to. On page ninety Jimmy promises Bryant that he will give

Jane to him. And at the end of the novel Jimmy and Bryant kill Jane

after Jimmy has raped her; Roche is in collusion with them in a way. He

says to Jimmy after he knows that Jimmy killed her, over the phone, "Jane

and I are leaving tommorrow. Jane is in her room packing" (Naipaul 253).

I took this passage to mean that Roche knows what happened to Jane and

that he is letting Jimmy know he won't do anything about it as long as

Jimmy leaves him alone.

I know this novel has implications beyond sexism, misogyny, and

patriarchal assumptions about women, but the portrayal of women is what

stands out most for me. I think I took more offenxe to the portrayal of

Jane as a woman and as a female character than others might, and my

offense stems from my being a woman and a feminist. What kind of a

feminist. That is a difficult question. I believe women ought to have

social, economic, and political equality with men. I also believe that

some things should change to benefit women, and that simply allowing women

access to traditionally masculine roles is not equality. It is equality

between men and women in work and so on, but the feminine is still less

valued that the masculine, and the feminine is tied to women. Perhaps a

paralell could be drawn between my opinion about equality between the

sexes and racial equality. Is Naipaul's saying, not that the novel is

didactic, that racial equality is not dependent upon allowing other

cultures equal access to our culture and its institutions, but on valueing

other cultures for what they are.

A cultural critique based on my responses to _Guerillas_ would

have to point to the fact that not only has western culture devalued other

cultures, but that all cultures devalue some members of their own cultures

based on superficial difference or stereotypes. Canadians feel free to

critique western culture for its negative aspects and biases. Other

cultures feel free to critique western culture for the same reasons, and

for the way it has imposed laws and values on them. I think it is good

that we can criticize our own culture and that we can accept criticism

from others because our culture does have many negative aspects, such as

racism and sexism. But I also think it is important to look critically at

other cultures too. There is a danger in idealizing any culture, and

this maybe is what _Guerillas_ is getting at.

I know I have not gotten into many of the issues in _Guerillas_,

such as colonialism and imperialism, or even politics in general, all of

which I think Jane functions as a symbol in, but I have not really worked

these themes out yet. So I will return to them when I do my final

reassessment of my journals after I have thought about them more.

****************************************

Journal 2 - Postcolonial Theory

1. Response: I want to read and journal on theory next as I hope it will give me more insight and understanding for the rest of the course. Theory is not often dynamic and is can be very dry and clinical. So it doesn’t surprise me that I’m finding some of this pretty heavy going. I’m realizing, though, not just the scope that poco theory covers but the divergence in opinion. I wonder about theories so precise that graphs can be made, implying that, based on the information, accurate predictions can be made as well. I think that this subject is , not only too subjective to be conclusive about paradigms, but the fact that it’s about different peoples, in different countries, multiplies the variables. Despite the heavy ‘wading’ I’m doing, many of the theories are really interesting, particularly the idea of ‘negritude’, Fanon’s ‘national culture’ and his "fact of blackness", and Said’s orientalism. The polarization of views on language leaves me somewhat ambivalent as I understand each argument. Post-colonial as opposed to postcolonial and comparison of feminism issues with poco issues offer even more theoretical avenues to follow. There are too many areas to really focus on and it’s as if I am only scratching a very shallow surface of each. At best, it is giving me an inkling of the magnitude of what there is and how they ‘inter-loop’ into so many other areas of study. But it is frustrating because I feel overwhelmed and I feel that I am not gaining even a semblance of mastery in this field. BUT, in having gained a cursory understanding of the scope of poco study, I do realize that there is little consensus in any area and consequently, the voice of each side (and it is many-sided) needs to be examined - exhausting to consider but that’s because I’m trying to force feed myself not allow it to settle and digest before the next ‘feeding’.

2. Self-critique: If I learn nothing else from my theory readings, the self-examination that Fanon’s "Fact of Blackness" demands of me is enough. Theory isn’t supposed to be so passionate or speak so eloquently. (I always thought it was dry and academic’ :-). ) With shocking clarity, I realize my privileged position in wearing the ‘white uniform’ and to exist complacently surrounded by assumptions and conventions that perpetuate a color code that my culture was founded on. I can’t feel guilty because that changes nothing. But I can be aware and sensitive to the debilitating and enervating nuances, and manifestations of ‘color coding’(and even ‘culture coding’) that persists despite our protestations to the contrary. More than that, I for the first time in my life realize the inexpressible horror of knowing that the very thin integument that covers each human being automatically consigns ‘him’, ‘his’ place in the world order and presupposes a degree of humanity. I knew it on an intellectual level - I now understand it on a visceral level. My guilt therefore may not be for racism but for complacency and refusal to acknowledge the struggle and the strength to sustain one’s humanity and dignity in the face of the color code.

Integral to this realization is the theory of orientalism. I understand that history is primarily a compilation of perceptions whether it be a first person account of piecing together of events to ascertain cause and effect. ‘Orientalism’ makes me wonder about the history I read of ‘the East’ and of my understanding of the people and their culture. Are they enslaved by the Western perception (my perception) of their identity? I’ve never questioned the global dualism represented by Occident/Orient or, the indeterminacy of East vs. West. I wonder at my lack of curiosity about such a large part of the world and my acceptance of a dichotomous (us/them, East/West, Orient/Occident) world. (I’m intrigued by which of the binaries I automatically list first . Us/ them and East/West both sound right in that order - I don’t know why though. Orient/Occident sounds backwards but I deliberately reversed it, maybe to try in some small way to break a cycle.)

3. Cultural critique: Theory is designed to support or deconstruct ideologies. Each of the articles I’ve read forces me to examine this culture I reside so comfortably within. The concept of ‘negritude’ seems to be a reaction to our well-entrenched assumption that humans can be categorized and classified according to physical (visible?) attributes. Haven’t we, meaning western ethnologists, sociologists, etc., created the system in which definition is necessary for affirmation. ‘Negritude’ is a self-definition inverting the hierarchy and elevating attributes to a position of elitism. Is it a reaction to a western system or are all people so easily classified?

I wonder if both Orientalism and the intellectuals which Fanon describes don’t both attempt the same circumscription - to capture and define something that is dynamic and changing. No matter the definition, that process always maintains the ‘other’ status and we can’t seem to credit ‘other’ cultures with the dynamism and innovation or the capability to spawn/produce/develop works/culture without our aid or influence. Ultimate arrogance!!

Language figures largely and there’s been much on the listserver as well as in the theory that embraces use of dialect to add depth to the voice of the colonized. Yet, I hear comments and have expressed them myself about the ‘poor’ English being used, often in reference to someone for whom English is a second, third, or fourth language. Why do we maintain such a proprietary attitude toward the English language? The idea of many englishes incorporates language as it should be - communication. Shouldn’t we allow English to continue to include many cultures? It will only gain in richness and enable fuller communication. Our insular attitude is very like what K.S.Maniam calls ‘cultural loyalty’ - elite, pure and eventually very stagnant. Although there are so many aspects to be examined in the field of poco, I wonder if the field itself doesn’t risk becoming too intertextual and self-referential. Do we who study it, in our ‘awakened’ awareness of the issues and our ensuing zeal, run the risk of dominating this field as well? Or will we finally allow the colonized voices to be heard and follow rather than lead?

________________________

Theory Books :

Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory - ed. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman

Articles Read-

Leopold Sedar Senghor - "Negritude:A Humanism of the Twentieth Century"

Frantz Fanon - "On National Culture"

Edward Said - "From ‘Orientalism’"

Dennis Porter - "‘Orientalism’ and Its Problems"

Aime Cesaire - "From ‘Discourse on Colonialism’"

Jenny Sharpe - "The Unspeakable Limits of Rape: Colonial Violence and Counter Insurgency"

Vijay Mishra and Bob Hodge - "What is Post(-)colonialism?"

Anne McClintlock - "The Angel of Progress: Pitfalls of the Term ‘Post-colonialism’"

Chinua Achebe - "The African Writer and the English Language"

Ngugi wa Thiong’o - "The Language of African Literature"

The post colonial studies reader - ed. Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths, Helen Tiffin

Articles read:

Charles Larson - "Heroic Ethnocentrism: The Idea of Universality in Literature"

Flemming Brahms - "Entering Our Own Ignorance: Subject-Object Relations in Commonwealth Literature"

Edward W. Said - "Orientalism"

Jamaica Kincaid - "A Small Place"

David Cairns and Shaun Richards - "What Ish My Nation?"

Kirsten Holst Petersen and Anna Rutherford - "Fossil and Psyche"

Raja Rao - "Language and Spirit"

Fantz Fanon - "The Fact of Blackness"

Journal #3 - "The Voice" - Gabriel Okara

1. Personal response: I have heard of "The Voice" and wanted to read it but was initially surprised at its length and simplistic tone. But it has the depth and universality of a parable. Okara’s use of language, I think an indication of the syntax and idioms of Ijaw, is lyrical and expressive. There is an eloquence in both the language used and the understated approach. I am sensitive to a number of issues that are raised and/or alluded to. Within the context of the story I find religious beliefs, traditions, and expressions but the ending affected me the most. There’s such a chilling senses to the calmness in which the two characters (protagonists, I would call them) are sent to their death and, as the water rolls over the, they simply disappear, "as if nothing had happened". There’s such a futility to their life and I’m not sure whether the message is ‘there is no point in fighting the majority’ or ‘those who speak truths will never be heard and their integrity is only retained through death’. There are a number of philosophical questions which I am struck by. For example, Okolo’s wondering whether it is possible to make your inside so small that no one else can enter. That voice, Okolo’s, is drowned out by the people (including leaders) and then silenced by literal drowning. Although the book is inspirational and even the title, "The Voice" connotes spirituality, I feel implicated in the fear that sends him to his death. I think it’s because we all fear what threatens our power and security and react in a self-serving manner.

2. Self-critique: If I look at what makes me the most uncomfortable in "The Voice", it is the conclusion of the story. In my idealism, I think ‘right’ and ‘truth’ must win. Yet two of the only three central characters shown to have integrity are destroyed. The only hope is Ukule, the cripple who is left to tend and spread their words. Yet he is only the messenger while the other two were the message (somehow). I’m also troubled with the coercion which is effective for those who ‘hear’ Okolo and choose, for expediency and security, the side of the majority. That becomes a personal challenge for me as I need to examine my alliances and question my reasons for them.

The character of Abadi demonstrates the intimidation and power which academics can wield. Using the cloak of authority conferred by Western degrees, he manipulates. The trust I place in the hands of academia needs to be proven, not assumed. I/we too readily follow the lead of someone who assumes authority. I think this is a great example of the quote by James Connally, "the great are only great because we are on our knees." Okara’s use of ‘the inside’ is particularly evocative. I feel as if it has expanded my understanding of what I have also thought of as a soul, or a spirit. The idea that the people’s insides have senses such as hearing, taste and smell stretches my Christian notion of good/bad.

3. Cultural critique: There is a distinct impression in "The Voice" of repression in the aftermath of imperialism and a convenient use of democracy. The Western culture clings to and espouses so strongly a democratic system and we need to look at the allusions in this book about Western ideology. Democracy, for one, is convenient and I wonder about its use in conjunction with the African sense of consensus and community. Ideally, it should work, but does it manipulate that instinct for consensus and, under the guise of democracy, enslave and silence the people. A character such as Abadi can assume authority as the expert in Western practice and thought. His use of English when addressing the people becomes part of the manipulation and, as elite, takes on a sacred quality, used to intimidate or awe them. English, therefore, becomes associated with authority while it is merely a tool for control. There’s a sinister and insidious side to the democracy practiced here. In "Discourse on Colonialism", Cesaire talks about Europe’s complicity with local feudal lords which has prolonged the survival of pernicious aspects of the past. I see that in "The Voice’ as Okolo quotes his father as saying that he (the father) could have been a rich man but he chose instead to ‘speak straight’. The book, in many aspects, demonstrates how willingly people join the majority, silencing their ‘insides’ to further themselves. I think it serves as warning to those who accept Western practices without questioning and examining them. It is also an indication to the ‘Western readers’ how destructive those practices can be.

************************************************************

Journal #2 - A Fine Madness by Thomas Keneally

Reader Response:

I have read a few books by Australia authors, but I would not consider them postcolonial writers per sec. These writers are from a postcolonial country, however, so must be affected in some degree.

I heard about the movie "Schindler’s List", but was unaware, until I read the insert, that A Family Madness was by the same author. I have read books such as Exodus, The Hiding Place and the Diary of Anne Frank about Jews during the war. Also, I have read books by Jewish authors who weave their religion throughout their writing because it is such a part of them. Two examples of Canadian authors I enjoy are Mordecai Richler and A.M. Klein. A Fine Madness is the first book I have read about the aftermath of families that have a past of being oppressed. I am working on understanding the relationships between a countries past and people’s past. Some how these two relationships intersect to create chaos in what I thought would be a long forgotten battlefield.

I found myself confused by the history of Bellorussian. I had to do some research, while I was reading the book, on Russia, Germany, Poland, and the various events in WWII that led to the Americans coming in. The author did an excellent job of bringing history together through the diaries. Delaney’s character a metaphor for a dominant white culture whose only war is won and lost on a rugby field.

Self Critique:

Although I went to church as I child, it was more of a social event and a duty than act of worship. My grandparents were strong Lutherans from Germany, but this belief has weakened through the generations. I know some Jewish people and from talking to them, taking a religious studies course, and reading about religion, I think that one reason Judaism remains strong is that it is family oriented and it binds generations together. The holocaust was such a cataclysmic event, that it has been relived in each generation because each generation has such a strong bond with the next. They have made a policy never to forget.

In "A Family Madness", the war and its repercussions run through the Kabbelski family. Through dairy entries the reader learns of the treachery and horror that the mother and father lived through. Because of their past, a family madness is passed on to the children, Radislaw and Gina. The past finally reaches full circle when Gina and Delaney’s child is killed. Australian born Delaney writes in his diary throughout his ordeals with the Kabbelski family and the reader has this to illustrate another viewpoint. It is a rugby diary, and since rugby’s roots are from England, it implies that England and her colonies are free from the real oppression and hatred. After all rugby is only a game. Stanton puts it succinctly when he says, "A sport could be to people like Delaney not merely a sect but a cosmology, a perfected model of an imperfect world" ( Keneally 36). The Kabbelski family cannot escape their past. I can understand this when I think of the child’s past as one filled with child abuse. Many adults I know are having to face now, in their middle age, events that they did not have the strength to deal with when they were children. In a letter, Gina tells Radislaw, "What made it worse was that we had lived through too much fatal history before we were fifteen" (60).

Every relationship between a man and a woman ends badly in this novel — Stanislaw/Danielle, Genia/ her lover, Delaney/Gina, and finally Delaney and Danielle. The names of the lovers are the same through generations because they haven’t learned the lessons yet that will end the destructive pattern. Event though Delaney loved his wife Gina, it was almost like fate stepped in (Danielle as a metaphor for fate) and he was powerless against it. I wonder if we have the necessary strength in relationships today to ward off fate and go our chosen way. Is it better to give into what may seem destined at the time, to know it wasn’t the right thing later. I have seen many relationships end and I wonder if the second relationship is better than the first one or is it that fate has pulled the person towards the other?

Cultural Critique:

Australia was used as a clean slate for the Kabbelski family. Canada is also like Australia in that for some immigrants it is a sprawling, endless "white" canvas for a new beginning. Tseen-Ling Khoo commented on Australia’s immigration policy in one of her posts to the class. I realized that the Kabbelski family had been able to enter Australia because of its white-only policy. Its new multicultural policy is partly modeled on Canada’s policy.

Canada has very little historical baggage. (I will keep that sentence in but I realized as soon as I had written it, I should have said that for me, there is little baggage. I do not think the French Canadians, Asian Canadians and Aboriginal people would say the same thing). It is I think that is why the Kabbelski family went there — to find peace. It was not to be because they were their past. Our multicultural policies, first started by Trudeau, try to incorporate the best of other cultures in with our own. Is it possible t leave historically old grudges behind? Are the recent Serb and Croatian immigrants getting along here? Could the Germans and Russians get along in Australia? I do not think it is possible to erase the past just because you move to a different country. People may want to change and they may try to be civil, but it may take the next generation to be truly multicultural. The Kabbelski family never did find the peace they sought

There were so many countries involved in the Belorussian’s struggle to become a free state. There were battles among the Polish, Germans, Russians and Americans. Many times allegiances changed and faith was completely lost. Canada is situated next to only one other country, the United States, whom we get along with. Part of our lack of hatred towards other cultures is a purely geographical.

Works Cited

Keneally, Thomas. A Family Madness Toronto: Serpentine Pub., 1986. P.36, 60

Journal #3 — Obasan by Joy Kogawa

Reader Response:

In his essay "Good-Eating:Ethics, Postconiality, and Reading the Bone People," Philip Armstrong talks about the "mode of moral reading." Reading Obasan was morally enlightening to me because it takes place in areas that are familiar to me and therefore the events ring true.

Recently reading "Slant-Eyed Americans" by Toshio Mori set Obasan’s place in history since the internment of Japanese Canadians proceeded after the attack on Pearl Harbour. The memorandum sent by the co-operative of Japanese Canadians to the House and Senate, which was included at the end of the book, legitimized the events in the story. Often a novel, based on history, tends to re-work history to fit the author's agenda. My interest was piqued enough to seek some other facts about this time in our history. I was embarrassed and surprised to learn that Japanese Canadians that had actually fought on the Canadian side in WWII were also interned and their land confiscated. In the book, it says that in the U.S. there was internment, but not land confiscation. On a recent trip to San Francis, I went to the Japanese Gardens in Golden Gate Park. A sign at the entrance said the gardens were taken from a Japanese family in WWII. This was the first time that I had heard of land being confiscated. My immediate response was to think if someone had worked so hard to make a part of their world so beautiful- how could that person ever be considered a threat? And I also thought- those nasty Americans, that would never happen in Canada!

Self-Critique:

I am sadly lacking in my knowledge of Canada’s part in WWII. I know more about earlier history such as the formation of the Hudson’s Bay Company and frontier and northern exploration. I have only been interested in the war from the perspective of what our brave soldiers did to protect "us" from "them." I never thought of Canadians as opposing an innocent people. I knew about the Chinese laborers on the CN Railway and I believe they were exploited. F.R. Scott’s "All Spikes but the Last" impressed me. Are Asians oppressed because they look different? Kogawa notes that German-Canadians were not interned like the Japanese.

Working at a library that serves the largest Asian population of any library in Calgary, I have learned to distinguish Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Korean through language, names, culture and attitudes. I wonder if I am stereotyping when I say attitudes. People do act in a certain way because of their background. For example some Chinese people are very leery of a spoken agreement — it must be on paper and this is understandable considering their government’s need for documentation.

I had a Japanese Karate teacher that I still correspond with, who moved back to Japan. He says that you are looked down upon in Japan if you can’t "make it" there. You loose face by leaving. There are very few Japanese immigrants coming to Canada now. Maybe our treatment of them during the war played a part in this.

An especially sad aspect of the Japanese interment was that their families were split up. It is subtler destruction, but in the end, a very devastating one. Like the Jews that were separated, there is always a longing for belonging. This separation started with being separated from white Canadians for war purposes, but continued into the schools in Slocan. From there it went further into the Japanese community. Naomi was told by Reiko that she couldn’t play with her because she had T.B. I think our government knew that by weakening the family, they could weaken the entire Japanese community.

Cultural Critique:

One part of me does understand the fear that our country had. Do all immigrants who come to Canada pledge allegiance to Canada or do they love their former country more? Some of our guest speakers have voiced their love of Canada and their former countries. If there was a war between the immigrant’s former country and Canada, could they fight against their former country. Just because people move here, doesn’t mean that they give up their past. I try to imagine myself leaving Canada. Many people come here because Canada offers them a just life. It may be this freedom that is worth fighting for.

Silence is an important theme in Obasan. The silence between people and groups becomes oppressive. It would have been better for Naomi’s mother to speak about the horrifying events in her life so that Obasan, and after her, Naomi, could have talked and had some release. Canada’s apology to the Japanese Canadians did break the silence. If things are left unsaid, they do not disappear. Discussing the "Sorry Policy" within our class made me realize that people feel differently about a country’s responsibilities and how best to enforce them. An apology by a government is a start: it opens discussion and breaks the silence. It is only then, that we (all Canadians), can move on. Nakayama-sensi says: "We are powerless to forgive unless we first are forgiven"(Kogawa 240).

Works Cited

Kogawa, Joy. Obasan. Boston: David R.Godine Pub., 1981. p240

Journal # 4 - Things Fall Apart, and from Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader "The African Writer and the English Language" and from Morning Yet on Creation Day: Essays"Colonial Criticism," all by Chinua Achebe

Reader Response:

These three pieces of writing combined to give me a better perspective of colonialism in Africa. We have been talking about the canon through our listserve discussions. From the title, introduction to the book by Kwame Anthony Appiah, and the mention of the book throughout this course, I knew Things Fall Apart was in the Postcolonial canon. Achebe says, "Most African writers write out of an African experience and a commitment to African destiny" (Morning Yet...10). Achebe names Olauda Equiano as an important African writer. Equiano was sold as a slave and transported to America. Later he bought his freedom and wrote a document about his life in which he attempted to counteract the lies invented by some Europeans (Colonial Discourse...432). Because of this, I entered the text knowing that it was meant to carry a message. Achebe says that Things Fall Apart is an example of Africans returning ingratitude for their European blessings( Morning Yet...5). I read the text with this in mind. The only book I have read about Africa is Heart of Darkness but that was through a European voice.

Self-Critique:

I read Heart of Darkness because it was assigned. I have been told what is good and worthy of reading at university and it has to a large extent included works from England, the U.S. and Canada (except in this course where there is some flexibility). I do a lot of reading outside class, but am unsure as to why I have not encountered African writers. It could be that Canadians, like to read about the familiar (although for many new Canadians what is familiar to them, is unfamiliar to me). Therefore publishers don’t put out as many books by writers from other countries. Africa, especially, seems foreign to Canadians. It seems foreign because it is almost totally black. Does this make it foreign - just because the black people outnumber the white people? If this is the case, almost the entire world must seem foreign to them. Is foreign a different government, a different religion, a different language? Maybe it is a combination of all of these things.

All I know about Africa in what I read in the newspaper. In a recent posting on the listserve, Aruna asked ask to think about how we learn as individuals and how that seeps into our cultural knowledge. In the school curriculum topics such as the U.S., Japan and China are covered. Africa is not covered. Is it because Africa doesn’t affect us economically, and is therefore inconsequential? The black slave freedom movement is well documented because the new generation lives in the U.S.. But the people still living in Africa after the Europeans have come and gone, are vastly unheard in North America.

I thought the tribes in early Africa might be more innocent than there were. I do carry the idea that small groups of people are unorganized and simple. As Achebe states: "To the colonialist mind it was always of the utmost importance to be able to say: I know my natives, a claim which implies two things at once (a) that the native is really quite simple and (b) that understanding him and controlling him went hand in hand" (Morning Yet...6). I was surprised at the degree of sophistication of the tribes. This included religion, legal matters, political hierarchy, and family structure. I do have a problem with their family values. I found Okonkwo to be an abusive father and husband. He tried to do everything he could to be the opposite of his own father and this only brought fear and violence into the family. I know I have to put this story into its historical context (as we have talked about with Shakespeare on the listserve), but I cannot get past the terrible treatment of women in this tribe. In this aspect, the women may have been better off after the missionaries came. Week of Peace is a positive idea, but why have it for only a week? When Okonkwo beats his wife, it affects the entire village. Any violence affects us all.

Another aspect of the degradation of females is that daughters are looked down upon. Okonkwo often thinks that Ezinma should have been a boy. I try to see a context for this. Males are prized for physical labour. Females are prized in another way. Uchendu tells Okonkwo: "Mother is supreme." ( Things Fall...116). If this is true, women should not be completely ruled by their husbands. I also have trouble with the notion of men having more than one wife. It gives men enormous power. Again, I am looking at this through a Canadian perspective. Economically, it may have worked for the improvement of the entire tribe in Africa.

Cultural Critique:

Margaret Lawrence (Canadians should be ashamed of how we treated her), says : "No writer of any quality has viewed the old Africa in an idealized way, but they have tried to regain what is rightly theirs- a past composed of real and vulnerable people, their ancestors, not the figments of missionary and colonialist imagination"(Morning Yet...18). The African society we see here is real and so is the European society. Looking objectively, both have their positive and negative aspects. The Europeans, for the most part, seem concerned with domination for their own ends. But, there were some benefits for Africa. As Achebe states: Colonialism in Africa did create big political units where there were small scattered ones before" ( Colonial Discourse...430). Canada benefited the same way, by the railroad being built right across the country. As I have previously stated, the women , in my opinion, may have been better off after the Europeans came. Also the Osu gained status through the equality of the Church (it was more equal to whites though).

But cultural, including language and religion, suffered irreconcilably. There must have been a few missionaries that truly believed they were going to bring the peace and happiness they felt to others. Achebe admits, "The missionary who left the comforts of Europe to wander through my primeval forest was extremely earnest. He had to be; he came to change the world" (Morning Yet...22). The terrible irony is that the Europeans that came, with domination on their minds, made Christianity look ridiculous. They broke every commandment there was. The first one being, thou shallot not kill. They not only killed physically, but socially and emotionally. By demeaning the African’s religion, they took away their emotional centres. It spiraled out from there until their legal, and political structures also collapsed. The Africans are now reclaiming their rightful heritage.

Achebe, Chinua. "Colonialist Criticism." Morning Yet on Creation Day: Essays. Garden

City New York: Anchor Press, 1975. P. 5,6, 10, 18

---. Things Fall Apart. New York: Random House, 1958. P. 116

---. " The African Writer and the English Language". Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader. Ed. Patrick Williams and Laura Chrisman. London: Harvester ,Wheatsheaf Pub., 1993. P. 432

Journal #5 — Wide Sargasso Sea

Reader Response:

This book took me away to places that were foreign and exotic. Most of all, it was the strange mood created that caught me in its grip. The darkness, the strange language, and the wonderful strange tastes and smells haunted me. If there was ever a setting for madness, this was it. The madness stemmed from binaries which produced conflict. Coloured/white, Christianity/voodoo-magic, freedom/slavery, rich/poor, love/hate and dominance in the form of England over its colonies.

Dominance and confusion are themes that run through countries and characters. The garden is a metaphor for these themes (representing earth’s nature and human nature), it"has gone wild-the paths were overgrown (Rhys 19). The confusion leads to madness.

Self Critique:

The division of the book into three sections was effective in that it gave a voice to different people. These people were speaking at different stages in their lives. I think of my own life as a set of gradual stages — Erikson’s stages. Different view points were exposed in each section of the book. I tend to have trouble perceiving someone else’s recollection of an event that I was involved in. I see myself at the centre and everything thing else outside. I think this is natural and protective of oneself to a certain degree, but when I can not see another person’s perspective, then I have become too self-absorbed. This is harmful not only to other individuals, but also to entire cultures. When we are part of the dominant, we may become so unaware of other cultures, we disregard them. I certainly am part of this unawareness.

I related to Antoinette, but I also understood her husband. Everything was so unfamiliar to him. I have to be grounded in some way. Antoinette's world was chaotic. Madness from the outside gradually spiralled in on Antoinette’s family. If a child’s mother is mad, I don’t see how the child can possibly have a sane view of the world. Antoinette was pulled in different directions, but she didn’t have a centre. Her mother left, her brother left, her husband deceived her, Christophine was taken from her, she lost her home and she lost her country. She was strong enough to survive, but just barely. She had emptiness inside of her that could never be filled. Should her husband be blamed for her unhappiness? I don’t think it was her destiny to have a happy life. He says of Antoinette, "She never blinks at all it seems to me. Long, sad, dark, alien eyes"(67). She was a stranger to him as I think she would have been to me. She was influenced so much by Christophine. Her magic was manipulative and eerie to the European husband. Christophine’s magic seemed to be a mixture of medicine and religion which I can’t understand. It seems unearthly and that kind of "voodoo" scares me. In her world, Antoinette’s husband was an alien. I felt as he did when I have travelled to unfamiliar places. He says: "Everything is too much. Too much blue, too much purple, to much green. The flowers too red, the mountains too high, the hills too near"( 70). Canada and myself seem so "sterile." Foreign places and people sometimes make me feel uncomfortable because I don’t understand them. Canadians seem very conservative, maybe I am afraid of change. The whole idea of madness is too much change at one time. The things that are familiar and comfortable keep a person grounded. I find the fear of foreignness, to be a fear of my ideas being challenged and changed. A fear of "the rug being pulled out from under me."

Cultural Critique:

Antoinette was an alien in her husband’s world as much as he was an alien in hers. England is constantly in the background as an oppressive force. His standards were those of England: he could not be flexible in his opinions. He had a chance to grow, but he had been brainwashed since birth into thinking there was only one right way to do things and that was the British way.

In Canada the Queen and the Governor General are only symbolic ties to Britain. Antoinette felt that, "England was like a dream"(80). There was no connection to it that made sense to her. I doubt that I am aware of all the repercussions that have followed Canada being a colony. Certainly our parliament, legal systems and many religions (Church of England) organizations stem from England. These institutions are gradually eroding and we are forming our own Canadian systems. These continue to evolve as we become a more diverse society country. Hopefully the immigrants bring the best of their countries ideals with them and they are incorporated into a country who is "open to suggestion."

There are many first and second generation British people in Canada. I think they want to keep the ties with Britain. I can see these ties completely broken in the next generation because the monarchy is losing credibility. Many people, including myself , do not respect the British monarchy and its excesses, and would like to see Canada split from this dinosaur.

Works Cited

Rhys, Jean. Wide Sargasso Sea. London: Andre Deutsche, 1966. P 19, 67, 70 80

******************************************************

JOURNAL #2

Personal response:

I'm not sure what is with the reference to the Three Kings... The biblibcal

kings? Hearing about this boy's torment at school reminds me of my

brother's junior high experience, and mine for that matter. Counsellors,

principals.... We had a bad time. Sure there are some terms that I don't

understand, like a "Ted." My first reaction is to as my Dad if he knows

what it is when he gets home from work.

"Common" is such an insult in the UK. I start to sing "Common People" by

Pulp and soon I can't seem to get it out of my head. My mind wanders from

my reading, and I start to think of my friend Nadim, who lives in

Sheffield. He's Pakistani, and we met when we were both going to school

in Ottawa. He's at home now. and so am I. I begin to picture the story

with me as the wife, a and him as the husband. I imagine our son being

faced with that kind of discrimination that Azhar is faced with. I

doesn't' occur to me that *I* might suffer from this discrimination, I only

worry about my child. I realize how much more it hurts to see one's

children in pain than it is to experience one's self. It never occurred to

me, that the joy bi-racial couples might experience when they discover

the female is pregnant might be curbed by those worries. How awful. If I

was married to Nad, it would completely change how i felt about having

children. I have trouble focusing on the story, I keep thinking of me

and Nad married and living in some Mile End apartment with two kids.

The poor kid. He can't understand the language his family speaks. I

think it's a fairly common experience. My ex-boyfriend Ron is Chinese,

and he hardly spoke any at all, but his parents barely spoke English. He

doesn't have a very happy home life. He can talk about basic things with

his parents, but can't really articulate any abstract ideas or concepts.

Not that many 23 year olds do that with their parents.

It was important to my mom to teach me French, and I consider myself a

native speaker of both English and French. Some of my cousins only speak

English, and I know they feel left out at family gatherings. But I don't

think this is the same way Azhar feels. I resent his family for not

teaching him the language, for being exclusive.

I want to tell the Billys that they're white trash (I think that's what

"common" means) and to go to hell.

The title of the story, "We're not Jews," seems to be a bit misplaced.

The mom says it once during the story, in a "we're not Jews, so don't

treat us like *complete* garbage. Racism within an act of racism. I get

to decide who the victim is. Weird.

Blue, Blue, Pictures of You

I don't like this character very much. He's not a good father, and not a

good husband. Gee. Sounds like every man in this collection of short

stories. At first, I anticipate this will affect my enjoyment of the

story, but I try not to think about it. The love the Brian and Laurie

have, I find intriguing. (me trying to another word for weird,

different...) I'm very curious about these types of relationships, I

mean, where the people are basically street people, getting high all the

time and stuff. It's so not fairy-talish, I assume this must be the way

it really is. It's savvy and I feel like I've lead a very sheltered

existence. Oh, how uncomplicated my life would seem to Laurie and Brian.

How boring and lame they would think I am. I have never experienced

anything remotely like this, so I can't just be like "oh yea, *that.*" I

take for granted that people like this do actually exist, even though I

know that this is fiction and not a representation of an actual couple, i

think.

As an artist, I couldn't imagine burning any of my work. Sure, I'll paint

over a painting in white in order to salvage the support. Maybe if I

wasn't hard up for money I would consider burning it. It would stink.

The idea of photographing two lovers strikes me as very modern and

liberal, and and something that would never occur to me. Again, I feel like a

goody-goody, a complete moron who has never really lived or experienced

anything seedy.

What is it about burning? Is it the perfect destruction? It's not the

same as ripping up photographs, or flushing them down the toilet. Fire is

ceremonial and sacrificial and a bit spooky. It's also something intimate

that Eshan and Laurie have now shared. I automatically think there is

something going on between them, and I find that annoying that I would

immediately jump to that conclusion.

1. I wanted to ask my Dad about the word I didn't know.

-As a kid, I always asked my dad about stuff I didn't know, never my mom.

He was always the one with all the information.

-I'm female. In this culture, when a woman doesn't know something, she

often asks a male.

-I'm 21. Even though that's considered an adult, I feel like a little

girl in the eyes of my father. I don't think I would have thought to ask

him that question if I didn't still live with my mom and dad. He's quite

patronizing to me, despite my age, though I doubt he does so purposefully.

***Cultural Critique***

In my culture, there is a power imbalance between men and women. . Males

are perceived (and in many cases this is true) have the "right kind" of

knowledge, the power knowledge. Feminist theory tells us that in general,

men do more talking and women ask more questions and smile more.

Age discrimination happens frequently in North American culture. Young

males are often perceived as "hoods," and regarded with suspicion. Young

females, on the other hand, are often thought of as "clueless."

2. I mentioned that Nad is Pakistani.

-I felt the need to qualify my statement (why the story reminded me of

Nad.)

-I see his race/ethicity as part of his identity.

-I want to appear progressive, by advertising the fact that I have a

diverse group of friends. People will not think I'm racist.

-I am insecure with my views, since I wasn't raised with them. I'm afraid

that my conservative upbringing will "rear its ugly head" at some point

and I'll be exposed for a fraud. Especially in the context of this

course, I don't want to appear as a bigot.

***Cultural Critique***

In the parent ideology, racism is implicit rather than explicit (a

binary, though I'm not sure how else to describe the situation.)

The struggle between the parent ideology and the university culture is

apparent here. "Cultural loyalty" is an issue. Discomfort is experienced

at criticizing the values the parent culture embraces, yet it is important

to appear and to be progressive

3. I assumed that couples experienced joy at the news of a

pregnancy.

-I was brought up to believe that married people are the only ones who are

supposed to have children.

-I'm Catholic, and my parents instilled Catholic values in me.

-The nuclear family has long been a staple of the mass media. I'm a TV

kid.

-I assumed that joy is a natural response to news of a pregnancy because I

am Catholic, and I was taught that every child is a gift from God and is

to be cherished.

-As a girl, I was socialized to want children. It's what all little girls

are supposed to want, to be like their mothers.

***C.C.***

The culture I am a part of values procreation, but it must be done within

the "covenant of marriage." Producing children doesn't seem of dire

importance, but the "nuclear family" has come to be symbolic of normalcy,

cohesion, and dependability. We value these aspects tramendously in our

culture. The terms "broken home" and "single-parent family" both imply a

problem, a break-down of normalcy. The terms "home" and "family" need

qualification because they are not simply hollow signifiers. The cultural

baggage attached to these terms is overwhelming.

>From the time they enter this culture, little girls are both implicitly

and explicitly instructed that having a "family" (in this culture's meaning

of the word) one day is the part of the "natural order" of things. They

are given dolls, tea sets and anything that oozes domesticity. Having

children is perfectly wonderful. Presently, many young North American

women are choosing not to fulfill this conventional role. They are

perceived, often, as selfish. It is as though wives and mothers must be

self-*less* and choosing another path in life which doesn't' involve the

"family" indicates a sort of feminine deficiency. The ideology I am

working in is patriarchal. Though the subverted female is empowering

herself more and more, the baggage of the patriarchal hierarchy

prevails in nearly every aspect of our lives.

4. Not liking the character, for me, means not liking the story.

-my favorite books have a common characteristic, I have aways "identified

well" with a lead female character.

-As a girl, I would picture myself in the role of Nancy Drew. Putting

myself in her place was how I read.

-I cannot very well do this when the central figure is not female, not

white, and lives in another part of the world.

-I think that literature is there for my enjoyment.

***C.C.***

People part of this ideology are constantly demonstrating the fact that

they are individualistic. We judge others based on how similar they are

to us. Those that have a similar repetoire can be "identified with." If

not, we assume there is a barrier there which can't be overcome.

Individualism is a relatively new phenomenon, it all began in the 1700s.

But we tend to think that history started about 20 years ago. North

American individualism is cemented by our capitalist economy and the fact

that we are a liberal democracy. We are the ME ME ME society.

Reading is perceived as a leisure activity. Though we often distinguish

literature as either "escape" or "real" literature, we expect enjoyment

out of a text no matter what category it might fall into. When a person

appreciates a novel or movie, they say "I liked it." A big part of the

reason why we expect enjoyment, is because literature is "made up." It's

not considered "true."

5. "reality" writing and fiction -- a binary

-I am a product of the Canadian educational system.

-I was taught that fiction and (for example) journalism are very different

things.

My culture values reality, tangibility and proof and practicality. These

are some reasons why journalism has a different kind of respect than

English (as a discipline.) It doesn't matter that literature has as much

to offer as news stories do, or that diegetic film can be as important as

documentary. Information is important, but that which is fictional is

there for distraction and escape.

Disclaimers can be found on the inside of book covers which read warn that

any resemblance the characters, events etc. have to reality is purely

coincidental. If they *were* based on reality, it would have to be

labeled "based on a true story." This is often something that lures us

in. What is "true" is somehow better, more legitimate than fiction.

JOURNAL #2

Personal Response:

The Rain Ascends, by Joy Kogawa

I am still trying to figure out if this family is white. They must be.

How can a Japanese lady write about a white family? I don't get it, why

would she want to? Maybe some Japanese characters will come in later. I

cant' imagine writing about another culture. What would I know?

It's so finely crafted, it's like reading poetry. I also notice that tit

doesn't take me quite so long to read this material. Usually I'm such a

slow reader, which which I ad bothers me a fair bit. Though not as much as

it did when I was younger.

There is something deliberately naive about this writing. I feel like I'm

being set up for some big horrible revelation, like "and that's when we

found daddy dressed in women's underwear with the Sunday school class."

I feel like I'm reading a made for TV movie.

I don't understand why Millicent feels ugly because she's got brown hair

and dark skin. It must be a different standard or something, I find it

attractive. Why is only blond beautiful? You can't tell me it's because

it's rare. Big goiters on the end of noses are rare too, it doesn't mean

they're beautiful.

Nothing this perfect could possibly exist, especially after reading _Love

in a Blue Time_.

The part about Millicent's teenaged beauty ritual interests me. I always

feel better when I find out a woman has her own ritual. It makes me feel

a little less silly for having one of my own.

I feel so badly for this girl. I can't imagine being ostracized by my

family in such an obvious way. I think I'd snap. I notice that whenever I

write something down, it's always about how *I* relate to it. Is it

supposed to be that way? Is that was personal response is? I try to

focus more on the text in front of me.

I am completely frustrated by the mom and the brother for being so

exclusive. Very rude and hurtful. Strange that she isn't very weepy

about it.

Holy cow, I was right. That's so weird. Turns out that the dad is a

pedophile, and has apparently contracted some sort of STD. Oh my. I find

it weird that that's basically what popped into my head, not because I

think I have ESP or something, but just that it's what we've all come to

expect when we see perfect white picket fences.

What a mess. How does a person digest that kind of information? How does

a girl resolve that? If it had been female prostitutes, that would be

one thing, but, as the novel points out, pedophilia is the most

unforgivable crime in our society. It's made worse because of his

same-sex preference. Eesh. I don't think I'd be any less shocked if it

was my dad they were talking about. It would be completely

incomprehensible.

I feel a bit guilty for this, but I was actually kind of happy when I

found out the preacher was a pedophile. I wanted something to be wrong

with him. I wanted her mother to have to live a less-than-perfect life.

I enjoyed reading how the scandal broke out. Why? It bothers me that I

enjoyed it, and didn't consider the boys whose lives will never be the

same because of that man. It occurs to me that Millicent and Charlie

might have been victims, but have blocked it out? Maybe that will be the

next surprise.

After the preacher is found out, there's all this biblical imagery. It's

imagery If eel I should be familiar with, but I am not. I'm hopelessly

ignorant of it. I feel guilty for it because I'm Catholic and I don't

know the old testament worth anything. I barely even know the major

stories.

All of a sudden it occurs to me that this might not be deemed postcolonial

literature. Yet Kogawa was on the reading list, and I read Obasan, She's

definitely a poco writer. But this is *all* about white people. I feel

like I'm cheating somehow. I think that this reading is far too easy, I

mean it should be culturally difficult to read, shouldn't it? The

anthology was full of terms and customs I didn't understand and which

weren't glossed. But this is just like reading anything else.

One of the characters states that "love without truth is a cheap

sentiment." I consider this for a while, and underline it. I think it's

true. I think of the movie I watched the night before, La Femme Nikita.

She kept the fact that she was an assassin from her husband, until he

confronted her. He knew and still loved her. Up until then, their

marriage seemed very frivolous. The scene was almost unbarably intimate.

It was like palpable love. It was very overwhelming.

1. Race of the family?

-I'm sure I've read other material from Kogawa before, and it wasn't about

white people.

-All the material I've read so far in the course is not about white

people.

-I am a product of the Canadian educational system, the work is assumed to

be a direct expression of the author's life.

***C.C.***

This culture places extreme value in "authenticity." We who are part

of this ideology trust information which comes from personal experience.

Stories on the evening news which are "live at the scene" are more valid

than a simple account after the fact.

Proof is something with value tramendously. Knowledge without experience

is like a skeleton, it has no substance. Young people, for example don't

have the "power" experiences that adults do, and adults often assume that

children don't have valid ideas. A white person might be criticized for

writing about the Japanese experience, because these would not be widely

known. A Japanese author, on the other hand, writing out of a

Euro-Canadian voice is odd, but not offensive since the dominant culture

is so prevalent, one doesn't need to have intimate experience with it to

understand it.

2. I feel set up.

-I've been set up many times before as a reader and as a viewer.

-I don't like the feeling of being duped.

Audiences are routinely constructed. Reactions are not only anticipated,

but expected because conventions are heavily relied upon. These

conventions are well-known to Western culture, and we have learned how to

react and feel when we notice certain clues. For instance, we

all know what happens when the babysitter goes into the basement to

investigate a strange noise. Reliance on formula doesn't give much credit

to readers or audience members, but allows them to feel danger and safety

at the same time. These are both cultural values. The spirit of

adventure is a strong part of our perception of ourselves as Western

Frontiersmen. Exploration, discovery, and adventure are highly regarded

in our ideology, a fact which is evident in popular TV shows such as Star

Trek. At the same time, security is equally important. We live in a

capitalist society where people are broken all the time.

In the ideology I am working from, we are always leery of people trying to

trick, lie, and take advantage of them. We get especially defensive when

it comes to money. This is probably, again, due to the fact that this is

a capitalist society, where people are often taken advantage of

by swindlers offering great deals. We learn to be very defensive and

critical when someone has a lucrative offer. The onus is almost

completely on the individual. "Buyer beware."

3. Reading skills

-I was the slowest reader in the class in school.

-I always read every word carefully.

-I was in the resource class for 3 years.

-I feel slow and stupid.

In my ideology, productivity is immensely important. The end results are

what matter, not the process. The more progress made, the better.

Quality is a second consideration. Again, we live in a capitalist

society, and the market-economy ideology is a major part of how we

perceive ourselves and others.

Speed and accuracy are highly praised in schools. The education system

caters to the dominant form of learning among children, and those who

learn differently are slow and dumb, they need special help. They are

taken out of the class so as not to slow down the rest of the class's

progress.

4. Term "beauty ritual"

-I am female; I was told by my mom that woman requires an extra bit of

maintenance.

-Beauty routines are extremely personal, and I felt like I bonded with

Millicent when she "shared" hers.

-I was also happy about learning of it because when I see an attractive

woman, I often wonder if she wakes up looking that great or if she

actually has to spend some time on her appearance.

Women in this culture have fairly well defined standards for their

appearance. We are expected to be free of any "excess" hair, skin must be

soft, and hair and makeup must be done. Tools are required to achieve

these results, they are not attainable without the help of products.

Encoded in these standards are the patriarchal and capitalist elements of

our society. Women may claim they want to look good for themselves, but

the only reason why they define this look as "good" is because it's what

pleases men. Femininity has no definition of its own, it is defined as

"not masculine."

The natural state of the woman's body must be tamed and disciplined. The

ritualistic behaviour required to maintain these standards is usually

secretive. Only when women feel comfortable with one another (or with a

man) will they talk openly about their routine of womanly maintenance.

Women are wary of women who look "good" with little effort, and even more

uncomfortable with women who refuse our culture's notion of beauty. There

is a desire to please men, and to please ourselves as well.

Personal response:

East, West

by Salman Rushdie

I am having a really hard time with this text. I don't understand the

details of the stories, and I don't understand why the stories themselves

are significant. I find it bewildering and silly. They're like little

glimpses, not like real short stories. What's this about Muhammed Ali?

Why would Rushdie have chosen that name, the name of a boxer? Why are all

the men in these stories assholes? All they think about is getting laid.

It's a world that's vulgar and dirty and where the people have no dignity

or decency.

This is so @%#&-ed! I don't get it. I am getting completely frustrated

here. I think I'lls skip to another story. It will probably get better.

--

Who is "we?" Who lives in bunkers? What's going on? I"m bing set up, as

a reader, so just get on with the bloody story!

At first I was thinking that it couldn't possibly be about *the* ruby

slippers, but now I see that it is. It's completely ridiculous for a

serious writer to do something fun like this, but I like it.

Wow. This is amazing. I've never read anything quite like this before.

This story has completely floored me. I can't even describe how

completely off guard I was taken. Literature rarely excites me like this,

this is so NOT a formula piece. I know that I have to read it again

(probably many times) to figure out what's going on in some parts.

I can't believe this is the same author that wrote the first story. I

realize the collection *is* called _East, West_, so that explains it. Why

is it so difficult for me to digest the "East" stories? Why am I so

closed-minded. I'm supposed to be liberal and cool about these things. I

wish I knew how to fix that part of me.

I consider re-reading the story and journalling on it again. But I don't

want to appear unproductive to Aruna and Nancy. They might think I was

just coping out or something. I noticed when I began with the first

story, I said to myself "I'll start at the beginning, where I'm supposed

to." That's the way it was intended.

I tentatively decide to attempt another story from the "East" part of the

book. It's called "The Prophet's Hair."

The year is blocked out. It reminds me of Susannah Moodie's Roughing it

in the Bush-- she always had names and dates blocked off for the purpose

of privacy. So, is this based on reality?

I read the opening para about 8 times before I realized that Sringar is a

place, not a person. This is dragging on a bit.

She orders her heart to behave normally... that's different. Kind of neat

actually. I mean, I do sort of the same thing, except I ask that God make

sure my heart behave normally. I guess commanding God is no worse than

commanding your own organ. It's not completely ridiculous, either. I

mean, it's MY heart, right? It might work, you see stuff like that on

Oprah all the time. I wonder if finding this hair is a bit like finding

the holy grail. Is it an event beyond describable magnitude.

The sad thing is that I don't even know who this Prophet Muhammed is. I

mean, I know it's Islam, but I don't know what he is about or anything.

Nad would not be impressed.

I was totally expecting some sort of didactic element here, but I can't

seem to pick up on an easily identifiable one. for all I know it could be

here, but I can't pick up on it because my fairy tales have very different

types of morals.

It's weird, because for all I know this could be a play on the hair story,

a story mocking the belief and faith in this hair. Is this something

hard-core Muslims would have taken exception to? I wouldn't even know. I

could be completely mis-reading the story. How am I supposed to have a

good reading of the story without that kind of knowledge?

1. I'm very defensive in the first paragraph.

-I expect cultures other than my own to explain themselves to me.

***C.C***

The dominant culture in this country is Euro-Canadian. We tend not to

know much about cultures which differ from our own (sometimes called

minority cultures). As such, we often expect these cultures to justify

and explain themselves to us. An attempt not to, to keep this knowledge

from us, is a threat. We fear that our power might be usurped because we

are not privy to the languages of these non-dominant groups.

We don't necessarily mind learning about non-dominant cultures, but they

must be in a format that can be easily digested by our North American

minds. A popular example of this is the Disney film "Aladdin." The story

was very Westernized, so that the central figure portrayed the ideal

American standards of a male. The same goes for the lead female

character.

2. Vulgar, dirty and gross. (I would not have used these words if the

man had been white... very difficult to admit!)

-"male" behaviour is made worse by the fact that the man is Indian.

-I grew up in a very white neighborhood, so I have very few faces to which

I can attach cultures.

-My dad is racist, and even though I try to separate myself from that

influence, sadly it's still there.

***C.C.***

This is a belief system that is being pulled in all different directions.

We are struggling to change what we know is wrong, but the ideology is

impossible to change as an individual. Part of the tradition of a

capitalist democracy is the faith in the future. We believe in new

beginnings, that some how we can start over with a clean slate, a tabula

raza (sp?). We will therefore always be at odds with our ideologies, always

trying to change or make something better. We tend to think that history

started about 20 years ago, and that anything that we didn't experience

first-hand is irrelevant. But we transfer our beliefs to our offspring,

sometimes without even realizing it.

3. Binary-- fun lit. vs. serious lit.

-I associate the _Wizard of Oz_ with silliness, with what we know as

"escape literature" because it's considered a children's story.

-I know that Salman Rushdie wrote _Satanic Verses_. I don't know what it

is about, but I remember the big disturbance it caused when it came out.

I expected some sort of very heavy material.

***C.C.***

My culture is obsessive about categories. Not only do we as consumers

categorize, but producers of culture create material that conforms to

those specifications. Making a kid's movie means including x,y, and z

elements. Writing a comic book stipulates certain conventions. Walking

into a book store or a video store will demonstrate this practice.

Categorization facilitates the understanding of material without even

looking at it. It gives us convenient labels to attach to things so that

we can talk about them with ease. However, this can often lead to

misinformation. It is also unfair as it reduces the complexity of a work

to a something completely familiar. Yet that's what we seem to crave.

Nothing new or weird. Predictability is

4. Ownership of the body.

-I don't feel like I'm "in charge" of my internal organs. They're

involuntary

***C.C.***

There is a binary between the mind and the body in my belief system. We

love our bodies one minute, and hate them the next. They betray us. We

age, we are hurt, we become ill. We live in our minds. Our bodies are

seperate entitities. The body is the superficial part, our minds are the

substance the "real person underneath."

Our minds, we assume, are not capable of changing our bodies. Thoughts are

not tangible, therefore they cannot effect tangible thing without a human

being acting, *doing* the thought. We have evidence that this isn't true.

Tumours have disapeared as a result of the power of the mind. A boy from

the United States had a brain tumour. He went to bed every night

picturing the Death Star from Star Wars in his mind, he imagined himself

shooting it from a space ship. One night he couldn't picture the Death

Star anymore. The tumour had miraculously disapeared.

We have little faith in the abilities of our minds to affect our bodies.

We trust our minds to come up with scientific ways of combatting illness,

but stories like the one above are regarded with skepticism.

******************************************************************