Adele

When I think of art and literature I think of music. A lot of people forget that music is literature. Music is my favorite type of literature. I believe that music is extremely impactful and for me it reaches home more than a book does. When thinking of famous british musical artists I think of Adele. I know you are probably thinking you uncultured swine!!! Not The Beatles??? Do not get me wrong I love the Beatles but Adele is more my generation. Her music is so deep and she really does not care about what people think. She is who she is. Adele was born in London. Her father left her family at a young age, and I think that plays a part in her music. The first song she released was Hometown Glory. This song is one of my favorites, she wrote this song at the age of sixteen. Originally I fell in love with this song because of the lyrics. “I’m just wondering around my hometown memories are fresh” is one line that resonates with me. I moved away from home when I came to college and this line is reflects exactly how I feel. It is kinda like yes this is my hometown but the feeling is not quite the same since I moved away. When I travel home the memories are fresh as if I just left, but also it is not the same. This song was eventually released on her first album, 19. This album took England by storm and was number one on the charts. The album 19 is my favorite by Adele. Her songs are sad but meaningful. I was twelve years old blaring Chasing Pavements and Hometown Glory like I understood what they meant. It was not until I was in high school that I really understood what the songs meant. While I was in high school Adele released her iconic album 21. All her songs on the album were inspired by her previous break up with her boyfriend. I love this album so much; as you listen you can feel how hurt she is in her lyrics. You can tell in some songs just how much she was hurt. Someone Like You, Don’t You Remember, and Turning Tables are all deep. In these writings, you can tell she was experiencing a hurt that she had never felt before. For this reason this album is powerful. I think her music is like an open window to her feelings and her music is so raw giving me another reason to love her music. Recently Adele released her latest album, 25. Adele said that this album was kind of a “makeup” album unlike her last album 21 which was a breakup album. I personally already love a few songs off  this album. The songs are more upbeat than her previous two albums. I think that Adele’s music easily relatable. I can not wait for her next album. I think that she has grown so much as an artist since her first album. 

This is me dancing when Adele comes on

 -Savanna

Power in “Shooting an Elephant”

Thursday, October 18, 2018

Power in “Shooting an Elephant”

When I first read “Shooting an Elephant” I didn´t really know how to feel or what to think about the story at first. I felt conflicted about it, especially regarding the way power is portrayed in the story. It was quite interesting for me to read a story, where I could see the colonizer from an entirely different point of view for the first time. The narrator clearly admits that the life of every white man who lived in the East, was a long struggle which can not be laughed at. He is basically saying is that he is powerless to the demand of the people around him. He has the choice between shooting the elephant or being humiliated by those people. The subversion, in the text, of the typical colonizer-colonized relationship is very interesting to watch, because while other texts show us the human side of colonialism they are still always untouchably dignified and also in control. It almost feels like as if there is a invisible barrier that keeps the last “façade” from being removed. The storyline shows us a very nervous and insecure policeman who hates his job because he knows how tenuous the colonial control over the people is. This portrays a different perspective from the way colonial power is shown in Passage to India.

 

But now the question is were the power really lies in the story. Throughout the text it becomes we see clear signs that is actually the will of the 2000 people of the town to kill the elephant. When he receives the rifle from the people, they expect to watch the spectacle of killing the elephant. But not only do they want to observe the killing, they also want the meat of the dead elephant. By the time Orwell locates the elephant, he understands and comes to the conclusion that the elephant is no longer a danger to the people of the town, and that there is no actual need of killing it. This encounter really shows, that it is not the white man who holds power in Burma. It becomes more and more clear that the people of Burma are the actual holders of the power. Orwell also explains how he realizes that he has to shoot the elephant, because all the people expect it of him. He said he “feel their will pressing forward irresistibly.Orwell clearly describes the phenomena of domination. He didn´t want to kill that elephant, but the will of the other people kind of forced him to do it. He recognizes that he was an “absurd puppet pushed to and for by the will of those yellow faces behind.” This is the point where Orwell himself and the reader finally recognize, despite that he is an authority figure, the power the people of Burma have over him.

Dominik König

Symbolism in Shooting an Elephant

I feel as if this picture shows a good representation of Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. Essentially what's shown is an image of the elephant's eye as George is about to shoot it but I think this drawing is very interesting for many reasons. The first being that you can see in the elephant's eye it has a very humanistic response to a gun being pointed at it. The pupils are extremely small and the eyes are very wide as if the elephant had just been shocked or frightened. This kind of symbolizes how the elephant is no different than an innocent human. In reality, an elephant would never have any reaction to a gun being pointed towards it because they do not understand what guns are or do. However, this shows that the elephant has some sort of innocence. There is a lot of symbolization in Shooting an Elephant and the elephant symbolizes many things. The main symbolization for it, in my opinion, is how the elephant represents the imperialistic British Empire. The reason for the elephant being so shocked and frightened in this image is because one of the British Empire's own men are what kills it. One thing that I will say that this picture could have had to represent the story a little better was to somehow make the shooter more concerned in some sort of way. In this picture George (the one shooting the elephant) looks as if he is very determined to kill the elephant. There seem to be no signs of concern for shooting the elephant and no signs of remorse for the elephant, while in the novel that's not the case. George had no intentions of killing the elephant, but because of peer pressure, he gives in and does it. George saw the elephant as an innocent being, maybe even as himself in some perspectives. I feel as if the picture could somehow show George being more hesitant or maybe a crowd of people looking as if they are pushing George to do this. But in all, I feel as if it's a good representation of the novel. Showing how George is shooting at his reflection is another good example of the symbolism. Since the elephant symbolizes the British Empire, he's essentially shooting himself. I feel as if this picture shows the idea of symbolism in the novel, and the genius George Orwell put into the story. 

Ian Ransonet

Snowman and the Crakers

I wanted to talk a little about this picture and how it explains many things that happen in Oryx and Crake. I really really really enjoyed this novel and I can't find myself not thinking about it so I wanted to respond to this picture. As you can see this is either a drawn or painted image. The first thing that you may notice is probably the man sitting next to a bunch of naked children. The man is clearly Snowman and you know it's him because of many reasons: first he is surrounded by the naked children which are the Crakers, he has a long beard and head hair meaning he hasn't shaved in a while, he is the only visible human, and there is a society drowning around him. So I think it's safe to say that that's Snowman. And you know that these children are Crakers because they are all naked, they are all different skin colors, they all looked engaged in what Snowman is about to do/say, and they are sticking together around Snowman. I feel as if just this picture says a lot about Oryx and Crake. It shows buildings drowned out by the ocean representing the post-apocalyptic world Snowman lives in. It shows Snowman's loneliness as he sits under a tree, the only left of his kind, looking over the world he once saw as normal, now destroyed. It shows the Crakers and how they have so much interest in Snowman because he is so different from them all. This basically represents part of the beginning of the novel whenever Snowman has the Crakers all around him and they keep bothering him and asking him questions of what it was like before and how they were created. It shows a man with nobody like himself to go to, trapped in this world alone.

Ian Ransonet

My Feelings on Shooting an Elephant

Before I start this post I know there could be many counter arguments to my points on this post. This is my take on it. Personally I do not like the story in the essay Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell.  Long story short George Orwell was a European police officer stationed in Moulmein, Burma. He was ridiculed by all of the Berman people, and even the priest. One day a worker elephant went mad and was ravaging the city. By the time Orwell received the call the elephant had already destroyed a bamboo hut, killed a cow, and raided some of the bazaar’s fruit stands. Upon the arrival of Orwell he saw an elder lady shooing gawking children away to what he finds out to be a dead man. This man had been pummeled into the ground by the elephant. So Orwell decides to get a gun for safety. He is conflicted because he does not want to kill them but it seems as if the Berman people like him because they believe that he is going to shoot this animal. So Orwell shoots the elephant… numerous times… and the elephant dies a slow agonizing death.  

There are SO many problems I have with this essay. Let me start with this, I have no problem with hunting. I grew up hunting “nuisance” animals such as deer, hogs, and duck. But killing an animal that is not considered a nuisance is wrong in my book. People who go on safaris and kill innocent exotic animals disgust me. Yes, I know that the elephant killed and a man and tore up parts of a town. But think about all the animals in captivity, animals at SeaWorld, certain zoos, and the circus are longing to be out of captivity. No animal was meant to be locked in a cage, or tied up in a chain. Elephants are the largest land mammal and they need an extensive amount of land to survive. Can you really blame the elephant for being angry and breaking from his chain? No. So why did Orwell? My thought is that he was a coward. Orwell was ridiculed all the time, and this is the one time the villagers were supporting him, he did not want to let them down. He states he does not feel right killing the elephant. Orwell cared so much about what the Berman people thought of him. He  did not want to look like a fool. But why? The people were so hateful to him, why should he care? I know everyone wants to be accepted but I think that this crossed a line. Orwell states at the end that he can justify his kill because of his work and the fact that the elephant had killed someone. But at what point do you disconnect your morals from work? Personally I would feel so guilty for killing the elephant because it is against my morals. No job title, uniform, or acceptance could justify the killing. I just can not see how he went to bed with a clear conscience. Do you think that Orwell ever felt guilty?

Me reading that he justified himself!!!!

-Savanna

Shakespeare's Sister

  

https://middleagedingenue.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/roomofonesown.png?w=492&h=351

 

Virginia Woolf’s essay “Shakespeare’s Sister” in the collection A Room of One’s Own was written in a time when women were not writers and the freedom of expression was not a woman’s right. In Woolf’s essay she addresses the lack of education that women receive during her time period. (It should be noted that she is addressing fellow women who are privileged enough to be attending college.) Woolf creates a fictional character named Judith and dubs her as Shakespeare’s sister.

 
 

http://www.aroom.org/images/affiche_Brussel-Berlijn.jpg 

 

If Shakespeare had a sister, she would have been nearly illiterate. She would have desired and thirsted for knowledge to some capacity, if not more, than her brother William. The problem is that she is not a boy. Her desiring knowledge and having a hunger to know more was not accepted or celebrated by the parents.

If Shakespeare had a sister, she would have been beaten for her desire to learn. She would have been told to get back to work. Work being her womanly chores like cooking, cleaning, mending clothes, and watching children. This would have been the world of Judith Shakespeare. A sad comparison to that of the illustrious playwright. 

 

https://quotefancy.com/media/wallpaper/3840x2160/952188-Lillian-Hellman-Quote-A-room-of-one-s-own-isn-t-nearly-enough-A.jpg

 

If Shakespeare had a sister, she would have desired to break the mold. With this desire and longing she would have tried to become an actress. She would have been laughed at and mocked because acting was a man’s job just like reading was only for men. She would have been duped by a manager who offers her a promise of her dream and become pregnant. 

 

http://www.sublunarsociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Cover-A-Room-of-Ones-Own-610x610.jpg

 

If Shakespeare had a sister, she would have wound up dead because of the patriarchy. She would have died because she was silenced and her voice never mattered. She would have died because she couldn’t offer anything outside of what women were expected to even though her heart longed for more. Judith Shakespeare’s life would have been controlled and dictated by men and who they told her she was as opposed to who she wanted to be. 

 

https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/max_1200/713a6040851507.5a69dee330e11.jpg

 

Woolf argues that if women were given a room of their own to write they could be successful writers just like men. The problem is that men were given the rooms to write while women were to go and clean the room up after the men. I think that Woolf means more than just a room of one’s own. I think by room she means the freedom to have a work space, to think outside of the normal confines of the society, and the right to imagine passed the borders of what men say they should imagine. This room is figurative. She means women need room to write. As in, they need freedom in society to be able to foster and house these ideas. They need and deserve to be able to pursue knowledge. A room of one’s own is more than an actual room it’s a way of thinking in society. 

 See you soon, 

Sarah Johnson

Should the British Monarchy be abolished?

Wednesday, 17 October, 2018

Should the british monarchy be abolished?

Great Britain, or the so called United Kingdom, is one of the last monarchy´s and at the same time the most famous one in our world for over a 100 years.

https://www.google.com/search?q=british+monarchy&rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikm7OE7o7eAhUBL6wKHciXDjIQ_AUIDigB&biw=1584&bih=772#imgrc=NfcOd2unsMDh5M:

Before I get to talk about pro´s and con´s of the British monarchy, I first want to talk about some facts. The monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth) is the Head of State has many representational or ceremonial functions. For example something like the State Opening of the Parliament. But the monarch has no power to make or pass laws. This power only resides with the Parliament as the elected legislative. The monarch embodies a lot of functions in the United Kingdom. The monarch is the Head of the Armed Forces, Head of the Church and Fountain of Justice. However, he or she always has to act on advice of the Prime Minister, other Minister or a church commission. On a weekly basis, the monarch gives an audience to the Prime Minister, in which he or she has the right and the duty to discuss current government matters.

Now I want to discuss pro´s and con´s about the British monarchy and if the monarchy should be abolished.

Let me start of with the con´s. First of all, the Prime Ministers since the early 1950s have always valued the weekly audience with the monarch. It is a unique opportunity to discuss government matters outside a party environment with a person who has a lot of experience and also political knowledge. Another important point to add is, that the monarch is somebody that stands above all political parties in Britain and therefore can act as a representative of the country in any short-term political interests. On the other hand, the monarch also represents a nonpolitical figure. Which can be of great value in certain situations. But also represents national values and Britishness for the same reason. The British monarchy also showed in the past and recently that it is able to adjust and reform itself to modern times. Prince Charles and the Queen have been paying de-facto taxes since 1993. Prince Charles married a divorced woman. And recently an African-American women married one of the Princes and she has no British citizenship either. It is also very important to consider the positive image of the British monarchy, which helps them in many different ways, especially when it comes to secure trade deals.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBD_deUS761US761&biw=1584&bih=772&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=puTHW462CYzYtQW9wouQBA&q=contra+monarchy&oq=contra+monarchy&gs_l=img.3..0i24k1.3012714.3015931.0.3016186.15.15.0.0.0.0.73.904.15.15.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.15.904...0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i30k1j0i19k1j0i30i19k1j0i5i30i19k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1.0.2Jm6e2MWVkM#imgrc=jFMKmLIk9VjAtM:

But there are also a lot of contra arguments against the British monarchy. First of all the British monarchy does not have any real political power. The main function are rather formal and could be easily taken over by an elected president or other political bodies. Another problem concerning the British monarchy is, that it is a hereditary monarchy, which means that the crown will always stay in the same family regardless of suitability, previous scandals or character. So there is a high risk, that one day the monarch will be somebody could put the whole monarchy and the United Kingdom itself in a bad light and nobody can really change it. Furthermore, in a democratic state people should be able to exercise democratic control of the head of the executive. This also includes electing the head of the state and electing instruments to check or impeach the current monarch. But none of this applies in a hereditary monarchy. The next problem with the monarchy is, that there is no constitutional barrier against a dictatorship. The monarch would never have the power to stop or prevent a dictatorship. One of the most important contras about the British monarchy is the actual cost of it per year. We are talking about the most expensive monarchy in whole Europe. It costs 40 million pounds every year and therefore succeeds any other monarchy by far. All of this money could be invested in actually important things, like supporting poor people or improve the educational system. But instead the Britains are willing to spend so much money just for a monarchy, which function could be taken over by other political parties and all of the money could be saved. On top of this, they British monarchy also receives public funding. Which makes them the wealthiest monarchy of the world.

I think the contra arguments clearly overweigh the pro arguments. I think the Britains just hold on to the monarchy for one reason, to sustain old values. I also think all the money which is pumped in to them could be used for far more important things.  

Dominik König